News Archives

News

May

16

2013

Feds Bite Largest Bitcoin Exchange: Lessons for Virtual Currency Entrepreneurs

By Jonathan D. Joseph

When the US Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, a/k/a FinCEN, published an interpretative ruling on March 18, 2013 discussing how its regulations applied to users, exchangers and administrators of virtual currencies, Mt. Gox, the world’s largest exchange for Bitcoin transactions, should have taken note.   Mt. Gox and other early pioneers in the virtual currency space have anarchist roots and generally eschew governmental regulation; however, it is now clear that the survivors in the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency ecosystem will be those that successfully navigate the complex web of federal and state money transmission laws and regulations.

Earlier this week, Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) obtained a warrant, issued by the U.S. District Court of Maryland, authorizing U.S. government seizure of assets of Mt. Gox held at Iowa based payment processing start-up Dwolla and Wells Fargo Bank.   HSI acted after it discovered that Mt. Gox, based in Tokyo, Japan, was operating as an unlicensed money transmission service through its American affiliate, Mutum Sigillum LLC, and it may have lied to Wells Fargo when it opened its initial US bank account.

FinCEN is the bureau of the Treasury Department that seeks to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing through its regulation of Money Service Businesses (“MSBs”).  Its March 2013 guidance states that those dealing in or administering virtual currencies such as exchanges like Mt. Gox, but not users or “miners”, need to register as MSBs and comply with anti-money laundering regulations. While Bitcoin is the best-known cryptocurrency or digital currency, others have sprung up recently, including Opencoin, Litecoin, Terracoin, Feathercoin and Novacoin, among others.   While concepts underlying virtual or cryptocurrencies can be mind- numbingly complex, the FinCEN guidance is reasonably clear as to who is regulated:

“A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter. By contrast, a person that creates units of convertible virtual currency and sells those units to another person for real currency or its equivalent is engaged in transmission to another location and is a money transmitter.  In addition, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts such de-centralized convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.”  FIN-2013-G001, March 18, 2013.

FinCEN categorizes participants in the virtual currency market into three generic categories: “user,” “exchanger,” and “administrator.” A user is a person that obtains virtual currency to purchase goods and services. An exchanger is a person engaged as a business in the exchange of virtual currency for real currency, funds or other virtual currency.   An administrator is a person engaged as a business in issuing (circulating) a virtual currency and who has the authority to redeem or withdraw from circulation that virtual currency.

A person may engage in “obtaining” a virtual currency in a number of different manners such as “earning,” “mining,” “harvesting,” “manufacturing,” “creating,” and “purchasing,” depending on the details of the specific virtual currency model involved.   FinCEN concluded that how a person obtains a virtual currency is immaterial to the legal characterization under the Bank Secrecy Act of the process or of the person engaging in the process.   This means that a user who obtains convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods or services is not a Money Service Business under FinCEN’s regulations.   Users must still be cautious, as an activity which is exempt from FinCEN’s rules, may still violate other federal or state statutes, rules and regulations.  Additionally, almost all states have money transmission laws that may apply even if FinCEN rules do not.

An administrator or exchanger that (1) accepts and transmits a convertible currency or (2) buys or sells convertible virtual currency for any reason is a money transmitter under FinCEN’s regulations, unless a limitation or exemption from the definition applies to the person.  As one illustration, a federally-insured commercial bank is exempt from the definition.  However, in most cases, whether a person is a money transmitter is a matter of facts and circumstances.  Under FinCEN’s interpretations and the law of many states there is no differentiation between real currencies and convertible virtual currencies.  Accepting and transmitting anything of value that substitutes for currency makes a person a money transmitter under BSA regulations.  31 CFR section 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A).

An exchange’s activities most often involve acting as a seller of Bitcoins or other virtual currency where it accepts real currency or its equivalent from a user/purchaser and transmits the value of the real currency to fund the purchaser’s virtual currency account held by an administrator.  In the Dwolla/Mt. Gox case described above, users were transferring U.S. Dollars to Mt. Gox’s American affiliate via Dwolla.  Prior to the HSI seizure, the American affiliate had been transferring U.S Dollars received from Dwolla to Mt. Gox in Japan and Mt. Gox allegedly used the Wells Fargo account to route funds from Japan to and from accounts at Dwolla at the direction of users. Dwolla, headquartered in Des Moines, offered an easier way for people to buy or sell Bitcoins through Mt. Gox, rather than attempting international wires to and from the company’s Japanese bank.

Under FinCEN regulations, sending “value that substitutes for currency” to another person or to another location constitutes money transmission, unless a limitation to or exemption from the definition applies.  Consequently, based on the HSI warrant, Mt. Gox was transmitting funds to another location, namely from the user’s real currency account at a bank to the user’s virtual currency account with the administrator.   The government alleges this is illegal since the only services being provided are unlicensed money transmission services.

Once a person or entity is engaging in the business of money transmission (both real or virtual currencies), doing so without registering with FinCEN as a Money Service Business and obtaining licenses under State money transmitter laws is mandatory unless certain enumerated exemptions apply. Most States including California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois and the District of Columbia require money transmitting businesses to obtain a license and comply with the other regulatory requirements (unless certain exemptions apply).  Failure to be registered and licensed can constitute a felony.

The fervor of the cyrptocurrency movement is starting to resemble the California Gold Rush after gold was discovered in 1849.  Millions of dollars are being invested in starts-up companies mainly in the Silicon Valley as Bitcoin entrepreneurs and venture capitalists race after what some believe could ultimately be worth billions.  In fact, Opencoin recently announced it had completed an angel round which included Silicon Valley heavy hitters Andreessen Horowitz, Lightspeed Venture Partners and Barry Silbert’s Bitcoin Opportunity Fund.

Importantly, it doesn’t appear that Homeland Security or FinCEN is cracking down on Bitcoin itself, just on how it’s being exchanged by Mt. Gox. This is good news for Mt. Gox’s US-based competitors, such as Seattle-based CoinLab and San Francisco-based Coinbase, Bitcoin exchanges that have registered with the Treasury Department as money transmitters.

An important lesson for entrepreneurs and VCs entering the virtual currency space is that virtual currency business models must be analyzed by lawyers with corporate and venture capital expertise, as well as deep familiarity with state and federal currency and money transmission laws.  For those that would turn a blind-eye to the necessity of robust legal compliance at an early stage based on libertarian or anarchist beliefs, naivety or an extraterritorial structure, failure is almost certainly guaranteed.

Smart entrepreneurs understand this.  Success stories include PayPal, Square and presently Google Payment Corp., and Facebook Payments are muscling into the space.  Staying lean until proof of concept has been achieved is important,  but when it comes to federal and state money transmitter regulation,  early angel and VC investment rounds must include funds for legal compliance.  Joseph & Cohen has the expertise and experience to successfully establish and plan innovative legal compliance programs for VCs, virtual currency and Bitcoin start-ups.

Jonathan Joseph is the Managing Partner of Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, a Financial Services and Litigation Boutique headquartered in San Francisco that emphasizes complex banking, corporate and venture capital transactions, regulatory and money transmission activities, securities, M & A, bankruptcy and insolvency, employment law and commercial and executive employment litigation services.

For additional information about Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, please visit our website at www.josephandcohen.com or contact Jonathan Joseph at 415-817-9250 or jon@josephandcohen.com.

Bankruptcy Attorney David Honig Joins Boutique Financial Services and Litigation Law Firm – Joseph & Cohen

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – May 2, 2013.  Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, announced today that leading bankruptcy and restructuring attorney David A. Honig has joined the Firm as a Partner. Mr. Honig, who has worked in the restructuring field for over 20 years, comes to Joseph & Cohen after his successful 10-year tenure as a corporate partner at Winston & Strawn LLP, a prestigious international law firm, where he practiced in that firm’s restructuring and insolvency group in San Francisco.  Prior to that, he was a partner at San Francisco-based Murphy Sheneman Julian & Rogers (previously known as Murphy Weir & Butler), a nationally recognized bankruptcy and restructuring boutique, which he joined as an associate in 1992.

