Archive for July, 2018

Today OCC Begins Accepting National Bank Charter Applications From FinTech Companies

It’s Tuesday in Grand Rapids. Beautiful mid-70s, a bit overcast and if you look carefully you can see the reflection of my shirt as I took the photo from my office window…

Today, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced it will begin accepting applications for national bank charters from fintech companies.



Joseph M. Ottin, Comptroller of the Currency gave the following remarks concerning Fintech Companies:

“The federal banking system must continue to evolve and embrace innovation to meet the changing customer needs and serve as a source of strength for the nation’s economy,” 

Mr. Ottin also commented that accepting applications from Fintech Companies:

helps provide more choices to consumers and businesses, and creates greater opportunity for companies that want to provide banking services in America.”


You can read the full press release here.

Fintech recap…

The prior OCC, Thomas Curry announced last year that OCC would move forward with considering applications from financial technology (fintech) companies to become special purpose national banks.


“The OCC published a paper discussing the issues and conditions that the agency will consider in granting special purpose national bank charters.” You can check that paper out here

What’s made clear from the press release is that “[e]very application will be evaluated on its unique facts and circumstances.


Fintech Charter: Praise, Debate, Criticism and a Lawsuit.

The propriety of a Fintech charter has been supported by the Fintech community in general.


As previously reported by Crowdfund InsiderBrian Peters, Executive Director of Financial Innovation Now  “a public policy coalition comprised of Amazon, Apple, Google, Intuit and PayPal” stated;

“FIN believes that payments and lending regulation needs streamlining for the modern era. We commend the

OCC’s leadership and vision in driving this regulatory discussion. The OCC has rightly concluded that its approach must evolve to ensure that all American consumers and small businesses are empowered with better access to the benefits of financial technology.”

According to Crowdfund Insider  “Fintech Charter could benefit innovative financial firms that can provide superior services at a lower cost for both consumers and businesses.”

That being said, the propriety of such action by the OCC has been questioned by others, and officially sued by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors as an “unprecedented, unlawful expansion of the chartering authority”- check out the Press Release from the CSBS back in April of last year.



Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.


I’ve previously talked about why fintech is so intriguing.

I’ve highlighted some fintech companies doing unique things in the past, like Lemonade.

a. taking a risk doing something different (being an innovator);

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others (being mission driven).


That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.


Questions? Comments?


Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka


Legal Update for Real Estate Investors Bidding at Foreclosure Sales.

Happy Friday, all.

Here’s a photo I took from this morning. Although the weather looks to be clearing up a little downtown this afternoon…



Real Estate Investors Bidding at Foreclosure Sale.

Real estate investors and lenders are under pressure to “get it right” when bidding at sheriff sales, especially in a real estate market like Grand Rapids – where good deals are getting harder to come by.

Some lenders/investors have tried some creative methods of recovery and made some interesting legal arguments in order to  maximize their profit at or after a foreclosure sale.


Complex legal issues can arise in a competitive market when there is money to be made.


What to Do with Surplus Funds?

One issue that comes up after the foreclosure sale – who is entitled to keep surplus funds?  How do you define “surplus funds”?

This issue has come up for clients of mine in the last few years. In the past, it seemed to me that there was general confusion on the part of everyone involved – Court Officers, Courts, and parties to a foreclosure.


The Michigan Court of Appeals decided these issues in a 2016 opinion – see the case Trademark Properties of Michigan, LLC v County of Macomb



What Will Court Officers Do with those funds?

I think this case is worth discussing since this particular case is posted on the Michigan Court Officers, Sheriffs, and Process Servers Association website

So if you want to know how a Court Officer is going to handle surplus funds – this case is probably good guidance.


Summary of Facts:

  • The mortgagor defaulted on her mortgage – property went to foreclosure sale.
  • The balance on the mortgage, including fees, interest, and costs, was $55,030.58.
  • The mortgagee, CitiMortgage, Inc. made a bid of $20,572.80 as an initial partial credit bid.
  • Trademark Properties, LLC (“TM Properties”) was the highest bidder with a bid of $31,572.80.
  • After the foreclosure sale, the mortgagor assigned her rights to any surplus proceeds to TM Properties.
  • TM Properties then filed a petition in  court for the return of surplus proceeds in the amount of $11,000, which was the difference between the initial credit bid and the final bid.



