Photo of Matthew Bornfreund

Matthew Bornfreund

Subscribe to Matthew Bornfreund's Posts

Matthew provides comprehensive guidance to clients on a wide range of regulatory, transactional, and compliance matters, helping them to advance their operational goals and launch new products and services. His clients include domestic and international traditional and nontraditional banks, as well as fintechs, private equity funds, and payment services firms.

Contact:Read more about Matthew Bornfreund

On March 28, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) (together, the federal banking agencies) announced their intent to rescind the 2023 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) final rule and reinstate the previous CRA framework. This decision comes in light of pending litigation in the Fifth Circuit by various banking trade associations contesting the rules by alleging regulatory overreach. The agencies stated they will continue to work together to promote a consistent regulatory approach to implementation of the CRA.

Last Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the rescission of Financial Institution Letter (FIL-16-2022) and issued new guidance clarifying the process for FDIC-supervised institutions to engage in crypto-related activities. The new Financial Institution Letter (FIL-7-2025) represents a 180 degree turn from the prior Chairman’s position, which required prior notification and relevant information by banks seeking to engage in crypto-related activities.

On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a significant update regarding the involvement of national banks and federal savings associations in cryptocurrency activities. Interpretive Letter 1183 reaffirms the permissibility of various crypto-asset activities and aims to streamline the regulatory process for banks engaging in these activities.

On January 8, Senate Bill No. 1252 (SB 1252) was introduced to the Virginia General Assembly, aiming to amend and reenact sections of the Code of Virginia related to the application of usury rates. Just two weeks ago, the bill was passed by both the House and Senate. Opponents of the bill contend that the language and effect is very unclear, but that broad language and stringent provisions could stifle innovation and ultimately harm consumers by limiting their access to credit.

On January 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a notice of proposed interpretive rule (Proposed Rule). The deadline for comments is March 31, 2025. The Proposed Rule would apply the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA)—which protects consumers against errors and fraud—to new types of digital payment mechanisms, including stablecoins and other digital currencies.

On December 3, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued version 1.1 of the “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, also known as the UDAAP booklet. The UDAAP booklet was last updated in June 2020.

In the last two weeks, several amicus briefs were filed in the Tenth Circuit in the ongoing litigation concerning Colorado’s opt-out from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Troutman Pepper submitted a brief on behalf of all 50 state bankers associations (state bankers), plus Washington, D.C., supporting the district court’s granting of a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado from enforcing its overly broad and unlawful interpretation of DIDMCA’s opt-out. The Republican attorneys general from a dozen states, including Texas, Utah, Georgia, and Ohio also filed an amicus brief in support of the industry plaintiffs-appellees. This litigation centers on the enforcement of Colorado’s H.B. 1229 against state-chartered banks located outside of Colorado who make loans to Colorado borrowers.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis discusses the complexities and potential pitfalls of bank-fintech partnerships. Joined by colleagues Alexandra Steinberg Barrage, Matthew Bornfreund, and Jesse Silverman, the conversation delves into the structure of banking-as-a-service (BaaS) relationships, regulatory pressures, and key friction points such as BSA/AML compliance and ledgering. The team offers practical solutions for both banks and fintechs to ensure successful collaborations, emphasizing the importance of clear roles, responsibilities, and robust compliance measures. This episode is essential listening for anyone involved in or considering a bank-fintech partnership.

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.’” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”