Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Alert—Vol. 2, No. 15

By the Authors of PLI’s Consumer Financial Services Answer Book 2012-2013 and Edited by Arthur B. Axelson

September 7, 2012

Regulations and Guidance Update

Extension of Comment Period for Proposed Changes to Definition of "Finance Charge"

In July 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a proposed rule which would replace the current disclosure forms mortgage loan applicants obtain under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Under the CFPB's proposed rule, loan applicants will receive new "Loan Estimate" and "Closing Disclosure" forms which would present the costs and risks of the loan in clearer terms. To ensure the CFPB's mission to improve and clarify the disclosures consumers receive when applying for and closing on a mortgage is achieved, the Bureau also proposed a new more encompassing definition of the “finance charge.” The proposed rule eliminated numerous exceptions that exclude common costs (e.g., title insurance) from the finance charge, in an effort to provide a simpler definition of "finance charge." Comments on the proposed rule were due today. In order to provide the public more time to comment on the new definition of “finance charge,” the Bureau has extended the deadline for comments on proposed changes to the definition of "finance charge" to November 6, 2012.

In July 2012, the CFPB also proposed a rule that would amend Regulation Z to implement amendments to TILA made by the Dodd-Frank Act that expand the types of mortgage loans subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). Given the extension of time to submit comments on the proposed changes to the definition of "finance charge" in the CFPB's proposed rule on integrated mortgage disclosures, the CFPB also has extended the comment period to November 6, 2012 for the portion of the HOEPA proposal regarding whether and how to account for the implications of a more inclusive finance charge on the scope of HOEPA coverage.

The original comment deadline of September 7, 2012 for the balance of proposed rules remains unchanged.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Issues Final Remittance Transfer Rule

The CFPB released the final part of its new remittance rule which amends the prior rule in a number of ways and grants relief to certain remittance transfer providers. The rule amends Regulation E, which implements the EFTA, and will take effect on February 7, 2013. International money transfers had been generally excluded from federal consumer protection regulations, but the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of the EFTA to provide protections for senders of remittance transfers. The new rule is intended to provide greater protections to consumers who transfer money from the United States to foreign countries. Remittances from family members living in the United States are a key source of income for many in the developing world, totaling more than $50 billion in 2010. “With these new protections, international money transfers will be more reliable,” said Richard Cordray, CFPB director.

Safe Harbor Exemption from “Normal Course of Business”

The final rule adopts a safe harbor with respect to the phrase “normal course of business” in the definition of “remittance transfer provider.” The rule increases the maximum number of annual transactions that qualify for the safe harbor exemption to 100. This means that financial institutions that make 100 or less foreign transfers a year will be exempt from the new requirements. The CFPB said that it concluded institutions that consistently conduct 100 or fewer remittance transfers per year do not provide transfers “in the normal course of business.” The final rule increases the previous exemption of 25 transactions per year, but falls far short of the 1,000 transactions requested by the Credit Union National Association (CUNA). For institutions that are exempt but cross the 100-transfer threshold, the final rule permits a reasonable time period, not to exceed six months, to begin complying with subpart B of Regulation E.

Disclosures for Remittance Transfers Scheduled Before the Date of Transfer

The final rule modifies the Final Rule issued last February with respect to remittance transfers that are scheduled before the date of transfer, including preauthorized remittance transfers. First, when a sender schedules a one-time transfer or the first in a series of preauthorized remittance transfers five or more business days before the date of transfer, the final rule permits remittance transfer providers to estimate certain information in the pre-payment disclosure and the receipt provided when payment is made. If a provider gives disclosures that include estimates under this exception, the final rule also requires that the provider give the sender an additional receipt with accurate figures (unless a statutory exception applies), which generally must be provided no later than one business day after the date on which the transfer is made.

Second, with respect to subsequent preauthorized remittance transfers, the final rule eliminates the requirement that a remittance transfer provider mail or deliver a pre-payment disclosure for each subsequent transfer. A receipt must be sent, however, a reasonable time prior to the transfer if certain disclosed information is changed from what was disclosed regarding the first preauthorized remittance transfer. This receipt may also contain estimates. If estimates are provided or no update is necessary, the final rule also requires a remittance transfer provider to give an accurate receipt to a sender after a transfer is made.