There are a couple of particular laws that come into play here:

I. Full Credit Bid

One general one to be aware of – the Full Credit Bid Rule – it basically stands for the proposition that: “An overbid at a Sheriff’s sale extinguishes the entire debt.” Pulleyblank v. Cape, 179 Mich.App. 690, 446 N.W.2d 345 (1989) (per curiam).

practically speaking, if the bank bid the entire amount that was owed, regardless of whether or not the fair market value of the property is worth less than what is owed, the bank cannot come after the borrower for a deficiency.


II. MCL 600.3252 – Surplus Funds After Foreclosure. 

That statute states in relevant part

If after any sale of real estate…there shall remain in the hands of the officer…making the sale, any surplus money after satisfying the mortgage on which the real estate was sold, and payment of the costs and expenses of the foreclosure and sale, the surplus shall be paid over by the officer…to the mortgagor…or assigns, unless at the time of the sale, or before the surplus shall be so paid over, some claimant or claimants, shall file with the person so making the sale, a claim…in which case the person so making the sale, shall forthwith upon receiving the claim, pay the surplus to, and file the written claim with the clerk of the circuit court of the county in which the sale is so made…


Essentially, TM Properties recognized that the Bank/mortgagee made a credit bid. The investor out bid the bank and claimed that the difference between the bank’s bid and the excess of what TM Properties bid was a “surplus“.

TM Properties acquired the mortgagor’s “interest” in the Property, which presumably included her rights to redeem the property AND any rights to any surplus funds.

TM Properties demanded payment of the “surplus” – the County claimed – there is no surplus!

The Trial Court agreed with the County.  TM Properties appealed.

The Court of Appeals was tasked to decide:

Whether the $11,000 difference between CitiMortgage’s initial credit bid and TM Properties’ successful bid constituted “surplus money after satisfying the mortgage on which the real estate was sold,” under MCL 600.3252. Opinion at page 2.

The Court went on to define “Surplus” and “satisfy” – since those terms are undefined in the statute. The Court held:

“MCL 6003242 provides that a surplus constitutes the differ
ence between the amount due on the mortgage note, plus costs and expenses, and the purchase price of the property at foreclosure sale. If the purchase price of the property is less than the amount due on the mortgage note and costs and expenses, then there is no surplus.”


In summary – the Bank did not make a full credit bid.  The Third Party purchaser, TM Properties did not purchase the property for more than what was owed on the Mortgage, plus foreclosure costs.  As such, there was no surplus.


Questions? Comments?


Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Michigan Non Profit Corporations: 2018 Annual Statement Filing Deadline is October 1. Stay in Good Standing and Maintain your Corporate Formalities.

Good morning, all. I hope you are enjoying the summer. It is most definitely my favorite time to be in Michigan.

Today I received an e-mail from The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs(“LARA”) reminding that all annual statements and reports for Non Profit Corporations are due October 1, 2018.

2017-09-01 18.01.03


At the end of last year LARA transitioned to an

electronic filing system – and disposed of the fax filing. This caused a significant delay in business filings – many of my clients experienced this headache first hand. See my post on this delay.


Per LARA’s announcement:

“There are a total of 62,202 Michigan nonprofit corporations and 1,582 foreign corporations that are receiving 2018 reports.”



“Annual reports must be filed no later than October 1 of each year and can be filed online at ”

For more information about LARA, please visit


Consequences for Failing to File:

LARA also reminds that:

“Section 922 of the NPA provides that if a domestic nonprofit corporation neglects or refuses to file a report or pay a fee required by this act for two years, the nonprofit corporation will be automatically dissolved.

It also provides that if a foreign nonprofit corporation neglects or refuses to file a report or pay a fee required by this act for one year, the nonprofit corporation’s certificate of authority is subject to revocation under section 1042.

“A nonprofit corporation that has been automatically dissolved or certificate of authority revoked is not entitled to a certificate of good standing; its corporate name will be available for use by another entity, and no document will be filed on behalf of the corporation.”

