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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – May 1, 2013. Joseph & Cohen, a Professional Corporation headquartered in San Francisco, announced today that Kenneth Sayre-Peterson has been elected a partner following his successful stint as Of Counsel with the firm that began in February 2012.
Managing Partner, Jonathan Joseph stated, “Joseph & Cohen’s clients have benefited from Ken Sayre-Peterson’s enormous expertise in bank regulation, credit union matters, financial services, corporate transactions, money transmitter compliance and bank enforcement work. He has helped to secure the firm’s position as one of the leading bank and depository institution regulatory practices in California. Elevating Ken to partner was an incredibly easy decision.”
Sayre-Peterson adds, “It is a delight to work with this team of distinguished attorneys in a collegial boutique setting. I am honored to be invited in as a partner, and look forward to continuing to deliver superlative regulatory and transactional legal services to our valued clients.”
Prior to joining Joseph & Cohen, Ken Sayre-Peterson held increasingly senior positions as an attorney with the California Department of Financial Institutions. During his distinguished twenty-two year career, he practiced general financial institutions law and garnered an intimate knowledge of the banking, credit union, money transmitters, securities, and trust laws of California, as well as the pertinent and corresponding federal laws.
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.
Press Contact: Jonathan Joseph at Joseph & Cohen, 415-817-9200, ext. 9 or email@example.com.
Marie F. Hogan is Of Counsel in the firm’s San Francisco office. She has practiced law in California for more than thirty years with a core emphasis on representing commercial banks, other depository institutions and financial service companies in connection with mortgage lending, bank operations, loan workouts, consumer law and compliance, credit and debit cards, bankruptcy and insolvency and similar matters.
Ms. Hogan has been active in the State Bar of California for many years, having served as chair of the Executive Committee of the Business Law Section in 1998 and as a member or advisor to the Executive Committee from 1994 to the present. Marie Hogan is currently also a member of the Consumer Financial Services Committee of the State Bar’s Business Law Section. Ms. Hogan was previously a member of the Uniform Commercial Code Committee where she contributed her extensive skills related to, among other areas, deposits, letters of credit and personal property leasing.
Prior to joining Joseph Law, she has held senior legal positions in some of the largest banking organizations in California including Bank of America NT & SA, The Bank of California NA, World Savings Bank and Charles Schwab Bank.
Ms. Hogan has been a member of the Board of Directors of American Bach Soloists since 2000. She also served two terms as President of the organization. American Bach Soloists perform music of the Baroque era and are known around the world for the quality of their performances and interpretation
Ms. Hogan was awarded her Juris Doctor degree from Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. Ms. Hogan received her undergraduate degree from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.
Ms. Hogan is a member of the State Bar of California.
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.
Department of Financial Institutions Attorney Ken Sayre-Peterson Joins Joseph & Cohen – Expands Firm’s Core Regulatory Practice
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – February 21, 2012. Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, announced today it has expanded the depth and scope of its bank regulatory, financial services and legislative practice with the addition of Kenneth Sayre-Peterson as Of Counsel. Sayre-Peterson elected to join Joseph & Cohen following his retirement from the California Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), where he served in various legal capacities during a lengthy career, most recently having acted as the DFI’s General Counsel.
Kenneth Sayre-Peterson acted as the General Counsel for the California Department of Financial Institutions from June 2007 until his retirement in November 2011. His final position with the DFI was the culmination of 22 years of service that began in 1988. Prior to joining the legal staff of the California DFI, Mr. Sayre-Peterson practiced tax law for four years as a staff counsel with the California State Board of Equalization. Before entering state service, he spent two years in private practice, specializing in appellate work and lobbying.
“We are extremely pleased that Ken Sayre-Peterson is teaming up with Joseph & Cohen. Ken is one of the preeminent financial institutions lawyers in California. His many years of bank and credit union regulatory expertise and financial services legislative skills coupled with the firm’s well regarded financial services practice, deepens and expands Joseph & Cohen’s ability to offer complete legal solutions to banks, thrifts, money transmitters and other financial institutions,” said Jonathan D. Joseph, Joseph & Cohen’s Managing Partner.