Cancellation Period and Disclosures

The final rule modifies the February, 2012 Final Rule in several respects with regard to the disclosure requirements for remittance transfers scheduled at least three business days before the date of transfer and for preauthorized remittance transfers. First, the final rule requires a remittance transfer provider to disclose the date of transfer in the receipt provided when payment is made with respect to remittance transfers scheduled at least three business days before the date of the transfer and the initial transfer in a series of preauthorized transfers. The transfer date for a given transfer is also required to be disclosed on any subsequent receipts provided with respect to that transfer. The transfer date will enable a sender to identify the transfer to which the receipt pertains, and, when received prior to the date of the transfer, generally calculate the date on which the right to cancel will expire.

Second, for subsequent preauthorized remittance transfers, the final rule requires the remittance transfer provider to disclose the date or dates on which the provider will make those subsequent transfers in the series, with certain other information. The final rule provides providers some flexibility in how they may make these disclosures to senders. However, for subsequent preauthorized remittance transfers for which the date of transfer is four or fewer business days after payment is made for the transfer, the final rule requires disclosure of future dates of transfer in the receipt provided for the first transfer in the series.

Finally, the final rule also permits providers to describe on a receipt both the three-business-day and 30-minute cancellation periods and either describe the transfers to which each deadline applies, or alternatively, use a checkbox or other method to designate which cancellation period is applicable to the transfer. The final rule does not change the three-business-day cancellation period for these transfers.

The rule has been met with significant opposition. Thirty-two members of Congress wrote a letter to Director Cordray urging the agency to delay implementation of the new rule until further study is conducted on the potential impacts to providers and consumers. The letter said the final rule imposes “unworkable” requirements on remittance transfer providers, which could result in higher fees and fewer available services for consumers. The Independent Community Bankers Association (ICBA) also asked the CFPB to push back the rule’s effective date. In an August 8 letter, the ICBA said the current deadline is impossible for community banks to meet because they must establish new agreements with upstream providers to be in compliance.

The Bureau has indicated that it will continue working with consumers, industry, and other regulators in the coming months regarding implementation issues. The Bureau expects to release a small business compliance guide and a list of countries that providers may rely on for purposes of determining whether estimates may be provided under certain circumstances. The Bureau also expects to conduct a public awareness campaign to educate consumers about the new disclosures and their other rights with respect to remittance transfers.

CFPB Proposes Changes to Upfront Point and Fee Restrictions, LO Compensation and Depository LO Qualification Requirements

The CFPB announced changes to its Spring 2012 proposals regarding loan originator (LO) compensation rules and mortgage origination requirements in a proposal published on August 17, 2012. After hearings with consumers, creditors, and small businesses, the CFPB decided to depart from rules that would prohibit consumers from  paying discount points and fees to buy down their interest rate and would allow brokerage firms paid by consumers to pay their loan originators a commission. The proposed rule also addresses LO qualification requirements that would level the playing field between LOs that work for a bank and those that work for a non-bank mortgage lender or broker. Comments on the proposed rule, which can be found here, must be received by October 16, 2012. The CFPB has stated it intends to finalize the rule by January 2013.

Upfront Point and Fee Restrictions

In May 2012, the CFPB proposed a rule that would prohibit mortgage brokers from offering consumers the option of paying discount points and fees to reduce the interest rate on their mortgage loan and prohibited non-flat fees. After speaking with consumer groups that voiced their support for more consumer options, however, the CFPB’s new proposal would allow originators to offer consumers a loan option with upfront points or origination fees as long as the discount points are bona-fide and will result in a lower interest rate, and the originators also offer a comparable alternative loan without any points and fees that are retained by the creditor, broker or an affiliate of either (a “zero-zero” alternative). The CFPB maintained that “[t]hese options would enable a consumer buying or refinancing a home to better compare competing offers from different creditors, better able to compare loan offers from a particular creditor, and decide whether they would receive an adequate reduction in monthly loan payments in exchange for the choice of making upfront payments.” The requirement would not apply where the consumer is unlikely to qualify for the zero-zero alternative. The new rule is a deviation from the Dodd-Frank Act, which specifically prohibits the payment of upfront points and fees for most mortgages.

The proposed rule would provide a safe harbor in transactions that do not involve a mortgage broker, if, any time prior to application the creditor provides a consumer an individualized quote for a loan that includes upfront points and/or fees, the creditor also provides a quote for a zero-zero alternative. In transactions that involve mortgage brokers, the proposed rule would provide a safe harbor under which creditors provide mortgage brokers with the pricing for all of their zero-zero alternatives. Mortgage brokers then would provide quotes to consumers for the zero-zero alternatives when presenting different loan options to consumers.

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) was critical of the flat origination charges outlined in the original CFPB proposal, noting that the effect of discount points can vary from loan to loan for a number of reasons, including “the present value of the dollar; the shape of the interest rate curve and where the note rate falls on the interest rate curve (as determined in the secondary mortgage markets); the particular pool the loan is to be assigned to, as well as the value and type of the loan.” The new approach seems to be more acceptable to the industry, with MBA president David Stevens noting that the proposed rule “moves in the right direction.”

LO Compensation

The proposed compensation rule would revise the anti-steering compensation rules promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board in April 2011, but would provide some flexibility. While the proposed rule would continue the general ban on paying or receiving commissions or other loan originator compensation based on the terms of the transaction (other than loan amount), it would allow reductions in loan originator compensation to cover unanticipated increases in closing costs from non-affiliated third parties under certain circumstances and would clarify when a factor used as a basis for compensation is prohibited as a “proxy” for a transaction term.

The proposal would also clarify and revise restrictions on pooled compensation, profit-sharing, and bonus plans for loan originators, depending on the potential incentives to steer consumers to different transaction terms. Employers would be permitted to make contributions from general profits derived from mortgage activity to 401(k) plans, employee stock plans, and other “qualified plans” under tax and employment law. In addition, employers could pay bonuses or make contributions to non-qualified profit-sharing or retirement plans from general profits derived from mortgage activity if either (1) the loan originator affected has originated five or fewer mortgage transactions during the last 12 months; or (2) the company’s mortgage business revenues are limited. The Bureau is proposing two alternatives, 25 percent or 50 percent of total revenues, as the applicable test.

The proposed rule would continue the general ban on loan originators being compensated by both consumers and other parties but would allow mortgage brokerage firms that are paid by the consumer to pay their individual brokers a commission, so long as the commission is not based on the terms of the transaction. It would also clarify that certain funds contributed toward closing costs by sellers, home builders, home-improvement contractors, or similar parties, when used to compensate a loan originator, are considered payments made directly to the loan originator by the consumer.

LO Qualifications

The CFPB proposal would also level the playing field between LOs that work for depository institutions and those that work for non-depository mortgage lenders. In the past, LOs that worked for depository institutions were exempt from the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act), which establishes licensing requirements, including 20 hours of training, passing a national exam, and extensive credit and criminal background checks. Under the proposal, the CFPB would require that employers of LOs not required to be licensed by the SAFE Act ensure that the LO meets the character fitness, and criminal background check standards of the SAFE Act and receives appropriate training.

Other Provisions

The proposal would also implement certain other Dodd-Frank Act requirements applicable to both closed-end and open-end mortgage credit, including a ban on mandatory arbitration and a ban on the financing of premiums for credit insurance.

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Proposes New Mortgage Appraisal Rules

On August 15, 2012, the CFPB released two proposed rules that would implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. If finalized, each rule would require lenders to conduct more property appraisals at their own expense and to provide all appraisals and property “valuation” materials to borrowers.

Mandatory Appraisals for “Higher Risk Mortgage Loans”

The CFPB first proposes to amend Regulation Z and its Official Staff Commentary to require lenders to obtain and disclose particular property appraisals to borrowers seeking “higher risk mortgage loans.” A loan qualifies as a “higher-risk mortgage loan” under the proposed rule if the annual percentage rate for the loan exceeds a variable rate measured by the average prime offer rate by 1.5 percent for first lien loans, 2.5 percent for first lien jumbo loans (generally those exceeding $417,000), and 3.5 percent for subordinate lien loans.

In substance, the proposed rule would require lenders to conduct property appraisals for covered loans—no such current obligation exists. In some cases, the costs of those appraisals are not recoverable from the borrower. Under the proposed rule, lenders may not issue a higher-risk mortgage loan without first obtaining at least one written appraisal by a certified or licensed appraiser, who must conduct an appraisal in conformity with standards set by the proposed rule, which include a physical property visit and an inspection of the interior of the property. A second appraisal, performed by a different appraiser, is required—at no cost to the borrower—if the property will be the borrower’s principal residence and the seller purchased the home for less than the proposed purchase price within 180 days prior to the date of the purchase agreement between the borrower and the seller. The second appraisal must provide an analysis of the difference in purchase prices as between the seller and the borrower, including any changes in market conditions and any improvements made to the property explaining the difference in purchase prices.

In addition to imposing new appraisal requirements, the proposed rule also requires new disclosures to the borrower. Within three days of application, the lender would have to provide the borrower with a statement regarding the purpose of the required appraisal(s). The lender will also have to inform the borrower that the lender will provide a free copy of any appraisals obtained for the transaction to the borrower at least three days before closing (and actually provide those documents).

Comments on the proposed rule are due October 15, 2012. A final rule is expected early next year. The proposed rule is available online here.

Mandatory Disclosure of Appraisals and Related Documents

Concurrently with its proposed changes to Regulation Z, the CFPB is also proposing to implement changes to Regulation B, which implements the ECOA. The Proposed Rule would require residential mortgage lenders for first lien mortgages to provide residential loan applicants with copies of all written appraisals obtained in connection with the proposed transaction, as well as other property value estimates developed in connection with the loan application.

Although not a major departure from current regulatory requirements, the proposed rule does impose new obligations to produce a wide variety of documents and creates non-recoverable costs to lenders. Under the current regulatory scheme, borrowers are entitled to obtain appraisals used in connection with their application, but must request them. Under the proposed rule, the lender would be responsible for automatically providing appraisals as well as any property “valuations” developed for the loan. These new disclosure requirements would apply regardless of whether credit is extended, denied, or whether the borrower’s application is incomplete or withdrawn.

The addition of “valuations” to the current regulatory scheme, which contemplates only the disclosure of appraisals, creates an entirely new obligation for lenders. This new category of documents is broadly defined to include “any estimate of the value of a dwelling developed in connection with a creditor’s decision to provide credit, including those values developed pursuant to a policy of a government sponsored enterprise or by an automated valuation model, a broker price opinion, or other methodology or mechanism.” The CFPB has explained that this definition includes at least:

  • Reports prepared by an appraiser (whether or not certified and licensed), including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the person’s estimate or opinion of the property’s value;
  • Documents prepared by the creditor’s staff that assigns value to the property, if a third-party appraisal report has not been used;
  • Internal review documents reflecting that the creditor’s valuation is different from a valuation in a third party’s appraisal report (or different from valuations that are publicly available or valuations such as manufacturers’ invoices for mobile homes);
  • Values developed pursuant to a methodology or mechanism required by a government sponsored enterprise, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property’s value;
  • Values developed by an automated valuation model, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property’s value; and
  • Broker price opinions prepared by a real estate broker, agent, or sales person, including written comments and other documents submitted to the creditor in support of the estimate of the property’s value.

Excluded from the definition are:

  • Internal documents, that merely restate the estimated value of the dwelling contained in a written appraisal or valuation being provided to the applicant;
  • Governmental agency statements of appraised value that are publically available; and
  • Valuations lists that are publically available (such as published sales prices or mortgage amounts, tax assessments, and retail price ranges) and valuations such as manufacturers’ invoices for mobile homes.

Moreover, within three days of application, lenders will have to inform the applicants of their right to receive these documents. Creditors would then be required to provide those documents to consumers “promptly” (typically within 30 days), but in no case later than three days prior to closing.

Finally, the proposed rule eliminates the lender’s right to charge the borrower a fee to obtain appraisals and related documents. Currently, lenders may pass on their costs, such as the cost of the appraisal or valuation, printing and postage, when providing a borrower with requested appraisals or valuations. Under the proposed rule, lenders may still charge borrowers reasonable fees for conducting appraisals and valuations, but can no longer charge any fee for generating and distributing those materials to the borrower—which would be mandatory.

Comments are due by October 15, 2012. A final rule is expected early next year. The proposed rule is available online here

CFPB Considers Preemption of Maine and Tennessee Property Laws Relating to Gift Cards

On August 21, 2012, the CFPB issued a notice of intent to determine whether the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) preempts certain provisions of Maine and Tennessee’s abandoned property laws relating to gift cards.