Is your Corporation in Good Standing?

Occasionally I will have a business client come in and I will ask – just to make sure – “is your business still in good standing?”

The common answer is “I think so.”

And of course, after I perform a quick internet check

with the State of Michigan it is all too common that I discover that either the Company is “not in good standing” or worse, the company has been dissolved automatically for failure to file annual statements.

In Conclusion:

Business owners, if you get these annual statements from the State of Michigan, or from your attorney – do not disregard them! Ma

intain your Corporate Formalities.

Questions? Comments?


Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Michigan Behind the Ball with Benefit Corporation Laws.

Good afternoon, all. It has been a while since my last post – I hope you all have been enjoying the summer.

I usually include in these posts a recent photo of downtown Grand Rapids where my office overlooks Rosa Parks Circle.

7.10 On one of my walks downtown last week I decided to take a different photo – the memorial of Rosa Parks – the courageous woman who  this part of downtown Grand Rapids is named after.

It is wonderful to see Rosa Parks, and all that she stood for, honored – prominently at the intersection of Monroe Center and Monroe Avenue.

People, particularly vulnerable people, who stand up for what is right, even in the face of fierce opposition, should be honored.




West Michigan is truly a unique place where business and philanthropy intersect unlike any other place.  Giving of time, talents and treasure to worthy causes is embedded in the culture of this community.


Because business as a force for good is part of the fabric of Grand Rapids, it only makes sense to me that social enterprises such as benefit corporations should be able to thrive in West Michigan.

BCorp Certification is Trending in Michigan…

Over the last several years more and more local businesses have becoming Certified B Corps through BLabs. West Michigan has the most concentration of BCorp businesses in the State.

Check out a March article from Rapid Growth Media on the strong presence of Bcorps in West Michigan.

Headlines in Grand Rapids have brought attention to the need for businesses to ask the question: Am I working to build a better community?


B-Corp certification is one way (certainly not the only way) for businesses to hold themselves accountable to being a good community partner.


Unfortunately, Michigan has no legal framework for BCorps – yet.



A few months back the State House tantalized social entrepreneurs, once again, with the possibility of benefit corporations (“Bcorps”) becoming a viable legal option to do business in the State of Michigan.

House Bills 5867, 5868 & 5869 were introduced on April 24, 2018, that would allow BCorps to be formed under Michigan Law.


There has been no movement on this bill.


Back almost two years ago the legislature proposed similar legislation which died in committee. For a review of the Former BCorp Bills, the House Fiscal Agency issued a Fiscal Analysis, check it out here. 


The Analysis provides good background on what the legislation would do. This is helpful for those who are not overly familiar with BCorps in general.



The latest proposed Bcorp Legislation

The current Bcorp legislation has some different language than the 2016 proposed language. I am assuming it conforms with the model BCorp Legislation. One difference is the definition of “general public benefit” to “specific public benefit” which would be defined under the new Bcorp law as:





Education on the “why” for BCorps.

Interested groups and local politicians have been educating the public on why BCorp laws would be a good thing for our state.

State Rep Hank Vaupe gave a discussion to a local chamber group on B-Corps two Septembers ago:

As Rep. Vaupe indicated “benefit corporations provide an opportunity for businesses to use the markets, rather than traditional charity giving, to advance their philanthropic missions.”



Michigan is behind the ball.


Over the last several years Michigan legislators have repeatedly introduced BCorp legislation – to no avail.

Check out this handout from Rep Barnett almost 8 years ago in support of the BCorp legislation he proposed in September 2010.

I found particularly interesting the very last section – it provides some comment on why some Michigan businesses may have been averse to the introduction of BCorp legislation. Feel free to read it and reach your own conclusions.


Michigan now ranks as one of the vast minority of states that has not enacted benefit corporation legislation.


Check out the Benefit Corporation website for a state by state legislative analysis.


Of particular note, just a few months back in February our neighboring State of Wisconsin has enacted Bcorp legislation.


I am hopeful for a more meaningful update on these Bills in the months to come…


Questions? Comments?

Connect with me on Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka