Photo of Ethan G. Ostroff

Ethan’s practice focuses on financial services litigation and compliance counseling, as well as digital assets and blockchain technology. With a long track record of successful litigation results across the U.S., both bank and non-bank clients rely on him for comprehensive advice throughout their business cycle.

New York’s Attorney General Letitia James has proposed landmark legislation entitled the Crypto Regulation, Protection, Transparency, and Oversight Act (CRPTO Act) in an attempt to tighten New York’s regulations on the cryptocurrency industry. The CRPTO Act aims to stop conflicts of interest, require public reporting of financial statements, and bolster investor protections. The Attorney General

In this episode of The Crypto Exchange, Troutman Pepper Partner Ethan Ostroff welcomes his colleague Mike Lowe to discuss crypto enforcement actions, including criminal enforcement actions related to cryptocurrency. Mike shares his experience in crypto enforcement during his lengthy tenure as a federal prosecutor.

To help you keep abreast of relevant activities, below find a breakdown of some of the biggest events at the federal and state levels to impact the Consumer Finance Services industry this past week:

Federal Activities

State Activities

Federal Activities:

  • On May 19, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s New York Innovation Center (NYIC)

In Schmitt v. Security National Servicing Corporation, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (RMLA) premised on the assertion that her loan documents did not provide for the imposition of late fees after acceleration of the loan. The

A district court in the Western District of Washington held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) does not require a consumer reporting agency (CRA), as part of its investigative duties, to issue an opinion on the legal validity of a consumer’s debt. Through its holding, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and

On April 19, the Superior Court of Connecticut issued an opinion affirming the Connecticut Department of Banking’s (DOB) decision to issue a $750,000 fine against a mortgage lender for allowing its unlicensed employees to engage in activities that required a license.

In 1st Alliance Lending, LLC (1st Alliance) v Department of Banking, 1st Alliance