The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.  In December 2017, the DFS’s first lawsuit challenging the OCC’s issuance of SPNB charters was also dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction.

The DFS filed the second lawsuit in September 2018 following the OCC’s issuance of a policy statement confirming that it would begin accepting applications for SPNB charters from non-depository fintechs, together with a supplement to its licensing manual describing its application and decision process for fintechs (“Charter Decision”).  Once again, the DFS alleged that the OCC does not have authority under the National Bank Act (NBA) to charter non-depository companies because such companies are not engaged in the “business of banking” as that term is used in the National Bank Act (NBA).  In rulings we viewed as clearly incorrect, the district court (1) held that the DFS had standing to file its lawsuit; (2) concluded that the term “business of banking,” as used in the NBA, “read in the light of its plain language, history, and legislative context, unambiguously requires that, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, only depository institutions are eligible to receive national bank charters”; and (3) entered a final judgment against the OCC in October 2019, thereby enabling the OCC to file its appeal with the Second Circuit.

In reversing the district court’s judgment, the Second Circuit found that the DFS’s assertion that it faced a substantial risk of injury was too speculative to meet the Article III “injury in fact” requirement.

The DFS claimed that there was a substantial risk that the Charter Decision would enable fintechs with SPNB charters to escape its regulatory jurisdiction by claiming federal preemption.  The Second Circuit observed that no non-depository fintech had yet applied for an SPNB charter and no state law or regulation had been preempted as a result of the Charter Decision.  As a result, there was currently no non-depository fintech that could claim federal preemption and thereby engage in any practice that might give rise to the regulatory harms alleged by DFS, such as charging interest above New York’s usury cap.  The Second Circuit was also unwilling to accept the DFS’s claim that the OCC was on the verge of granting an SPNB charter.

The DFS also claimed that there was a substantial risk of losing revenues in the form of annual assessments levied on DFS-regulated institutions that would not be paid by fintechs with SPNB charters.  The Second Circuit observed that “at least until a non-depository fintech that DFS currently regulates—or would otherwise regulate—decides to apply for an SPNB charter, this alleged assessment loss will remain purely ‘conjectural or hypothetical,’ rather than ‘imminent’ as the Constitution requires.”

The Second Circuit also agreed with the OCC’s argument that the DFS’s claims were not constitutionally ripe because the speculative nature of the DFS’s alleged injury made the issue premature for review.  In explaining its ripeness ruling, the Second Circuit “reiterate[d] that, even if non-depository fintechs have engaged in preliminary discussions with the OCC regarding (or submitted draft applications for) SPNB charters, DFS is still asking us to ‘entangle [ourselves] in abstract disagreements over matters that are premature for review because the injury is speculative and may never occur.’”

As a consequence of its determinations that the DFS lacked standing and its claims were not constitutionally ripe, the Second Circuit did not have jurisdiction to reach the district court’s holding, on the merits, of whether the “business of banking” under the NBA requires the receipt of deposits.  The Second Circuit noted that, in reversing the district court, it “express[ed] no view” on the district court’s NBA ruling.

The OCC’s authority to issue SPNB charters to non-depository fintech companies is also the subject of a third lawsuit filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) in D.C. federal district court seeking to block the OCC from granting a national bank charter to Figure Technologies Inc.  CSBS’s first two lawsuits were dismissed on ripeness grounds.  A motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing filed by the OCC is currently pending.

The Second Circuit decision strikes us as clearly correct.  Accordingly, we are disappointed but not surprised that the Second Circuit did not reach the merits of whether the OCC may charter SPNBs that do not take deposits.  Our sole real criticism is that the Second Circuit did not formally vacate the erroneous lower court decision.  While the district court decision could potentially be cited in support of the DFS and CSBS positions on the merits, we are confident that the Courts of Appeals will roundly reject the argument if and when they are properly presented with the issue.  Of course, as suggested by the recent decision, it is uncertain whether a new Comptroller of the Currency, appointed by President Biden, will opt to charter any SPNBs that do not take deposits.