Joseph added “Ken’s insider perspective from more than two decades with the Department of Financial Institutions allows the firm to provide an unprecedented level of legal Joseph added “Ken’s insider perspective from more than two decades with the California services to money center, regional and community banks in connection with their most complex acquisitions, transactional and regulatory imperatives while also lending unparalleled strength to our existing team that advises troubled banks and defends officers and directors of failed banks in all types of enforcement proceedings.”
Ken Sayre-Peterson stated “I’ve known Jonathan Joseph since my early days with the CA DFI. From my vantage point in the Department I’ve admired the quality, integrity and tenacity of his lawyering in matters before the DFI. Consequently, I am delighted to step back into private practice with Joseph & Cohen and believe that we will achieve significant synergies through our respective talents.”
Throughout his career at the California Department of Financial Institutions, Mr. Sayre-Peterson practiced general financial institutions law which resulted in an intimate knowledge of the banking, credit union, money transmitters, securities, and trust laws of California, as well as the pertinent and corresponding federal laws. Additionally, Mr. Sayre-Peterson was the attorney responsible for assisting the DFI’s Legislative Section. In that position, Ken spearheaded the recent revision and restatement of California’s Banking Law as newly codified in the California Financial Code, and drafted all legislation necessary to complete that four year project. While serving as the DFI’s General Counsel, Ken also played a major role in the policy making process, influencing both the direction and scope of the DFI’s examination and enforcement program.
Ken Sayre Peterson became a member of the State Bar of California in1983 after graduating from the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento, with distinction. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, in 1977.
Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, is an AV® rated law firm headquartered in San Francisco, California. The firm emphasizes complex banking, corporate, regulatory, securities, employment, litigation and transactional matters for financial institutions, small businesses, investors and venture capital firms. 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. The Firm’s core areas include advice related to banking and financial services law; directors and executives; regulatory and legislative matters; mergers & acquisitions; securities offerings; SEC disclosure matters; employment litigation; D & O insurance coverage; money transmitters; bank operations; and regulatory agency enforcement proceedings.
By Jonathan Joseph*
The total number of bank failures since the banking crisis began in 2008 is now dangerously close to 400. To date, the FDIC has only filed 14 lawsuits against failed bank directors and officers from thirteen different failed banks. A total of 103 former bank directors and officers have been named in these suits.
Based on published statistics and our own analysis of U.S. bank failures from 2008 to September 16, 2011, we believe that approximately 80 additional suits will be brought by the FDIC, as receiver, in the next two years. While the FDIC’s investigation and claim process has moved slowly, the number of damage suits authorized and filed is quickening and, we expect, will spike in 2012.
In August 2011, 5 new suits were filed, more than double any previous month. Currently, the FDIC’s website states it has authorized suits in connection with 32 failed institutions against 294 individuals for D&O liability with damage claims of at least $7.2 billion. All but one of these suits involved banks that failed prior to July 2009. Consequently, while 14 lawsuits have been filed and the FDIC has approved claims against an additional 191 directors and officers who served 18 different failed banks, this significantly understates the number of new suits to be filed and D&O’s to be named.
The current round of bank failures began somewhat slowly in 2008. The closing of IndyMac Bank in July 2008 marked the beginning of a huge acceleration of failures with 140 failures in 2009 and 157 in 2010. The pace has slowed in 2011 with 71 failures year to date. Some of the 18 authorized FDIC lawsuits not yet filed may settle; however, the FDIC will approve additional lawsuits against bank directors and officers at an increased pace in the ensuing months because 252 or 64 percent of the current round of bank failures occurred between July 9, 2009 and December 31, 2010. The FDIC is now approaching the decision point in many of these pre-2011 failures including the retention of outside law firms to prosecute damage claims on its behalf, as receiver.
