On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted an amendment to Exchange Act Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten by one business day the standard settlement cycle for most broker-dealer securities transactions. Currently, the standard settlement cycle for these transactions is three business days (i.e., T+3). The amended rule shortens the settlement cycle to two business days (i.e., T+2).
In another new and welcome gesture, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has provided further encouragement for formation of de novo charters as described in the FDIC’s Summer 2016 “Supervisory Insights Journal.”
On May 17, 2016, the SEC updated its Compliance & Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) concerning the use of non-GAAP financial measures. The new guidance focuses on the calculation and presentation of non-GAAP financial measures in SEC filings and earnings releases subject to Regulation G and/or Item 10(e) of Regulation S-K.
In working out of a troubled commercial credit, often the optimal exit strategy for the senior lender is a sale of the borrower’s business as a going concern. However, frequently it is not feasible for a distressed borrower simply to execute a sale of its assets directly to a buyer and pay the senior secured debt at closing.
t was not that long ago that the concern over preparing for, and dealing with, activist investors was rare in the banking industry, and especially rare for community banks. That comfort is quickly fading, however, as more funds and individuals contemplate opportunities for becoming “activist” investors in community banks through a variety of mechanisms, some for the better and some perhaps not so much.
Earlier this year, two federal appeals courts decided cases that are significant to lenders whose borrowers are experiencing financial distress. In one case, the court stripped the lender of its secured status because the lender had failed to investigate the borrower’s wrongdoing, despite having notice of suspicious facts.
As the longest awaited sequel in years, financial regulators have finally revealed their revised interagency proposal to restrict incentive-based compensation arrangements for executives at financial institutions. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act obligated six agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, the Officer of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to establish rules prohibiting incentive-based compensation arrangements that would encourage inappropriate risk-taking.
After nearly a decade practically devoid of state or federal de novo charter activity nationwide, the FDIC has announced plans to return to its three-year post-approval oversight period for de novos that was in effect prior to the financial crisis.
It’s all over the news and it’s top of mind with bank regulators: “Cybersecurity.” What happened with Target, Home Depot and Wyndham hasn’t helped. The last several years have been fraught with news story after news story about those crafty hackers who find vulnerabilities in a company’s system and steal private information or even redirect funds. And despite all of our technological advancements, the escalation in successful hacking attempts has no end in sight. Call them hackers, fraudsters or good old-fashioned crooks, from computer-savvy teenagers to state-sponsored groups, they are not going away. And, unfortunately, they seem at times to be two steps ahead of the latest security software and security vendors that are offering you and your financial institution protection.
With an industry-wide focus on enterprise risk management, and with the particular vulnerability of banks to the adverse impact of “reputation risk,” it is important that banks understand and take appropriate steps to mitigate risks associated with internet defamation. Online reputation attacks, including internet defamation, are affecting all industries and professionals. Banks, –including community banks,– are not immune from being attacked and disparaged online.
Bank and thrift shareholders are “different.” Direct or indirect ownership or control of large blocks of stock in a bank or a thrift institution brings with it the need to be cognizant of complex state and federal laws and regulations that may well trigger applications with state and federal regulators to approve the ownership, and/or a proposed transfer of ownership, in advance.
Recently five federal agencies, The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (collectively, the Agencies), issued much-anticipated joint final rules (the Final Rules) that establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants (Swap Entities) for which one of the Agencies is the prudential regulator (Swap Entities regulated by one or more of the Agencies are referred to as Covered Swap Entities).
During Monday’s oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, the Supreme Court appeared sharply divided on the issue of whether a plaintiff has standing to sue for a technical violation of a federal consumer law even when there is no indication that the plaintiff has actually been harmed by the violation.
With cybersecurity as THE hot button issue in bank and thrift risk management right now, and of course to help the industry celebrate “National Cybersecurity Awareness Month” (who knew?), bankers and their boards should take advantage of the FDIC informational teleconference on cybersecurity issues being held on October 28, 2015.