On April 15, 2021, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions will hold a hearing titled, “Banking Innovation or Regulatory Evasion? Exploring Trends in Financial Institution Charters.”  A topic expected to receive attention at the hearing is the OCC’s decision to accept applications for special purpose national bank charters from non-depository fintechs.  While not mentioned in the Committee Memorandum, another topic that could receive attention at the hearing is the recently-introduced resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the OCC’s “true lender” final rule.  The rule addresses when a national bank or federal savings association should be considered the “true lender” in the context of a partnership with a third party.

The scheduled witnesses include Brian Brooks, the former Acting Comptroller of the Currency.  The other scheduled witnesses are:

  • Raúl Carrillo, Deputy Director, LPE Project and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School
  • Erik Gerding, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School
  • Kristin Johnson, Asa Griggs Candler Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
  • Carlos Pacheco, CEO, Premier Members Credit Union on behalf of National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

 

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held oral argument last week in the OCC’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment in the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies.

In July 2018, the OCC issued a policy statement confirming that it would begin accepting applications for SPNB charters from non-depository fintechs, together with a supplement to its licensing manual describing its application and decision process for fintechs.  In its lawsuit, the NYDFS alleged that the OCC does not have authority under the National Bank Act (NBA) to charter non-depository companies because such companies are not engaged in the “business of banking” as that term is used in the National Bank Act (NBA).  The OCC moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the DFS did not have standing because it could not show that it has suffered an “injury in fact” since no actual, imminent injury existed.  According to the OCC, DFS’s claims were entirely speculative because they rely on a chain of events that had not occurred and might never occur, namely the OCC’s receipt and approval of an SPNB charter application from a non-depository fintech that intends to conduct business in New York and the commencement of business in New York by such fintech in a manner that causes the harms identified by DFS (such as lost revenues).

The OCC also argued that the NBA and 12 C.F.R. § 5.20(e)(1) does give it authority to issue SPNB charters to non-depository companies.  Section 5.20(e)(1) provides in part:

The OCC charters a national bank under the authority of the National Bank Act of 1864, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq.  The bank may be a special purpose bank that limits its activities to fiduciary activities or to any other activities within the business of banking.  A special purpose bank that conducts activities other than fiduciary activities must conduct at least one of the following three core banking functions: Receiving deposits; paying checks; or lending money.

According to the OCC, because the term “business of banking” in the NBA is ambiguous, the second step of Chevron deference analysis required the court to consider whether its interpretation  in § 5.20(e)(1) was reasonable, and if found to be reasonable, to give its interpretation judicial deference.

After finding that the DFS had standing to file its lawsuit, the district court concluded that the term “business of banking” as used in the NBA “read in the light of its plain language, history, and legislative context, unambiguously requires that, absent a statutory provision to the contrary, only depository institutions are eligible to receive national bank charters.”  Having concluded that the NBA’s text is unambiguous, the district court did not reach the second step of Chevron deference analysis and denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss.  Subsequently, with the OCC’s and DFS’s consent, the district court entered a final judgment against the OCC in October 2019, thereby enabling the OCC to file its appeal.

The members of the Second Circuit panel hearing the oral argument were Judges Pierre N. Leval, Gerard E. Lynch, and Joseph F. Bianco.  Both Judge Leval and Judge Lynch have Senior status.

Based on the oral argument, it would not be surprising if the panel determines that the DFS does not have standing or remands the case to the district court for discovery relevant to standing.  None of the panel members appeared to have formed any clear views on the merits of the case.  However, the panel seemed troubled that neither the DFS nor the OCC could clearly describe the types of  “fintech companies” that might receive SPNB charters.  Also, while the OCC asserted in support of its standing argument that it has not yet accepted an application from a non-depository fintech for an SPNB charter, the panel seemed receptive to DFS’s suggestion that the OCC has been informally vetting potential applicants and that a potential applicant could make substantial progress towards approval even without the filing of a formal application.  The panel questioned why discovery regarding the OCC’s interactions with potential applicants had not taken place.

