Archive

Archive for the ‘fintech’ Category

OCC’s Remarks on Fintech Charter – “A Work in Progress”

October 19, 2017 Leave a comment

It is already, Thursday. It has been a hectic week so far, so I thought I would include a photo I took of more peaceful and serene moments – Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Beautiful…

Back to the issue at hand,

2017-09-01 18.01.03

Today, Keith A. Noreika, Acting Comptroller of the Currency gave remarks concerning Fintech Companies at Georgetown University’s Fintech Week.

You can read Mr. Noreika’s remarks here

Fintech recap…

The prior OCC, Thomas Curry announced earlier this 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

 

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

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

 

As 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 Superviso

rs as an “unprecedented, unlawful expansion of the chartering authority”- check out the Press Release from the CSBS back in April.

 

The OCC’s present Stance on a Fintech Charter – a Work in Progress.

 

Mr. Noreika stated today that “If, and it is still an if, a fintech company 

 

has ambitions to engage in business on a national scale and meets the criteria for doing so, it should be free to seek a national bank charter.

 

It appears no action will be taken until at least the lawsuit is resolved.

“As for our initiative to use our authority to charter nondepository fintech companies, that remains a work in progress, and as you know that authority is also being challenged by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. Although we will defend our authority vigorously, we have not decided whether we will exercise that specific authority.”

 

Mr. Noreika also addressed some of the criticism of Fintech Charters.  I won’t go through his entire remarks, but he concludes by reassuring that any fintech comp

 

any approved would – at its core  – be a bank:

“The chartered entity, regulated by the OCC, would be a bank, engaged in at least one of the core activities of banking—taking deposits, paying checks,or making loans. The folks who suggest that the OCC is considering granting charters to nonfinancial companies are wrong.

 

 

Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.

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

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

 

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Advertisements

OCC’s Remarks on Fintech Charter and a “Conversation about Financial Innovation and Fintech”

Today, Keith A. Noreika, Acting Comptroller of the Currency gave remarks encompassing the topic of Responsible Financial Innovation and Fintech Companies.

2015-11-14 13.57.51You can read Mr. Noreika’s remarks here.

All the excitement surrounding fintech companies reminds me of something that gets me excited – college football, particularly Michigan State Spartan Football (thus, a photo from one of my past experiences at Spartan Stadium)

 

Back to Fintech, by way of recap…

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

 

Mr. Curry had this to say, in the past:

“Over the past year, no topic in banking and finance has drawn more interest than innovative financial technology, and for good reason. The number of fintech companies in the United States and United Kingdom has ballooned to more than 4,000, and in just five years investment in this sector has grown from $1.8 billion to $24 billion worldwide.

 

“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

 

Fintech Charter: Praise, Debate, and a Lawsuit.

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

 

As 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.

 

 

The OCC’s present Stance on a Fintech Charter

It appears no action will be taken until at least the lawsuit is resolved.

Mr. Noreika stated today that “at this point, the OCC has not determined whether it will actually accept or act upon applications from nondepository fintech companies for special purpose national bank charters that rely on this regulation. And, to be clear, we have not received, nor are we evaluating, any such applications from nondepository fintech companies.

Still, Mr. Noreika expressed his thoughts on the need for a fintech charter:

“I also believe that if you provide banking products and services, acting like a bank, you ought to be regulated and supervised like a bank. It is only fair, but today, that is not happening. Hundreds of fintechs presently compete against banks without the rigorous oversight and requirements facing national banks and federal savings associations.”

 

Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.

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

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Fintech Company “Lemonade” Following Through on Its Purpose Driven Mission.

In the past I have posted on Fintech Companies – and highlighted a few – namely Lemonade.  Below is an update on some exciting things Lemonade is doing.

2015-11-26-13-04-02

 

But as a threshold matter:

What is Fintech?

 

According to FinTech Weekly:

Financial technology, also known as FinTech, is a line of business based on using software to provide financial services. Financial technology companies are generally startups founded with the purpose of disrupting incumbent financial systems and corporations that rely less on software.

 

The idea of a business’ purpose of “disrupting incumbent”…anything is intriguing to me.

Some systems need to be disrupted. I have previously posted my own thoughts on being a disruptive force for good.

To that point, Lemonade seemingly fits the bill. Look no further than it’s mission statement on its homepage: “Instant everything. Killer prices. Big heart.

About Lemonade:

According to its website, Lemonade is the “World’s First P2P Insurance Company” (Peer-to-Peer).

Lemonade provides Renters and Homeowners Insurance to New

Yorkers.

According to a CrowdFundInsider article: “Lemonade has positioned its platform in a David vs. Goliath battle to challenge antediluvian insurance incumbents by providing a far better service at a superior price.”

Who doesn’t root for the underdog?

Technology Driven.

Shai Wininger, co-founder and President of Lemonade, explained to CrowdfundInsider that technology drives everything at Lemonade.