Under the EFTA, which is implemented by Regulation E, gift cards are to expire in no less than five years. Maine and Tennessee, however, generally deem gift cards abandoned property after two years, and, businesses need not honor the cards after two years under those states’ laws.

Now, the CFPB is seeking comment as to whether Maine and Tennessee’s laws are inconsistent with the EFTA, the nature of the inconsistencies and whether card issuers could comply with both federal and state law. Noting the problems consumers may encounter in recovering funds from the state after they are deemed abandoned, the CFPB recognizes that Maine and Tennessee laws may afford consumers greater protections. For example, funds transferred to Maine or Tennessee would be protected from inactivity fees or possible loss due to the issuer’s bankruptcy. If the CFPB finds that the state laws actually afford greater protection than federal law, the CFPB would not find the state laws preempted.

The Bureau’s request for comment was sparked by a request for rulings by payment card industry groups, which the CFPB did not identify. These requests were originally brought to the Federal Reserve. However, the CFPB now handles the request along with many other federal statutory responsibilities since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Comments are due on or before October 22, 2012.

Examinations/Enforcement Here and Now

Bureau Continues to Influence Statutory and Regulatory Interpretations Through the Filing of Amicus Briefs

The CFPB has been quietly taking an active role in federal appellate cases initiated by private litigants. Since late 2011, the CFPB has filed six amicus curiae briefs in federal appellate cases. The CFPB’s position in each amicus curiae brief is the same: steadfast consumer advocate. In several of its amicus curiae briefs, the CFPB has even sought to reverse a general consensus among the federal appellate courts.

Four of the federal appellate cases address the question of whether a consumer’s Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim is time-barred in situations where the consumer previously gave a timely notice of rescission to the lender, but filed the TILA action more than three years after loan closing. Prior to the CFPB’s amicus curiae briefs, the Ninth and Third Circuit held that the TILA claims were time-barred. The CFPB’s position, however, is that the claims should not be time-barred.

The two other federal appellate cases address alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The CFPB argues that a loan servicer pursuing foreclosure activity is not exempt from the FDCPA.

To date, the CFPB has had marginal success in influencing the federal appellate courts. The federal appellate courts have issued opinions in three out of the six cases (one TILA case and two FDCPA cases), one of which was in favor of the CFPB. The Tenth Circuit rejected the CFPB's position in a TILA and FDCPA case. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the CFPB in a FDCPA case, but relied on other precedential cases as opposed to the CFPB's amicus curiae brief in reaching its holding.

The CFPB’s amicus curiae briefing also appears to be affecting federal appellate opinions in cases that have not been briefed by the CFPB. For example, the Fourth Circuit held (in a case not briefed by the CFPB) that the TILA claims would not be time-barred. Thus, it appears that the federal appellate courts are aware of the CFPB’s activity and are taking the CFPB’s position into consideration even in cases where the CFPB has not sought to file an amicus curiae brief.

The Bureau now appears to be going public with its amicus brief activity.  It has publicized its amicus brief program and is actively seeking case referrals, so we can expect to see more Bureau activity in connection with private litigation.

News from the Bureau

CFPB Enters the Spy Business: Seeking Undercover Investigators

The CFPB posted several ads recently seeking undercover investigators to “establish and conduct surveillance activity.” These investigators would earn between $98,000 to $149,000 “develop[ing] both intelligence and evidence to further investigations.” The investigators would also “[u]tilize surveillance activities to identify subjects, their activities and their associates, corroborate source information and collect evidence.” The ads also suggest that investigators would be charged with finding “investigative problems for which there are few, if any, established criteria.”

Though refusing to discuss the specific techniques that these investigators would be authorized to use, CFPB spokeswomen Moira Vahey attempted to assuage concerns that activities would violate the civil liberties of the subjects by claiming that the “[i]nvestigative work conducted by our staff will be covered by the [CFPB] policies to ensure all practices comply with applicable laws and regulations and protect individuals’ privacy rights.” Ms. Vahey added that the “activities described in the postings are intended to inform our enforcement office about what consumers may experience with different financial products or services.”

The CFPB is not the first regulatory agency to use undercover investigators. The Department of Education recently acknowledged that it hired undercover contractors to pose as college students to investigate financial aid fraud. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission retained a mystery-shopper company to investigate whether certain retailers were selling R-rated movies and M-rated video games to teenagers. The Department of Health and Human Services abandoned a plan to use mystery shoppers to investigate Medicaid and Medicare patients’ access to primary care physicians after members of Congress complained that the plan amounted to spying.

Additional Staff Changes at the Bureau

Less than one week after it was announced that the CFPB’s prolific rulemaking unit—the Office of Regulations—was losing its Assistant Director to private practice, the CFPB announced a replacement as well other changes in its senior management. The CFPB just announced that Kelly Thompson Cochran will replace Leonard Chanin as the acting Assistant Director of the Office of Regulations. Ms. Cochran previously served as the Deputy Assistant Director for Regulations at the Bureau under Mr. Chanin and will oversee the nearly 40 lawyers responsible for promulgating the CFPB’s rules and regulations. Prior to joining the Bureau, Ms. Cochran was on the policy staff at the U.S. Treasury Department. Ms. Cochran graduated from the University of North Carolina School of Law and clerked for Judges Tatel (D.C. Cir.) and Robertson (D. D.C.). Ms. Cochran was also an associate at WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., with a focus on consumer financial services regulatory counseling and litigation.

Mr. Chanin, who was recruited by Elizabeth Warren to join the CFPB and has spent the last year and a half running the Bureau’s rulemaking operations, left the CFPB to return to private practice. Prior to joining the CFPB, Mr. Chanin served as Deputy Director in the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs of the Federal Reserve Board, where he supervised consumer financial protection regulations. Director Cordray issued a statement saying that, “[d]uring his time at the Bureau, Leonard built an effective rule-writing team that has developed proposals to implement key consumer financial protections that will benefit all Americans. Although we will miss Leonard, he leaves a strong and experienced team that will continue to move forward with this important work.”

Ms. Cochran’s promotion was not the only change in the CFPB’s senior management. Chris Lipsett was named senior counsel to the CFPB. Mr. Lipset was a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr. In private practice, Mr. Lipsett had a general regulatory practice with emphasis on financial institutions and their business, including counseling and litigation. Mr. Lipsett has represented a wide range of firms on financial regulatory and litigation matters. Mr. Lipsett is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The CFPB also announced that Meredith Fuchs, the former principal deputy general counsel and chief of staff to CFPB Director Richard Cordray, will serve as its general counsel. Stephen Van Meter, the CFPB’s former assistant general counsel for policy, will replace Ms. Fuchs as its deputy general counsel. Leonard Kennedy has been named an adviser to Director Cordray. Finally, the CFPB named Delicia Reynolds Hand, previously the legislative director for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, as the new staff director of consumer advisory councils at the Bureau.

Director Cordray issued a statement announcing that he was “pleased to announce these new additions and updates to the CFPB leadership team. We look forward to welcoming them as we continue to work on behalf of the American consumer.” Some, however, including the Slate’s Matthew Yglesias, warn that these changes and the “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and private practice is a difficulty that “the CFPB will have in building a really effective agency over the long term.”

Regulatory Scorecard 

Please click here to access a printable version of the Dykema Regulatory Scorecard, our up-to-date chart of pending and final regulatory activities and proceedings at the CFPB.

Contacts and Caveats

For more information about Dykema’s Financial Services Regulatory and Compliance practice, please contact group leader, Don Lampe at 704-335-2736, Arthur B. Axelson at 202-906-8607, or any of the listed attorneys.

As part of our service to you, we regularly compile short reports on new and interesting developments and the issues the developments raise. Please recognize that these reports do not constitute legal advice and that we do not attempt to cover all such developments. Rules of certain state supreme courts may consider this advertising and require us to advise you of such designation. Your comments are always welcome. © 2012 Dykema Gossett PLLC.

As part of our service to you, we regularly compile short reports on new and interesting developments and the issues the developments raise. Please recognize that these reports do not constitute legal advice and that we do not attempt to cover all such developments. Rules of certain state supreme courts may consider this advertising and require us to advise you of such designation. Your comments are always welcome. © 2021 Dykema Gossett PLLC.