When the OCC filed its motion to dismiss, we found it a bit puzzling why the OCC had decided to devote so much attention to the standing argument.  Given that the district court’s decision, unless reversed, would continue to be a cloud that deters the filing of SPNB charter applications, it seemed to be in the interest of all concerned for the Second Circuit to issue a decision that resolves the issue on the merits.  However, given that a new Comptroller appointed by President Biden may be more receptive to the views of DFS and other state regulators opposed to the SPNB charter, a decision from the Second Circuit based on standing might now be preferable for the OCC.  Indeed, even if the Second Circuit reaches the merits and concludes that the OCC does have authority to issue SPNB charters to non-depository fintechs, a new Comptroller might reverse course and decide not to use that authority.

 

The OCC has filed its reply brief with the Second Circuit in its appeal from the district court’s final judgment in the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) challenging the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies.

In May 2019, the district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss and found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act  (NBA) “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”  Because the district court also ruled that its decision should have nationwide effect regardless of whether the charter applicant has a New York nexus, the OCC has been unable to approve any applications for SPNB charters from non-depository fintech companies regardless of whether the applicant has a New York nexus.  With the OCC’s and DFS’s consent, the district court entered a final judgment against the OCC in October 2019, thereby enabling the OCC to file an appeal.  The OCC filed its opening brief in April 2020 and the DFS filed its opening brief last month.

In its reply brief, the OCC renews the following principal arguments made in its opening brief:

  • DFS’s claims are not justiciable for the following reasons: (1) DFS lacks standing because its alleged injuries are speculative as they rely on a series of events that have not yet occurred: the OCC receiving and approving an SPNB charter application for a non-depository fintech company that intends to conduct business in New York, and then does so in a manner that causes the harms identified by the DFS, and (2) even if the DFS has standing, its claims are not prudentially ripe because the dispute would benefit from further factual development and the DFS would not experience any detriment if the dispute is not adjudicated now.
  • OCC’s interpretation of “business of banking” is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.  The NBA’s text and structure do not render deposit-taking an unambiguous requirement of the “business of banking,” historical practice and the NBA’s legislative history do not resolve the NBA’s ambiguities, other federal banking laws do not establish that institutions must accept deposits to engage in the “business of banking,” and courts have recognized that “business of banking” is a flexible concept.
  • DFS was not entitled to nationwide relief.  Even if the court concludes that DFS’s claims are justiciable and disagrees with the OCC’s interpretation of the NBA, it should reject nationwide relief and only set aside 12 C.F.R. § 5.20(e)(1) with respect to non-depository fintech applicants that have a New York nexus.

As we have previously commented, we continue to be puzzled by the OCC’s focus on the standing argument.  Unless reversed, the district court’s decision will continue to be a cloud that deters the filing of SPNB charter applications.  It will also negatively impact the OCC’s recently-previewed plans to introduce another special purpose national bank charter that would give payment companies a nationwide servicing platform and federal preemption of state laws regarding licensing and regulation of money transmitters and payment services providers.  Accordingly, it would seem to be in the interest of all concerned for the Second Circuit to issue a decision that resolves the issue on the merits.

 

The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) has filed its opening brief with the Second Circuit in the OCC’s appeal from the district court’s final judgment in DFS’s lawsuit challenging the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies.

 

In May 2019, the district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss and found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act  (NBA) “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”  Because the district court also ruled that its decision should have nationwide effect regardless of whether the charter applicant has a New York nexus, the OCC has been unable to approve any applications for SPNB charters from non-depository fintech companies regardless of whether the applicant has a New York nexus.  With the OCC’s and DFS’s consent, the district court entered a final judgment against the OCC in October 2019, thereby enabling the OCC to file an appeal.  The OCC filed its opening brief in April 2020.

 

In its brief, DFS makes the following principal arguments: 

  • DFS has standing and its claims are ripe.  The OCC has argued that DFS cannot show that it has suffered an “injury in fact” because its claims are entirely speculative and rely on a chain of events that has not occurred and may never occur, namely the OCC’s receipt and approval of an SPNB charter application from a non-depository fintech that intends to conduct business in New York and the commencement of business in New York by such fintech in a manner that causes the harms identified by DFS (such as lost revenues).  The OCC also asserts that DFS’s claims do not satisfy the test for prudential ripeness—they are not fit for judicial consideration because they are contingent on the chartering of an applicant with a New York nexus and there is no present hardship to DFS from the court withholding a decision on its claims.  In response, DFS argues that standing and ripeness exist not only when injury has already occurred, but also when it is imminent or when there is a substantial risk of harm.  It asserts that injury to DFS’s sovereign interests is not speculative and sufficiently impending to support both standing and ripeness because (1) the OCC has actively invited and solicited the fintech industry to apply for charters and has represented that companies had begun the application process, and (2) one of the OCC’s stated objectives in deciding to accept applications is to allow fintech companies that receive an SPNB charter to escape state regulation.
  • Nondepository institutions are not engaged in the “business of banking” within the meaning of the NBA.  The OCC has argued that its interpretation of the “business of banking” is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference because the NBA’s language is ambiguous as to whether deposit-taking is a necessary component of the “business of banking” and its legislative history does not support a finding that deposit-taking is necessary.  In response, DFS argues that when the NBA was enacted in 1863, banks were understood to be depository institutions and that understanding is reflected in the NBA itself.  In addition, the broader federal statutory scheme applicable to banks (which includes the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and the Banking Holding Company Act) presumes that banks regulated by the OCC will be depository institutions.  DFS contends that when Congress has authorized the OCC to charter nondepository institutions, it has done so by amending the NBA outside of the business-of-banking clause.
  • DFS is entitled to nationwide relief.  The OCC has asserted that a federal court only has power under Article III to provide a remedy that is tailored to redress the plaintiff’s injury and DFS’s alleged injuries, and any remedies to which it is entitled, are limited to New York.  In response, DFS argues that both the Administrative Procedure Act’s plain language and applicable precedent hold that when a court finds a regulation to be contrary to law, the regulation must be set aside.

Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks recently previewed the OCC’s plans to introduce another special purpose national bank charter that would give payment companies a nationwide servicing platform and federal preemption of state laws regarding licensing and regulation of money transmitters and payment services providers.  The outcome of the litigation in the Second Circuit can be expected to impact those plans.

The OCC has filed its opening brief in its appeal to the Second Circuit from the district court’s final judgment in the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to non-depository fintech companies.

In May 2019, the district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss and found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act  (NBA) “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”  Because the district court also ruled that its decision should have nationwide effect regardless of whether the charter applicant has a New York nexus, the OCC could not approve any applications for SPNB charters from non-depository fintech companies regardless of whether the applicant had a New York nexus.  With the OCC’s and DFS’s consent, the district court entered a final judgment against the OCC in October 2019, thereby enabling the OCC to file an appeal.

In its brief, the OCC makes the following principal arguments:

  • DFS lacks standing.  DFS cannot show that it has suffered an “injury in fact” because no actual, imminent injury exists.  DFS’s claims are entirely speculative because they rely on a chain of events that has not occurred and may never occur, namely the OCC’s receipt and approval of an SPNB charter application from a non-depository fintech that intends to conduct business in New York and the commencement of business in New York by such fintech in a manner that causes the harms identified by DFS (such as lost revenues).  Neither can DFS establish standing and constitutional ripeness under the alternative “substantial risk” test because DFS did not allege that it would presently have to incur specific costs to mitigate the alleged harms arising from the OCC’s decision to accept SPNB charter applications from non-depository fintechs.  Even if DFS has standing, the district court should not have reached the merits because DFS’s claims do not satisfy the test for prudential ripeness—they are not fit for judicial consideration and there is no present hardship to DFS from the court withholding a decision on its claims.  With regard to fitness, DFS’s claims are contingent on the chartering of an applicant with a New York nexus.  With regard to hardship, instead of alleged injuries that arise solely from the OCC’s decision to accept SPNB charter applications from non-depository fintechs, DFS has only alleged injuries that flow from a fintech conducting business in New York pursuant to a charter.  Further, as a practical matter, DFS would not be prejudiced by waiting to resolve its claims until the OCC has taken affirmative steps to approve a charter application from a fintech with a New York nexus.  The requirement that charter applicants give public notice of their applications at the time of filing coupled with the time period between the OCC’s preliminary approval of an application and final approval would give DFS ample opportunity to then challenge the application.
  • OCC’s decision to accept SPNB applications from non-depository fintechs is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference.  The NBA’s language is ambiguous as to whether deposit-taking is a necessary component of the “business of banking” and the NBA’s legislative history does not support a finding that deposit-taking is necessary.  Also, the existence of flexibility in the phrase “business of banking” is demonstrated by the fact that what activities constitute the “business of banking” has evolved over time in response to developments in business practices and consumer needs.  The OCC’s interpretation in 12 C.F.R. § 5.20(e)(1) of the NBA’s ambiguous language is reasonable because it is consistent with NBA provisions identifying core banking functions as interpreted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions and does not conflict with other federal banking regulations.  As a result, it is entitled to deference.
  • DFS was not entitled to nationwide relief.  Nationwide relief is incompatible with Article III of the U.S. Constitution.  A court only has power under Article III to provide a remedy that is tailored to redress the plaintiff’s injury.  DFS’s alleged injuries, and any remedies to which it is entitled, are limited to New York.  Similarly, traditional equitable principles provide that remedies should not extend beyond what is necessary to redress a plaintiff’s alleged injuries.  While the Administrative Procedure Act provides that unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious agency action should be “set aside,” the APA does not mandate that agency action should be set aside globally rather than as applied to the particular plaintiff who brought the lawsuit.  In addition, the district court’s entry of nationwide relief prevents other courts from considering the issue.

We find it a bit puzzling why the OCC has devoted so much attention to the standing argument.  Given that the district court’s decision, unless reversed, would continue to be a cloud that deters the filing of SPNB charter applications, it would seem to be in the interest of all concerned for the Second Circuit to issue a decision that resolves the issue on the merits.

 

 

The OCC has appealed to the Second Circuit from the district court’s final judgment entered in October 2019 in the lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to fintech companies.  In the final judgment, the district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss and found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”  Because the district court also ruled that its decision should have nationwide effect regardless of whether the charter applicant has a New York nexus, the final judgment prevents the OCC from approving any applications for SPNB charters to non-depository fintech companies.

In September 2019, the D.C. federal district court hearing a similar lawsuit filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) against the OCC granted the OCC’s motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds.  The time for CSBS to file an appeal with the D.C. Circuit has expired.

We continue to hope that the Second Circuit will address the chartering issue on the merits and reverse the district court (whose decision we believe is incorrect and outcome-oriented) and will not duck the issue by finding the matter premature for adjudication.

 

 

 

In May 2019, a New York federal district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) seeking to block the OCC’s issuance of special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to fintech companies.  In doing so, the court found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act (NBA) “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”  At the time, we criticized the decision as incorrect and outcome-oriented.  We also commented that in light of the importance of the issue and because the decision casts doubt on SPNB chartering, we would welcome a Second Circuit decision at the earliest opportunity.  With the consent of both the OCC and the NYDFS, the court has now entered a final judgment against the OCC.  This positions the OCC to appeal the May decision.

In entering final judgment, the district court resolved one issue that remained in dispute between the OCC and NYDFS—whether the court’s decision should have nationwide effect or apply “merely” to  SPNB applicants “that have a nexus to New York State, i.e., applicants that are chartered in New York or that intend to do business in New York (including through the Internet) in a manner that would subject them to regulation by DFS.”  On this issue, too, the court sided with the NYDFS.  Accordingly, the final judgment prevents the OCC from approving applications for SPNB charters to non-depository fintech companies regardless of whether the applicant has a New York nexus.

As previously reported, last month the D.C. federal district court hearing a similar lawsuit filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) against the OCC granted the OCC’s motion to dismiss on ripeness grounds.  No appeal has been filed by CSBS.

We hope that the Second Circuit will address the chartering issue on the merits—in favor of the OCC—and will not duck the issue by finding the matter premature for adjudication.

The D.C. federal district court has granted the OCC’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) to block the OCC from issuing special purpose national bank (SPNB) charters to fintech companies.

The CSBS lawsuit was the second lawsuit filed by CSBS attempting to block the OCC from issuing SPNB charters.  The first lawsuit, which was filed in April 2017, was dismissed in May 2018 for failing to establish an injury in fact necessary for Article III standing and for lacking ripeness for judicial review.  The second lawsuit was filed in response to the OCC’s July 2018 announcement that it would begin accepting applications for SPNB charters from fintech companies.

In its opinion granting the OCC’s motion to dismiss, the court found that in the absence of an allegation that a charter application has been filed or that the OCC has issued an SPNB charter, CSBS had still failed to plead an injury in fact that was either actual or imminent.  It also found that the second complaint remained inadequate because it had not identified particular CSBS members that face imminent injury, stating that until a charter application is filed, “CSBS can only guess which states and which members face imminent injury.”  In addition, the court found that the dispute was still not constitutionally or prudentially ripe for determination.   

CSBS’s opposition to the OCC’s motion to dismiss was accompanied by an “Alternative Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery” in which, among other things, CSBS asked for discovery to determine the nature and number of companies the OCC has met with concerning the SBNB charter and the status of any draft applications, including which companies are preparing or have submitted draft applications and the content of such applications.  In opposing CSBS’s alternative motion, the OCC indicated that it “voluntarily will undertake to immediately inform the Court and CSBS when an SBNB Charter applicant makes public notice required by [OCC regulations.”]

The district court denied the alternative motion, finding that it was unwarranted because the court will lack jurisdiction over CSBS’s claims at least until a charter application is filed and OCC regulations will require public notice of such filing.  In addition, the court pointed to the OCC’s agreement to notify the court and CSBS of a filing.

In May 2019, a NY federal district court denied the OCC’s motion to dismiss a similar second lawsuit filed by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS).   (The NYDFS’s first lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing.)  The court concluded not only that the NYDFS had established standing to sue and that its claims were ripe for decision, but also that the NYDFS had stated a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act.  In doing so, the court found that the term “business of banking” as used in the National Bank Act “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.”

Despite the dismissal of the CSBS lawsuit, the decision in the NYDFS lawsuit denying the OCC’s motion to dismiss casts doubt on the SPNB charter.  Since the denial of its motion, the OCC has sought several extensions of the deadline for answering the complaint to confer with the NYDFS regarding the language of a proposed final judgment.  The current filing deadline is September 30, 2019.

 

 

Opposition from state regulators to the OCC’s decision to issue special purpose national bank (or fintech) charters continues to be vigorous.  In this podcast, we review the charter’s potential benefits, assess the legal arguments made by its opponents, discuss the federal court decision refusing to dismiss the NY banking regulator’s lawsuit, why we think it’s incorrect, and possible next steps for the OCC, and look at fintech charter alternatives.

Click here to listen to the podcast.