Search "commercial financing"

To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week:

Federal Activities

State Activities

Continue Reading Troutman Pepper Weekly Consumer Financial Services Newsletter – July 30, 2024

To keep you informed of recent activities, below are several of the most significant federal and state events that have influenced the Consumer Financial Services industry over the past week:

Federal Activities

State Activities

Continue Reading Troutman Pepper Weekly Consumer Financial Services Newsletter – April 22, 2024

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:

Continue Reading Troutman Pepper Weekly Consumer Financial Services Newsletter

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:

Continue Reading Troutman Pepper Weekly Consumer Financial Services Newsletter

On April 5, the Georgia legislature sent SB 90 (Act) to Governor Kemp for signature. The Act aims to amend Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the Georgia Code to require commercial financing disclosures.

What Is A Commercial Financing Transaction Under SB 90?

SB 90 imposes requirements related to “commercial financing transactions.”

Under the Act, a “commercial financing transaction” means a business purpose transaction under which a person extends a business a commercial loan or a commercial open-end credit plan or that is an accounts receivable purchase transaction.

A “business purpose” transaction is one where the proceeds that a business receives are provided to the business or intended to be used to carry on the business.

Who Does SB 90 Apply To?

Under the Act, a provider is a person who consummates more than five commercial financing transactions in the state during any calendar year. A provider also includes “a person who, under a written agreement with a depository institution, offers one or more commercial financing products provided by the depository institution via an online platform that the person administers.”

SB 90 has exemptions for federally insured financial institutions, providers with no more than five commercial financing transactions in 12 months, commercial financing transactions secured by real estate, commercial financing transactions of more than $50,000 to motor vehicle dealers, and commercial financing transactions of more than $500,000.

What Are The Disclosure Requirements?

SB 90 requires disclosure of the following:

  • The total amount of funds provided to the business under the terms of the commercial financing transaction;
  • The total amount of funds disbursed to the business as a result of any fees deducted or withheld at disbursement, any amount paid to the provider to satisfy a prior balance, and any amount paid to a third party on behalf of the business;
  • The total amount paid to the provider;
  • The total dollar cost of the commercial financing transaction, calculated by finding the difference between the total amount of funds provided and the total amount paid by the provider;
  • The manner, frequency, and amount of each payment. If the payment is variable, the manner, frequency, and estimated amount of the initial payment; and
  • A statement of whether there are any costs or discounts associated with prepayment.

The disclosure requirements apply to any commercial financing transaction consummated on or after January 1, 2024.

What Are The Broker Requirements?

Under SB 90, a broker means a person who, for compensation, arranges a commercial financing transaction between a third party and a business in the state.

The Act prohibits any broker from assessing or soliciting an advance fee from a business to provide services as a broker. The Act would not prohibit a broker from soliciting a potential business to pay for actual services necessary to apply for a commercial financing transaction, including, credit checks or appraisals, where such payment is made by check or money order payable to an independent third-party.

The Act further prohibits brokers from making false or deceptive representations in its business dealings.

What Remedies Apply?

The Act provides that the Attorney General may receive and act on complaints received under the Code section. The Act further provides for monetary penalties. No private right of action exists under the Act.

Recently, multiple states have had disclosure regulations for commercial financing transactions either enacted (see discussions on New York and Utah) or proposed (see discussions on Missouri, Illinois, Florida, and Connecticut). Troutman Pepper will continue to monitor and report on developments in this area.

On March 2, Florida State Representative Doug Bankston introduced HB1353, the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law, that would mandate covered commercial financing companies provide consumer-like disclosures for certain commercial financing transactions. The law would also define and prohibit specific acts by brokers of those transactions, including the collection of advance fees. New York, California, Utah and Virginia have each enacted legislation, discussed here, here, here, and here, imposing additional requirements on small business financing transactions. We expect that additional states will continue to push legislation forward in this area, as legislators in Connecticut, Illinois (discussed here), Maryland and Missouri (discussed here) have introduced bills this year.

