Sunday, December 30, 2012
Written by

A collection of new banking resources from around the internet:

Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Written by

On December 18, 2012, the Treasury provided an update on the wind down of the TARP bank investment programs and also announced the future auction of 53 TARP investments, approximately 25% of the remaining pool of investments.

As previously announced, Treasury is pursuing three basic options to exit the TARP program:  (1) waiting for banks to repay; (2) selling investments (typically by auction); and, in limited circumstances,  (3) restructuring investments to facilitate repayment or sale.  Since March 2012, Treasury has completed 91 auctions and had an additional 49 banks repay Treasury at par value.  Treasury indicated that, in the aggregate, its returns in the auctioned investments exceed the Treasury’s last estimate of their current value.

Treasury indicates that it will auction approximately two-thirds of the remaining institutions (or about 145 institutions) and expects the majority of the remaining banks to repay at par.

Treasury also provided a preview of banks that Treasury intends to auction starting late in January.  Treasury stated that it was making this early announcement as a large number of the banks in light of potential regulatory concerns for investors associated with these investments.  Specifically, Treasury indicates that, for a large number of the institutions, the TARP securities represent a large portion of the equity capital of the depository institution or that the institution is in arrears on dividend payments, causing the TARP securities to become voting securities, or both.  Either of these scenarios can cause ownership of the securities to be subject to the Bank Holding Company Act or the Change in Bank Control Act.

(more…)

Monday, December 17, 2012

The FDIC recently released a consent order with Meridian Bank (Paoli, Penn.) which dealt largely with the bank’s oversight and management of its electronic payment program and third-party payment processors (TPPPs), as well as BSA/AML issues. Although this order is tailored by the FDIC to address specific issues found at the bank and focuses on merchant transaction processing, a review of the requirements outlined in the order may be useful for banks and other financial services companies that deal with third-party providers or high-risk customers.

The order includes a lengthy and detailed list of the steps the bank must take regarding its oversight and management of third parties involved in the bank’s electronic payments program, including the following:

(more…)

Sunday, December 16, 2012
Written by

A collection of new banking resources from around the internet:

Monday, December 10, 2012
Written by

As has been noted on this blog before, the State of Georgia has the dubious distinction of leading the nation in the number of failed financial institutions. In the month of October 2012, the number of lawsuits against former officers and directors of those failed institutions increased by two (2).

In the first lawsuit, filed on October 17, 2012, the FDIC brought suit in its capacity as Receiver for American United Bank of Lawrenceville, Georgia against two former officers and 6 former directors of the bank. (A copy of the complaint can be found here.)  In that suit, the FDIC alleged both ordinary negligence and gross negligence in connection with the management of the lending function of the bank. The FDIC alleged that the failure of American United caused a loss to the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund in the amount of $45.2 million, and, through alleged damages in the lawsuit, seeks to recover an amount in excess of $7.3 million.

(more…)

Monday, December 10, 2012
Written by

A collection of new banking resources from around the internet:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

On November 27, 2012, the CFPB announced that it intends to propose adjustments to its rules on international remittances, as well as briefly extend the effective date of the rule. A notice of proposed rulemaking is expected in December, and the bureau stated it intends to “fast track” the rule changes so that the new implementation date will be sometime in the spring of 2013. The rules are currently slated to become effective on February 7, 2013.

In its blog post regarding these plans, the CFPB acknowledged that some entities covered by the rules have identified issues that pose “practical challenges” in implementation. The bureau’s proposed changes will address:

  • Errors resulting from incorrect account numbers provided by consumers sending remittance transfers. The bureau intends to propose that where the remittance transfer provider can demonstrate that the consumer provided incorrect information, the provider must attempt to recover the funds but will not be liable for the funds if it is unable to do so.
  • Disclosure of certain third party fees and foreign taxes. The bureau’s proposal will provide additional flexibility for these disclosure requirements, including allowing remittance transfer providers to base fee disclosures on published bank fee schedules. The bureau also will provide further guidance on foreign tax disclosures where tax rates may be affected by certain variables.
  • Disclosure of sub-national foreign taxes. The bureau plans to propose that the obligation for remittance transfer providers to disclose foreign taxes imposed on remittance transfers is limited to taxes imposed at the national level, and does not include taxes imposed by foreign sub-national jurisdictions.

The CFPB’s bulletin regarding its plans available here, and the bureau’s related blog post is available here.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Written by

Despite having more than its fair share of failed banks, Florida has not been a hotbed of D&O litigation. On November 9th, the FDIC filed only its second lawsuit against former directors of a failed banking institution. The defendants here are former directors of Century Bank, FSB (Sarasota, FL), which was placed into receivership in mid-November 2009.  A copy of the FDIC’s complaint is available here.

 The FDIC’s complaint is consistent with most of its prior D&O lawsuits, with typical allegations of negligent overconcentration in ADC and CRE, as well as various failures to follow the Bank’s loan policy or to exercise safe and sound banking practices. What makes this complaint a little different is that it focuses on ten specific loan transactions which were approved after it was apparent that the Bank was in “dire financial condition” and not meeting regulatory capital requirements.  (more…)

Sunday, December 2, 2012
Written by

A collection of new banking resources from around the internet:

Comment or Share


Categories

Bank Regulations

Tagged with



Related posts


Friday, November 30, 2012

Hot on the heels of FinCEN’s advisory on risks associated with third-party payment processors (see Government Update, issue 18), FinCEN and the FDIC assessed concurrent $15 million civil money penalties against First Bank of Delaware for violations of BSA/AML laws and regulations. Among other things, FinCEN and the FDIC found that the bank “failed to adequately oversee third-party payment processor relationships and related products and services commensurate with associated risks.”

The bank also settled related civil claims with the DOJ, which alleged it “established direct relationships with several fraudulent merchants and third-party payment processors working in cahoots with a large number of additional fraudulent merchants.” On behalf of those entities, the DOJ alleged, the bank originated hundreds of thousands of debit transactions against consumers’ bank accounts, many of which originated via remotely created checks (RCCs). The DOJ also alleged that the bank was aware of “significant red flags warning the bank that the debit transactions were tainted by fraud.” The DOJ’s $15 million penalty is concurrent with those of FinCEN and the FDIC. The bank also is required to maintain an account with $500,000 to pay consumer claims arising from its alleged conduct.  (more…)