D&O liability suits are generally only pursued if the FDIC concludes they are both meritorious and cost-effective. Before seeking recoveries from individual directors and officers, the FDIC conducts an investigation into the causes of the failure. The FDIC states on its website that investigations are usually completed within 18 months from the time the institution is closed, but lawsuits typically aren’t filed for another few months to a year. Investigations can extend longer and lawsuits are sometimes filed just before the third anniversary of a bank’s failure.
Here are some illustrations: Georgia’s Silverton Bank failed on May 1, 2009 and suit was filed on August 22, 2011 (27 months). Haven Trust Bank in Georgia failed on December 12, 2008 and suit wasn’t filed until July 14, 2011 (32 months). Cooperative Bank in North Carolina was closed in June 2009 and suit was filed August 10, 2011 (26 months). On the other hand, Wheatland Bank in Illinois failed on April 23, 2010 and suit was filed on May 5, 2011 (13 months). With $11.2 billion in assets, San Francisco based United Commercial Bank was closed and most of its assets were assumed by East West Bank on November 6, 2009. Yet after almost two years, no public announcement of FDIC damage claims against any of UCB’s executive officers and directors have surfaced. United Commercial Bank was California’s largest ever commercial bank failure.
Not all bank failures result in Director and Officer (D&O) lawsuits. The FDIC brought claims against directors and officers in 24 percent of the bank failures between 1985 and 1992. Since July 2009, the FDIC was named receiver at 323 failed banks. Bank failures have been most heavily focused in Georgia (70), Florida (56), Illinois (45), California (37), Washington (17) and Minnesota (16). If one assumes the same 24 percent ratio of suits from the 1985 – 1992 era will be repeated in connection with failures since June 2009, former directors and officers of about 80 additional banks could be targets of FDIC damage suits in the next two years in addition to the 14 suits already underway. The actual number could be somewhat higher but we doubt it will be much lower.
Prior to filing a lawsuit against a director or officer of a failed bank, staff for the FDIC, in its capacity as the receiver (or outside counsel representing the FDIC as receiver), will mail a demand letter to the bank’s officers and directors asserting the FDIC’s claims for monetary damages arising out of the bank’s failure. These demand letters typically do not distinguish between the different roles that officers and directors may have played under the circumstances nor is much effort made (at this point in the process) to determine which officers and directors in a particular organization may have been negligent, grossly negligent, breached fiduciary duties or wasted assets.
In a number of recent suits, the FDIC has focused on outside directors that had more banking industry expertise than other directors (i.e., directors of Silverton Bank) who were not themselves professional bankers. Directors with lending, accounting and CPA expertise may potentially be held by FDIC to higher standards, which could make them more visible targets. Often the FDIC’s demand letter is sent to trigger a claim under the bank’s director and officer liability policy and as part of an attempt to settle with the responsible parties. If a settlement cannot be reached, however, a complaint will be filed, typically in federal court. Thus, in many of the upcoming lawsuits, the FDIC may pursue claims against individuals but will also focus on the insurance proceeds that could be available in connection with many failures especially those that occurred prior to 2011 (when regulatory exclusions were not as widespread).
It is crucial that officers and directors of a troubled or failed bank retain knowledgeable insurance coverage and bank regulatory counsel to assert rights to coverage under the bank’s liability policies and to determine whether the facts and circumstances raise unique or special legal defenses. Officers and directors of all distressed banks should attempt to retain experienced outside counsel prior to a bank’s failure as the bank’s existing counsel will usually be conflicted out upon failure. Notice of circumstances that could give rise to coverage under a policy should be filed with insurers on a timely basis (usually pre-failure) and written follow-up by coverage counsel with insurers post-failure is often be necessary. If a director or bank officer hasn’t done so prior to failure, they should always retain experienced counsel at the first hint of an investigation or demand arising out of the bank failure.
In many of cases, the FDIC’s ultimate objective will be the recovery of D&O insurance proceeds. For this reason, it is often advisable to retain a combined legal team that has the capability to address insurance issues, liability and damage claims, regulatory enforcement actions (such as banking industry bans and civil money penalties) and, in rarer cases, criminal probes and indictments.
*About the Author: For over thirty-two years, Jonathan Joseph has focused on the representation of community and regional banks and officers and directors of distressed and failed banking organizations in connection with regulatory, transactional and corporate matters. He is a member of the Financial Institutions Committee of the California State Bar and a leading banking industry lawyer in California. Mr. Joseph founded the firm of Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation, in 2006 and is its Chief Executive Officer. Joseph & Cohen currently represents financial institutions and officers and directors of troubled and failed banks from its office in San Francisco, CA.
For additional information, please email the author: Jon@JosephandCohen.com.
© Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation. 2011. All Rights Reserved.
In a victory for consumer privacy rights, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that Jessica Pineda’s rights under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act were violated when a clerk at specialty retailer Williams-Sonoma asked for and recorded her ZIP code in connection with an in-store purchase with her credit card. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Moreno, concluded that an individual’s ZIP code is protected “personal identification information” that businesses in California cannot request for in-store purchases with a credit card, and then record that information for purposes unrelated to approving the credit transaction. In the longer term, it is likely that information collected by retailers for authentication purposes will need to be separate and distinct from personal information collected for marketing purposes.
The Court’s well-reasoned opinion slapped two California lower courts which had ruled squarely for Williams-Sonoma. Citing Webster’s New International Dictionary, among other sources, the Supreme Court held that a consumer’s ZIP code is certainly personal identification information (“PII”) protected by the Credit Card Act. The rationale of the lower courts, including an analysis based on the obscure doctrine of ejusdem generis, was roundly rejected. The Appeals Court had argued a ZIP code is not protected PII because it pertains to a group of individuals compared to a home address and phone number, both of which are protected. Justice Moreno wasn’t impressed, pointing out that a group of individuals may well live in the same household and a home phone number may be used by multiple persons.
The Court’s analysis was premised on a sounder grasp of how technological and search engine advances in recent years allow business enterprises to invade the privacy of consumers. The Court noted that the purpose of the Song-Beverly Act was to prevent retailers’ misuse of a consumer’s personal information for their own business purposes such as in-house marketing efforts, or to sell to direct mail or telemarketers. The Court’s ruling blocks retailers from “end-running” the law since readily accessible technology allows a cardholder’s ZIP code to be combined with the cardholder’s name to locate his or her full address. This accumulated information is then used by the retailer for its own purposes without the consumer’s consent, as alleged in the Williams-Sonoma case.
Retail and other businesses have a legitimate right to safeguard against fraud in connection with purchases by consumers. They still have the right to require positive identification as a condition to accepting a credit card such as a driver’s license or a state issued identification card. The store may match the name on the ID to the name on the credit card and visually compare the photo image on the ID to the presenting cardholder, provided that none of the information may be written or recorded, including the ZIP code.
The decision, entitled Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., is limited to card present transactions where the cardholder physically presents his or her card to the retailer. Some businesses may still legitimately request a ZIP code if the information is needed to complete the transaction. For instance, gas stations that require the customer to enter a zip code at the pump should still be able to do so assuming the oil company does not record the information and credit card processor requires the information to authorize the charge. ZIP code or other address information may still be collected if it is needed to complete the delivery of merchandise purchased at a store or via online transactions.
The decision was delivered on February 10, 2011. Since then, more than 100 class action suits have been filed against other major retailers including Big 5 Sporting Goods, Bed Bath & Beyond, JC Penney, Kohl’s, Office Depot and WalMart. The circumstances related to some of these businesses may be different than the Williams-Sonoma decision. Consequently, we expect that the outcomes in some of the new cases will vary. Many of the suits were filed in San Francisco County Superior Court in early March including cases against Pier 1 Imports, Sephora, T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, Urban Outfitters, Coach, Pottery Barn, Sur La Table and West Elm.
Questions regarding the business implications of Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma should be directed to Jonathan D. Joseph at Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation.
© Joseph & Cohen, Professional Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA – September 30, 2010. Joseph Law Corporation announced today that it has expanded its banking law expertise through the addition of Marie F. Hogan as Of Counsel to the firm. Ms. Hogan brings more than thirty years of high level banking experience to the firm with a core emphasis on representing commercial banks and financial service companies in connection with mortgage lending, bank operations, loan workouts, consumer law and compliance, credit and debit cards as well as bankruptcy and insolvency matters.
“We are extremely pleased that Marie Hogan is teaming up with Joseph Law. Her depth of industry knowledge as well as her hands-on experience in consumer compliance, loan workouts, regulatory and mortgage lending will benefit our clients in this post Dodd-Frank era. Marie really rounds out our ability to offer complete legal solutions to financial institutions,” said Jonathan Joseph, the firm’s chief executive officer.
Marie Hogan brings to Joseph Law Corporation many years of working hand in hand with the business people who develop necessary and useful financial products for their customers. In a regulated industry, Marie Hogan has the skills to navigate the many new regulations that will be enacted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. The firm will now offer Ms. Hogan’s services to our banking clients to enable them to bring cutting edge products to the market and to help them comply with numerous new consumer, lending and other regulatory requirements.
Marie Hogan’s experience has included senior positions at Bank of America, World Savings and Schwab Bank. Ms. Hogan also served as chair of the Executive Committee of the Business Law Section of the California State Bar in 1998 and as a member or advisor to the Executive Committee from 1994 to the present. Marie Hogan is currently also a member of the Consumer Financial Services Committee of the State Bar’s Business Law Section.
Joseph Law Corporation is an AV® rated firm based in California that emphasizes complex banking, corporate, regulatory, securities and transactional matters for financial institutions, entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and venture capital firms. Joseph Law 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, please visit the firm’s website at www.josephlawcorp.com or call Jon Joseph at 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.
Kenneth Sayre-Peterson is a Partner of Joseph & Cohen with a focus on banking regulation, credit unions, money transmitters, securities, trust and bank enforcement matters. He joined Joseph & Cohen in 2012 following his retirement from the California Department of Financial Institutions (DFI), where he served in various legal capacities during a twenty-two year career.
Mr. Sayre-Peterson acted as the General Counsel for the California Department of Financial Institutions from June 2007 until his retirement in November 2011. He was responsible for assisting the DFI’s Legislative Section and spearheaded a four year project culminating in the restatement of California’s Banking Law which was codified as part of the California Financial Code in January 2012. As part of this project, he drafted substantially all of relevant the enabling legislation.
Throughout his DFI career, Mr. Sayre-Peterson practiced general financial institutions law which resulted in an intimate knowledge of state and federal banking law, credit unions, regulatory and enforcement issues, money transmitter matters, securities and trust laws, as well as the corresponding federal laws. In this capacity, He played a significant role in many troubled bank resolutions and worked closely with senior regulatory staff at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Reserve Bank. While serving as the DFI’s General Counsel, he influenced the Department’s policy making process including the direction and scope of its examination and enforcement programs.
Mr. Sayre-Peterson is a member of the Consumer Financial Services Committee of the State Bar of California’s Business Law Section. He has been a featured speaker and panelist at numerous legal and banking seminars throughout his career including the Western Independent Bankers Association, the Bankers Compliance Group, the California Bankers Association, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the California Credit Union League. As the lead DFI attorney, he was an advisory member of the Financial Institutions Committee of the State Bar of California’s Business Law Section. Prior to joining the DFI in 1988, he worked as staff tax counsel for four years with the California State Board of Equalization. Before entering state service, he specialized in appellate work and lobbying while in private practice in Sacramento.
Mr. Sayre Peterson has been a member of the State Bar of California since 1983 following graduation, with distinction, from McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 1977.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.