The Florida law would apply to multiple types of commercial financing, including commercial loans, lines of credit, and accounts receivable purchase transactions, subject to certain exceptions. For example, like California and New York, the Florida law contains an exception for banks. For any covered transaction, the Florida law would require disclosure of:

  • The total amount of commercial financing, and if different from the financing amount, the disbursement amount after any deductions or withholdings, which must be itemized;
  • The total amount owed to the financing company;
  • The total cost of the financing;
  • The manner, frequency and amount of each payment, or if there are variable payments an estimated initial payment and the methodology used to calculate variable payments and when payments may vary; and
  • Certain information related to prepayment rights and penalties.

If enacted, the law will apply to transactions beginning January 1, 2024.

On February 16, Illinois State Representative Hoan Huynh (D) introduced HB3064, the Small Business Truth in Lending Act, that would impose certain mandatory disclosure requirements for commercial financing transactions and require registration of small business finance companies and brokers. Illinois follows the lead of states such as New York, California, Utah, and Virginia which have each enacted legislation imposing additional requirements on small business financing transactions. The differences between the state requirements creates an increasingly complex multi-state regulatory environment for small business finance companies. We expect that additional states will continue to push legislation forward in this area, as legislators in Connecticut, Maryland, and Missouri have also introduced bills this year.

The Illinois bill would impose disclosure requirements on broad categories of commercial financing, including closed-end commercial financing, open-end commercial financing, sales-based commercial financing, factoring transactions, and “other forms” of commercial financing. Much like the requirements in New York and California, the Illinois bill provides for some variations in the disclosure requirements depending on the transaction type. For closed-end financing, the bill would require the following:

  • The total amount of commercial financing, and if different from the financing amount, the disbursement amount after any deductions or withholdings;
  • The finance charge;
  • The percentage rate calculated in accordance with the federal Truth in Lending Act;
  • The total repayment amount, which is the disbursement amount plus the finance charge;
  • The term of the financing;
  • The payment amounts or a description of the methods used to calculate the amounts and frequency and the amounts of the average projected payments per month;
  • A description of all other potential fees and charges not included in the finance charge, including draw fees, late payment fees, and returned payment fees;
  • Any fees that would be assessed for a prepayment in full; and
  • A description of collateral requirements or security interests, if any.

The bill does contain exceptions for certain financing providers such as banks and certain types of financing such as commercial mortgages and transactions of more than $2,500,000. However, much like California and New York, certain bank partners may not be exempt, as the exemptions appear to carve out some technology providers that have an arrangement to obtain an interest in the financing after origination, even if the transaction was originated by a bank.

Troutman Pepper routinely assists clients in assessing the applicability of and complying with commercial disclosure laws and will continue to monitor the developments in state and federal regulation of commercial finance.

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 February 3, while delivering remarks at the American Bar Association Business Law Section Derivatives and Futures Law Committee Winter Meeting, Commodities Futures and Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Rostin Benham noted that “there remains a gap in crypto cash market regulation for non-security tokens, and [he] believes the CFTC is well positioned to fill this specific gap if Congress so chooses.” For more information, click here.
  • On February 3, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice claims that Townstone Financial, Inc. and its owner violated Equal Credit Reporting Act by engaging in discriminatory marketing and applicant outreach practices. For more information, click here.
  • On February 1, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York federal judge granted Coinbase, Inc.’s (Coinbase) motion to dismiss a putative class-action lawsuit that alleged Coinbase and its founder enabled Coinbase users to buy and sell 79 different unregistered securities in the form of digital assets (tokens) in violation of federal securities laws due to Coinbase’s purported failure to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a securities exchange. The class consisted of “all persons or entities that transacted in the Tokens” on Coinbase’s exchange platform between October 8, 2019 through March 11, 2022 — the class-action lawsuit filing date. Specifically, the class argued that Coinbase was a “statutory seller” of unregistered securities under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act. Under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Pinter v. Dahl, a defendant constitutes a “statutory seller” if the defendant (1) passed title, or other interest in the security, to the buyer for value; and (2) solicited the purchase of a security motivated in part by the defendant’s own financial interests. The court granted Coinbase’s motion to dismiss for two reasons: (1) Coinbase could not obtain title of the tokens under the terms of use agreement it entered with its customers, which stated: “Title to Digital Currency shall at all times remain with you and shall not transfer to Coinbase,” and (2) although the class alleged that Coinbase promoted the sale of the tokens by participating in “airdrops” of the tokens and providing news updates on the price movements of the tokens, the class failed to allege that its selling and purchasing of the tokens resulted from Coinbase’s “direct solicitation.” For more information, click here.
  • On February 1, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a bulletin to inform banks and OCC examining personnel that the loan origination threshold for reporting Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data on closed-end mortgage loans has changed. Due to a recent court decision, the threshold for reporting is now 25 closed-end mortgage loans originated in each of the two preceding calendar years. For more information, click here.
  • On February 1, the Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against GoodRX for allegedly violating the FTC Act and the Health Breach Notification Rule by failing to notify consumers that it was disclosing their personal health information to third parties for advertising purposes. For more information, click here.
  • On January 30, digital news provider Axios reported that crypto-lending firm Gemini Trust Company LLC (Gemini) led its customers to believe that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) fully insured its stablecoin, GUSD, and its interest-bearing cryptocurrency deposit product, Gemini Earn. The terms of use agreement Gemini entered with its customers contains an FDIC insurance section that expressly asserts that digital assets held on its platform are not FDIC-insured: “Digital Assets held in your Digital Asset account, including your Gemini Dollars [GUSD], are not subject to deposit insurance protection, including but not limited to, FDIC insurance or Securities Investor Protection Corporation protections.” However, according to the Axios report, Gemini seemingly reassured its customers that their GUSD and Gemini Earn deposits were safe and secure. Genesis Global Capital LLC (Genesis), the entity responsible for providing interest payments to Gemini Earn accountholders, filed for bankruptcy on January 20 after announcing its decision to pause withdrawals of Gemini Earn deposits. At the time of its bankruptcy filing, Genesis possessed approximately $900 million worth of Gemini Earn deposits. For more information about the Axios report, click here.
  • On January 30, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) issued a letter to Silvergate Bank concerning Silvergate’s role in transferring FTX customer funds to FTX’s partner firm and cryptocurrency hedge fund Alameda Research. The 2023 letter constitutes a follow-up response to the senators’ December 5, 2022 letter sent to Silvergate. Notably, the 2023 letter describes Silvergate’s response to the 2022 letter as “evasive and incomplete” and lacking “information needed to assess the extent to which Silvergate is responsible for the improper transfer of FTX customer funds to Alameda … .” For more information, click here.
  • On January 30, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it will expand and enhance its set of loss mitigation options used to help borrowers struggling to make mortgage payments on their FHA-insured mortgages. The enhancements will extend FHA’s COVID-19 loss mitigation options to all eligible borrowers who fall behind on their mortgage payments, regardless of the cause of their delinquency. The updates also will enable mortgage servicers to use the full 30% of FHA’s partial claim option, rather than the previously permitted 25%, to help maximize the number of borrowers able to retain their homes. Although the changes become effective on April 30, mortgage servicers may begin immediately offering these options to borrowers. For more information, click here.
  • On January 27, the Federal Reserve Board issued a policy statement to promote a level playing field for all banks with a federal supervisor, regardless of deposit insurance status. The statement makes clear that Fed-supervised uninsured and insured banks will be subject to the same limitations on activities, including novel banking activities, such as crypto-asset-related activities. For more information, click here.
  • On January 27, the FDIC released a list of 17 administrative enforcement action orders taken against banks and individuals in December 2022; currently, no administrative hearings occur in February 2023. The administrative enforcement actions in those orders consisted of one order to pay civil money penalty, two consent orders, one combined personal consent order and order to pay, two Section 19 orders, four prohibition orders, and seven orders of termination of insurance. For more information, click here.
  • On January 27, the Biden administration issued a blog titled, “The Administration’s Roadmap to Mitigate Cryptocurrencies’ Risks.” In the blog, the administration pinpointed certain risks currently associated with digital assets and how the administration intends to limit the extent by which consumers, as well as financial institutions, are subject to those risks. For example, the administration examined “misuses of customers’ assets” and potential disclosure requirement solutions that would enable investors to “make more informed decisions about financial risks” associated with digital asset investing. For more information, click here.
  • On January 26, Representative French Hill (R-AK), the inaugural chairman of the newly established subcommittee of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee — the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Inclusion — delivered remarks on CNBC‘s Squawk Box and noted that although “blockchain is not ready for real-time payments,” “blockchain and distributed ledger technologies are part of [the future of fintech].” For more information, click here.
  • On January 26, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) published a whitepaper concerning a new standard for trading digital asset derivatives through the ISDA Digital Asset Derivatives Definitions, intended to establish an “unambiguous contractual framework” to reduce credit and market risk in digital asset derivatives transaction by setting clear provisions for execution and settlement. For more information, click here.

State Activities:

  • On February 3, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities (NJ Bureau) issued cease-and-desist orders to MetaCapitals Ltd., Cresttrademining Ltd., and Forex Market Trade, and accused each company of either selling unregistered securities, making materially misleading statements of material fact to New Jersey residents, or acting as a broker-dealer in violation of state securities laws. According to the NJ Bureau, each of these companies engaged in “pig butchering” scams that require a fraudster to gain a victim’s trust before manipulating the victim to invest his/her funds into a phony investment controlled by the fraudster. For more information related to the cease-and-desist order entered against MetaCapitals Ltd., click here. For more information related to the cease-and-desist order entered against Cresttrademining Ltd., click here. For more information related to the cease-and-desist order entered against Forex Market Trade, click here.
  • On February 2, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that the five-year statute of limitations in Illinois Code Section 13-205 applies to actions filed under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against his former employer, alleging that his employer violated sections of the BIPA regulating the retention and deletion of biometric information, as well as sections governing the consensual collection and disclosure of biometric identifiers and information, when it scanned the plaintiff’s fingerprints. The plaintiff’s employer moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, arguing that the one-year limitations period in another section of the Illinois Code applied. The circuit court found that the five-year statute of limitations applied, noting that although the BIPA is a privacy statute, the one-year statute applies in cases where publication of biometric data is at issue, which, as the court found, was not the case with the plaintiff’s claims. The appellate court decided, however, that the one-year statute of limitations was appropriately applied to claims where publication or disclosure of biometric data is an element of the claim. Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court determined the BIPA claims were subject to a five-year limitations period. For more information, click here.
  • On February 1, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser signed B25-0015 — the Public Health Emergency Credit Alert Extension Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2023. The bill extends certain requirements and limitations on credit reporting agencies and users of credit reports. Among other things, the bill requires credit reporting agencies to accept a personal statement from a consumer, indicating that the consumer experienced financial hardship due to a public emergency and notifying residents of the right to request a personal statement. Additionally, the bill prohibits users of information from considering adverse information in a report resulting from the consumer’s action or inaction during the public health emergency. The bill allows consumers a private right of action for violations of the provisions contained therein. The bill will remain in effect for 90 days. For more information, click here.
  • On February 1, the Superintendent of Financial Services Adrienne Harris announced that the New York State Department of Financial services completed the process for adopting new commercial financing regulation 23 NYCRR 600. The regulation applies to multiple types of commercial financing products and requires providers to issue disclosures when “extending a specific offer” for various types of commercial financing. For more information, click here.
  • On January 30, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it commenced enforcement actions against multiple debt collectors for unlicensed activity under the Debt Collection Licensing Act and unlawful and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. The desist-and-refrain orders allege that, among other things, the named companies attempted to collect debts that a consumer did not owe, made false claims of pending lawsuits, unlawfully threatened to seize property, and failed to provide validation notices as required by federal law. In addition to thwarting the subject companies’ continued violations of the state’s consumer protection laws, the DFPI also seeks penalty payments, totaling $120,000. For more information, click here.
  • On January 26, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV) announced its collaboration with liquid proof-of-stake-based blockchain Tezos and crypto-software developer firm Oxhead Alpha to launch a proof-of-concept blockchain to create digital representations of auto titles through non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which will enable the CA DMV to remove persistent points of friction in the auto title process. For more information about NFTs, click here. For more information about the CA DMV’s collaborative auto title project, click here.

As discussed here, on December 7, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) made a preliminary conclusion that a New York commercial financing law was not preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bureau indicated it was also considering whether to make a preemption determination regarding similar state laws in California, Utah, and Virginia. On January 20, 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted a letter to the CFPB agreeing with its preliminary determination that California’s Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL) is not preempted by TILA because the CFDL only applies to commercial financing and not to consumer credit transactions within the scope of TILA. Attorney General Bonta further urged the CFPB to “revisit the Federal Reserve Board’s (Board) vague and overbroad articulation of the TILA preemption standard. The CFPB should articulate a narrower standard that emphasizes that preemption should be limited to situations where it is impossible to comply with both TILA and the state law or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the full purposes TILA, which is to provide consumers with full and meaningful disclosure of credit terms in consumer credit transactions.”

Continue Reading California AG Agrees with CFPB’s Preliminary Preemption Determination, Urges Bureau to Further Narrow TILA Preemption

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 January 19, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a new circular, affirming that companies offering “negative option” subscription services must comply with federal consumer financial protection law. Negative option programs include subscription services that automatically renew unless the consumer affirmatively cancels, as well as trial marketing programs that charge a reduced fee for an initial period and then automatically begin charging a higher fee. Companies risk violating the law if they do not clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of their subscription services and obtain consumers’ informed consent or if they make it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel. For more information, click here.
  • On January 19, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a consent order, memorializing crypto-lending firm Nexo Capital, Inc.’s (Nexo) assent to pay a $45 million fine to remedy its offering of an interest-bearing cryptocurrency deposit product called the “Nexo Earn Interest Product” (EIP), which the SEC alleged constituted the offering and selling of unregistered securities in violation of federal securities law. Critically, under the consent order, Nexo must “cease the EIP to all U.S. investors by April 1, 2023 and [must] exit the U.S. entirely shortly thereafter.” For more information, click here.
  • On January 18, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an order, identifying Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato) as a “primary money laundering concern” due to Bitzlato’s alleged connection to illicit Russian finance and ransomware activities. FinCEN’s order prohibits all “covered financial institutions” from transmitting any funds involving Bitzlato. Notably, FinCEN alleged that public reporting demonstrated that Bitzlato did not effectively implement policies and procedures designed to combat money laundering and illicit finance. For more information, click here.
  • On January 18, the CFPB released the updated “Mortgage Servicing Examination Procedures,” providing transparency to stakeholders about how we do our work. The examination procedures describe the types of information that CFPB examiners gather to evaluate mortgage servicers’ policies and procedures; assess whether servicers are complying with applicable laws; and identify risks to consumers related to mortgage servicing. The updated examination procedures include CFPB guidance released since the last update in June 2016. For more information, click here.
  • On January 18, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Anatoly Legkodymov, the founder of Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency exchange Bitzlato, with conducting a money transmitting business that transmitted illicit funds and with failing to develop and implement an effective KYC/AML program in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. According to the DOJ, Bitzlato had been responsible for processing approximately $4.58 billion worth of cryptocurrency transactions since 2018. For more information, click here.
  • On January 17, during an interview with Bloomberg, CFTC Commissioner Caroline Phan noted that she believes “crypto financial instruments should be held to the same standard as other financial instruments,” and she is hopeful that the CFTC and other federal regulatory agencies will provide more crypto-related guidance throughout 2023. For more information, click here.
  • On January 17, FinCEN published two notices and requests for comment in the Federal Register related to the reporting process the agency intends to use to collect data. Specifically, FinCEn is issuing a final rule, requiring certain entities to file with FinCEN reports that identify two categories of individuals: the beneficial owners of the entity and individuals who have filed an application with specified governmental authorities to create the entity or register it to do business. These regulations implement Section 6403 of the Corporate Transparency Act, enacted into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, and describe who must file a report, what information must be provided, and when a report is due. Comments are due by March 20. For more information, click here.
  • On January 17, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu delivered remarks at the Brookings Institute about the limits of large bank manageability. He stated that “[e]nterprises can become so big and complex that control failures, risk management breakdowns, and negative surprises occur too frequently — not because of weak management, but because of the sheer size and complexity of the organization.” He spoke about his belief that the “most effective and efficient way to successfully fix [these] issues … is to simply if — by divesting businesses, curtailing operations, and reducing complexity.” For more information, click here.
  • On January 17, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released a “toolkit” for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). The “toolkit” is comprised of a set of resources that the WEF hopes will help developers, policymakers, and stakeholders in the crypto industry “realize the full potential” of evaluating, engaging, or developing DAOs. The WEF’s toolkit is segmented into five sections:
    • What are DAOs?;
    • DAO operations;
    • DAO governance;
    • Legal structures; and
    • Recommendations.

    For more information about the WEF’s DAO toolkit, click here. For more information about DAOs, click here.

State Activities:

  • On January 20, California Attorney General Rob Bonta submitted a comment letter, applauding the CFPB for its preliminary determination that the state’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) is not preempted by the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). CFDL was enacted in 2018 as a tool for small businesses seeking to navigate the complex commercial financing market. The CFDL requires uniform disclosures of certain credit terms in a manner similar to those mandated by TILA’s provisions, but for commercial transactions not regulated by TILA. Before the CFDL’s adoption, there were no federal or state law disclosure requirements for commercial financing. For more information, click here.
  • On January 19, New York Attorney General Letitia James and a multistate coalition obtained up to $24 million from cryptocurrency companies Nexo, Inc. and Nexo Capital, Inc. (Nexo) for “engaging in the unregistered offer and sale of securities and commodities” and for allegedly “lying to investors about their registration status.” The agreement represents the culmination of a civil lawsuit brought by the AG in September 2022 and administrative actions by securities regulators in nine other states. Nexo is now banned from the New York securities industry for five years and must notify its investors to withdraw their assets from the platform. For more information, click here.
  • On January 19, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu released the final report and recommendations compiled by the governor’s Commission on Cryptocurrencies and Digital Assets, which was established on February 9, 2022. Principally, the commission’s final report touched on three points:
    • Blockchain technology (digital databases secured by cryptographic software protocols distributed across connected computers) will be an important technical innovation with many potentially important applications in our human societies and economies;
    • The legal and regulatory status of blockchain technologies and applications, such as cryptocurrencies and digital assets, is highly uncertain, and this legal and regulatory uncertainty is materially undermining innovation and economic development of new technologies, activities, and industry, as well as protections for investors and consumers; and
    • The New Hampshire government (governor, legislature, executive branch agencies, and courts of our judicial branch) should devote resources to establishing a state legal regime that will offer an attractive jurisdiction for the best responsible blockchain innovators, entrepreneurs, and businesses, while protecting investors and consumers using their applications.

    For more information, click here.

  • On January 18, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it adopted an updated check cashing regulation initially proposed in June 2022. The regulation implements a new method for calculating fees that accounts for the needs of licensees and consumers who utilize check cashing services. In 2005, New York became the only state to grant automatic increases to the maximum percentage check cashing fee, anchoring the increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, this method did not account how inflation disproportionately impacts underserved New Yorkers who rely on check cashing services to access their funds. The regulation eliminates automatic increases based on CPI, creating instead a two-tier system of fees for check cashers. For more information, click here.