Mr. Honig’s arrival at Joseph & Cohen significantly broadens the boutique firm’s core banking, financial services, regulatory, and litigation expertise.  He is a talented and multifaceted financial services lawyer who was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2013 in the field of Litigation – Bankruptcy.

During his career he has specialized in business restructuring, insolvency, corporate finance, and related transactions and litigation.  He is known for his ability to create practical, business-oriented solutions to complex legal and financial problems.

Mr. Honig represents debtors, institutional and non-traditional lenders, trustees, receivers, official creditors’ committees, private equity funds, vendors, licensors, real and personal property lessors, and asset purchasers in bankruptcy, receivership, and other restructuring and workout matters in and out of court. He has extensive experience in the reorganization of distressed financial services businesses, vineyards and wineries, and other food and beverage companies, as well as manufacturing, technology, telecommunications, retail, and real estate investment concerns.

“We are both flattered and honored that David Honig chose Joseph & Cohen over the countless opportunities available to him,” said Jonathan Cohen, litigation partner at Joseph & Cohen. “His bankruptcy, workout and litigation expertise will undoubtedly further our standing as a well-rounded and world-class boutique firm.”

Of his new position, Mr. Honig stated, “Joseph & Cohen impressed me with their vision, energy, and depth of experience.  I look forward to working with them. Together, we’ll provide exceptional service to our clients throughout California and the United States.”

Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, is a Financial Services and Litigation Boutique headquartered in San Francisco that emphasizes complex banking, corporate and transactional matters, regulatory and bank enforcement defense, securities, M & A, bankruptcy and insolvency, employment and commercial and executive employment litigation services.  Joseph & Cohen is known for sophisticated expertise, extraordinary commitment to clients, relationship-based services, and a range of specialized skills typically found only in the largest American law firms.

For additional information about the Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, please visit our website at  www.josephandcohen.com or Facebook at www.facebook.com/josephandcohen.

Press Contact:  Jonathan Joseph at Joseph & Cohen, 415-817-9200, ext. 9 or jon@josephandcohen.com.

Joseph & Cohen Settles All Claims by FDIC Against Five Former Officers of County Bank

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CA  –  November  13,  2012. Joseph  &  Cohen,  Professional Corporation, located in San Francisco, California, announced today that it successfully structured a settlement for its clients, five former officers of County Bank, Merced, California,  in  connection  with  a  lawsuit  brought  by  the  Federal  Deposit  Insurance Corporation, in its capacity as receiver for County Bank.   County Bank, which collapsed in February 2009, had been the wholly-owned banking subsidiary of Capital Corp of the West (Nasdaq: CCOW).

The case, which was filed by the FDIC in the Federal Court in Fresno, California in January 2012, was titled FDIC, as receiver for County Bank v. Hawker, et al., (Case No. 1:12-CV-000127-LJO) (“FDIC v. Hawker”). The settlement completely settles and satisfies all claims  brought by the FDIC against the five former officers of the Bank: Thomas Hawker, Edward Rocha, John Incandela, David Kraechan and Jay Lee (the “officers”).

A companion case that the officers filed against BancInsure, Inc. and the FDIC in July 2012, in the same Fresno based Court, remains outstanding.  In that case,  Hawker et al v. BancInsure (Case No. 1:12-cv-01261-LJO-GSA), Tom Hawker and the other officers asserted claims against  BancInsure for declaratory relief, breach of contract, bad faith, punitive  damages  and  reformation.  The  officers  were  forced  to  sue  BancInsure,  the professional liability insurer for County Bank, after it  abandoned them and refused to defend the claims in the FDIC Action.

Jonathan Joseph, counsel for the officers stated “We believed that we had strong legal and factual  defenses to the FDIC’s claims.   In our view, County Bank collapsed as a result of the greatest recession in our lifetime.  So, we vigorously defended Tom Hawker and the other four officers of County Bank against all of the government’s allegations. But, after the D&O Insurer abandoned our clients and refused to defend them or settle the FDIC lawsuit, we are pleased to have successfully structured this deal with the FDIC as the settlement eliminates all claims, further uncertainty and the trouble, risk and expense associated with the litigation.”

An essential element of the settlement involved an assignment to the FDIC by the officers of their lawsuit against BancInsure including claims for bad faith and breach of contract. The officers retained the right  to recover their defense expenses incurred prior to the FDIC settlement from BancInsure.  The officers  maintained the right to continue to control and prosecute this retained claim against BancInsure.

Tom Hawker, former CEO of County Bank and President and CEO of CCOW, said “I am relieved to put this case behind me as it eliminates further uncertainty, cost or risk to me and my family.  I am outraged that the Bank’s D&O insurer abandoned me as I would have  been  financially  ruined  if  I  continued  to  defend  myself  against  the  FDIC’s allegations despite having excellent legal and factual defenses to their claims.”

As a result of the settlement, the FDIC will control and prosecute the officers’ assigned claims against BancInsure at its cost and expense.  Jon Cohen, litigation partner at Joseph & Cohen, explained “We look forward to litigating alongside the FDIC on behalf of our clients  to  prove  that  BancInsure  improperly  applied  the  so-called  “insured  versus insured” exclusion to deny the coverage our clients had expected and relied upon.”

The parties exchanged other valuable covenants including an agreement not to bring any other civil claims against each other and a promise by the FDIC not to take any further action or assert any claims against any of the property or assets of the officers.

Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, is an AV® rated law firm based in San Francisco,  California,  that  emphasizes  the representation  of community and  regional banks  and  bank  holding  companies  and  their  officers  and  directors.  The firm also specializes in representing financial service companies, credit unions and private equity firms in connection with corporate, securities, regulatory, litigation, executive employment and merger matters.  Joseph & Cohen is known for sophisticated expertise, extraordinary  commitment  to  clients,   relationship-based services, and  a  range of specialized capabilities typically found only in the largest American law firms.

For additional information about the Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, please visit our website at  www.josephandcohen.com or Facebook at www.facebook.com/josephandcohen.

Feds Target Payday Lenders: The New Enforcement Reality

By Marie Hogan and Jonathan Joseph

The President of the United States sent a wake-up call to the payday lending industry in his 2012 State of the Union speech that they are a target of federal enforcement action by the new Consumer Protection Financial Bureau or CFPB.   President Obama exclaimed:

“If you’re a mortgage lender or payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices—those days are over.”

Almost a week before the speech, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the newest federal agency whose name describes its mission, published its guidelines for examinations of short-term, small-dollar lenders (aka “payday lenders”). See www.consumerfinance.gov/guidance.  Payday lenders and other non-bank financial service providers that have never been subject to direct federal regulation will now be under the jurisdiction of the CFPB.

The CFPB’s guidelines and the President’s call out indicate the payday lending industry has clearly been targeted due to perceived abuses. The initial guidelines for the payday lending industry consist of 17 pages and are a supplement to the CFBB’s 802 page examination handbook.  The management and boards of directors of payday lenders that desire to comply with the CFPB’s regulations should familiarize themselves with the guidelines and implement expanded compliance systems.

WHAT is the CFPB’s purpose?

The CFPB will implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that the market for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. They will especially target lenders engaging in unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.

WHY payday lending?

Payday loans are supposed to be short term: 14 days. As the name implies, they’re supposed to provide emergency cash to enable consumers to cover short term necessities until the next pay day, when they theoretically should be able to repay the loan.  Critics say this is typically not the case.  Customers often roll-over their debt when they can’t repay it. They wind up living off that borrowed money at an annual interest rate of 400 to 600 percent or more.

Here’s how it works. Let’s say an individual needs $100 and the interest rate for that two week period is 15 percent. The customer writes a postdated check made out to the lender for $115. If the customer can’t pay that amount when the two weeks is up, the lender keeps $15, the loan is extended and another $15 fee is added on.

The CFPB is still in the fact gathering mode regarding the payday industry, holding hearings earlier this year in Birmingham, Alabama.  However, the industry is number two in its list of priorities (see www.consumerfinance.gov/regulations/fall-2011-statement-of-regulatory-priorities).  Richard Cordray, the CFPB’s executive director, said the agency will examine bank and non-bank institutions offering these short-term, small-dollar loans. At the Birmingham hearing, Cordray expressed this sentiment:

“We recognize that there is a need and a demand in the country for emergency credit. At the same time, it’s important that these products actually help consumers and not harm them. We know that some payday lenders are engaged in practices that present immediate risks to consumers and are illegal. Where we find these practices, we will take immediate steps to eliminate them.”

WHAT is the scope of CFPB’s responsibility?

CFPB has responsibility for specified federal consumer financial laws, such as Truth in Lending and the Fair Credit Reporting Act and certain Federal Trade Commission rules, such as the Credit Practices rule.  The CFPB may also issue rules, and even without a rule, it may examine for unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices that cause significant financial injury to consumers, erode consumer confidence, and undermine the financial marketplace.

WHICH payday lenders can the CFPB examine?

Any payday lender, in any state, whether regulated or not, can be examined.  The CFPB has the power to take enforcement actions against any payday lender. The first step for the CFPB is an examination of the company for compliance with federal consumer financial laws and unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.   An important point is that the examination guidelines merely provide a roadmap for what a company needs to do.  The CFBP’s guidelines don’t provide detailed direction to a payday lender but the CFBP will provide notice through the examination process regarding the company’s demerits and legal violations.  The CFPB has a scale of 1-5 (one being the best) that will be awarded in an examination.  In general, all payday lenders should strive to earn 1 or 2 ratings in all sub-categories that are reviewed.

The CFPB may investigate and bring administrative enforcement proceedings or civil actions in Federal district court for violations of federal consumer financial laws.  The CFPB additionally may obtain “any appropriate legal or equitable relief with respect to a violation of Federal consumer financial law” including: 1) rescission or reformation of contracts; 2) refund of money or return of real property; 3)  restitution, disgorgement or compensation for unjust enrichment; 4) payment of damages or other monetary relief; 5) public notification regarding the violation; 6) limits on the activities or functions of the person against whom the action is brought; and 7) civil money penalties (which can go either to victims or to financial education).

The CFPB has no criminal enforcement authority; however, it may refer matters it believes may constitute criminal activity to the Department of Justice.

Payday Lender Examinations:   What should management know?

The examination procedures are very much based on bank/financial institution formats.  Here is our list of how this system works based on years of experience and working with the regulatory agencies:

First, policies and procedures must be in writing.  That means the payday lender’s Board of Directors should establish detailed written procedures covering all significant compliance risks and processes.

Second, procedures must address compliance with federal consumer financial laws, as well as addressing other risks.

Third, the Board must be intimately involved in establishing policy, overseeing management and insisting that management comply with its policies.

Fourth, companies must train and monitor their employees.

Fifth, monitor audit procedures and processes and address all criticisms from internal and external auditors, state regulators and the CFPB.

Sixth, compliance must cover “soup to nuts”, meaning from product development to end of customer relationship and every significant step in between.

Seventh, appoint a compliance officer with real authority and responsibility.  For smaller companies, this may be an employee who has other responsibilities, but take steps to assure that the compliance officer is qualified.

Eighth, the company must monitor any third party service providers for compliance with the above.

The CFBP examination objectives are:

1.            To assess the quality of compliance risk management systems, including internal controls and policies;

2.            To identify acts or practices that materially increases the risk of violations of federal consumer financial laws;

3.            To gather facts that help determine whether the lender is engaged in acts or practices that violate the requirements of federal consumer financial laws;

4.            To determine if a violation of a federal consumer financial law has occurred and whether enforcement actions are appropriate.

Which Federal Laws Are Applicable to Payday Lenders?

  • TILA and Regulation Z—TILA is the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z require lenders to disclose loan terms and annual percentage rates.  Regulation Z also covers advertising disclosures, proper crediting of payment, proper crediting of credit balances and periodic disclosures.
  • EFTA and Regulation E—EFTA is the Electronic Funds Transfer Act which protects consumers engaging in electronic transfers, including that lenders may not require, as a condition of loan approval, the customer’s authorization for loan repayment through recurring electronic funds transfers.
  • FDCPA—This is the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which governs collection activities conducted by (a) third party collection agencies and (b) lenders collecting their own debt under an assumed name.
  • FCRA— This is the Fair Credit Reporting Act which, with its regulations, governs furnishing information to credit agencies and the use of credit reports.
  • GLBA – This is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which, together with implementing regulations, requires that furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ensure the accuracy of data furnished to the consumer reporting system.
  • ECOA—This is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act which, together with implementing Regulation B, sets requirements for accepting credit applications and providing notice of any adverse action.  Discrimination against a borrower is prohibited, plus discrimination based on public assistance income or because the applicant has exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act is prohibited.

Some payday lenders do attempt to comply with applicable law.  However, bad actors in the industry have contributed to the perception that widespread abuses exist.   Companies in the “short term small dollar” lending business that desire to avoid potential CFPB enforcement sanctions should implement compliance systems and procedures modeled after those used in the banking industry designed specifically to comply with the laws listed above.  This may entail adding risk and compliance officers to existing management teams, robust internal controls and better policies and procedures.

For additional information contact:

Jonathan Joseph at jon@josephandcohen.com; or

Marie Hogan at mhogan@josephandcohen.com.

Jonathan Joseph to Present “Dodd-Frank Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance” Webinar for CalBar

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – August 12, 2010. Joseph Law Corporation announced today that its Managing Partner, Jonathan D. Joseph, will present “Dodd-Frank’s Corporate Governance and Executive Compensation Requirements For Public Companies:  Why Planning Now For 2011 is Essential”  via a live 60 minute webinar on August 18, 2010.  The Calbar’s description of Mr. Joseph’s webinar presentation states:

“The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act or “Dodd-Frank” was enacted on July 21, 2010.  Commencing in 2011, a non-binding shareholder “Say on Pay” vote to approve executive compensation may be the most profound executive pay provision in Dodd-Frank. Each public company must also ask its shareholders whether future Say on Pay votes should take place every one, two or three years (Say When on Pay).  When mergers or other acquisitions are submitted to shareholders, public companies will also be required to submit golden parachutes to shareholders for approval (Say on Golden Parachutes). Other notable provisions require enhanced independence for board compensation committees and their advisers and claw backs of erroneously awarded executive compensation as well as new descriptions of pay versus performance and internal pay equity metrics.  Dodd-Frank also explicitly authorized the SEC to adopt “proxy access,” a procedure where shareholder submitted board nominees will be included in the company’s proxy solicitation materials.   Say on Pay, Say When on Pay and Say on Golden Parachutes are far from meaningless.  These new corporate governance requirements will impact as many as 10,000 companies. Learn What is Required, What Isn’t Clear and Pragmatic Steps to Consider Now from a corporate securities practitioner with more than three decades of experience. This webinar is appropriate for inside and outside corporate legal advisers, board members, Board and Compensation Committee Chairman, CEOs, CFOs and investor relations personnel.”

The 60 minute webinar will be presented by Jonathan Joseph live online at 1:00 pm on August 18, 2010 via the CalBar’s website and will be retained in the Calbar’s CLE online archives ensuring that the program  will be available in the future to interested persons including California lawyers seeking participatory continuing legal education credit.  The archived webinar will be available after August 18 at www.calbar.org/online-cle and then clicking on “Tele-Seminars and Webinars”.

Jonathan Joseph is the Managing Partner of Joseph Law Corporation. His practice is devoted largely to complex banking, corporate, mergers and acquisitions, venture capital and bank regulatory matters. Mr. Joseph is a current member of the Financial Institutions Committee of the State Bar of California’s Business Law Section. He has been a frequent lecturer and writer on subjects relating to banking, financial institutions, corporate and securities law, mergers and acquisitions and venture capital.  Mr. Joseph is also a member of the New York and DC Bar.

For more information contact Jonathan  Joseph at jon@josephlawcorp.com or 415 817 9200.

This press release is provided as a general informational service to clients and friends of Joseph Law Corporation. It should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal advice on any specific matter, nor does this message create an attorney-client relationship. These materials may be considered Attorney Advertising in some states. Please note that prior results discussed in the material do not guarantee similar outcomes.