“From signing up to submitting a claim, the entire experience is mobile, sim

ple and remarkably fast. What used to take weeks or months now happens in minutes or seconds. It’s what you get when you replace brokers and paperwork with bots and machine learning.”

Disruptive Force for Good.

Daniel Schreiber, co-founder and CEO of Lemonade. told CrowdfundInsider “the opportunity is unusual. Disrupting an industry that has not changed for a hundred years ”

According to an article posted by Venture Beat:

Lemonade is also setting out to combat existing models through an annual “giveback,” where it donates unclaimed money to good causes.”

Talk is cheap.  Has Lemonade followed through on its actions?

Apparently so – in a very impressive way.

 

Lemonade’s 2017 GiveBack

Lemonade posted today that its Giveback for 2017 was $53,174:

this amounts to 10.2% of its 2017 revenue.

 

The article highlighted one such GiveBack recipient: New Story

“New Story builds safe homes for the homeless, and aims to transform slums into thriving communities in the developing world.”

 

“Through the Giveback to New Story, the Lemonade community built a new home for the Quitéño family, from start to finish. Now, the Quitéño family will have a safe home to return to every day, giving them a stable foundation to improve their health, education, and income.”

 

Conclusion.

Lemonade is doing some innovative work for the social good.

I love the concept of this startup –

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

If you are a homeowner or tenant residing in New York, this company is worth checking out.

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Michigan Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses: Crowdfunding Law Update.

Last year  Representative Tom Barrett introduced House resolution2015-11-26-13-04-02 235 (HR 235)

“to support the (SEC)’s recent adoption of rules…to facilitate small and start-up companies’ access to capital raised through crowdfunding.”

The resolution supports crowdfunding as viable tools for start-up businesses.

The resolution acknowledges:

Businesses in Michigan have greatly benefited from the opportunities created by the…Michigan Invests Locally Exemption (MILE) program. MILE has allowed everyday Michiganders, referred to as unaccredited investors, the ability to play a larger role in growing Michigan’s creative business ventures through Michigan-based crowdfunding platforms while still enjoying investor protections and security in their investments” (Emphasis added.)

 

Is Crowdfunding a Viable Option in Michigan?

Fast forward to today,  MIBiz recently reported that Michigan’s crowdfunding law hasn’t gained much traction

However, it may remain a viable tool for cash-strapped startups and the Michigan legislature has not given up on it.

 

Yesterday the Michigan House passed HB 4035 that amended the Michigan Invests Locally Exemption to Intrastate Crowdfunding.

 

According to yesterday’s announcement from the Michigan House Republican Website:

The amendments contained in HB 4035 “will expand the program so people can also invest in small businesses primarily doing business in the state and allows Michigan’s law to remain active under new Federal regulations

You can check out the House Fiscal Agency’s Analysis Here

The HB now moves to the Senate Commerce Committee for consideration.

 

Entrepreneurs and Start-ups:

 

Proponents of Crowdfunding: access to capital.

A while back Candace Klein Chief Strategy Officer at DealStruck was Interviewed by CrowdfundInsider and talked about how small business might benefit from crowdfunding. She had this to say, in part:

“Most businesses are community-based, and have an immediate impact for those in their community, whether geographic or industry-based.  Crowdfunding brings these companies together with the everyday investors in their communities.”

 

Crowdfunding for Social Enterprise?

I agree. As I’ve previously written about, crowdfunding appears to be a viable tool for community based businesses.

People are willing to invest in projects that will enhance their local community.

This is what makes local equity-based crowdfunding attractive for social entrepreneurs.

This is what makes local equity-based crowdfunding attractive for social entrepreneurs.

 

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

www.dwlawpc.com

Business Law Update: Michigan Supreme Court’s May 15, 2017 Decision on Minority Oppression

 

There are relatively few court opinions covering the Michigan Limited Liability Company Act. There have been even less on the issue of minority oppression claims.

It has been almost 3 years since the Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion in the  Madugula v Taub  case on Michigan’s shareholder/member oppression statutes.

The Madugula clarified that a claimant is not entitled to a jury a trial undmoney-73341_640er the Act; and breach of a Shareholder/Operating Agreement can be evidence of “oppressive” conduct.

On May 15, 2017 the Michigan Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Frank, et al v. Linkner, et al.

In summary, the Supreme Court held:

  • that MCL 450.4515(1)(e) provides alternative statutes of limitations, one based on the time of discovery of the cause of action and the other based on the time of accrual of the cause of action; and
  • That a cause of action for LLC member oppression accrues at the time an LLC manager has substantially interfered with the interests of a member as a member, even if that member has not yet incurred a calculable financial injury. See Frank, id. page 1.

 

The facts of Frank are admittedly, interesting (and unfortunate if you are the Plaintiffs):

Facts:

  • Defendant ePrize was founded by defendant Joshua Linkner in 1999 as a Michigan LLC specializing in online sweepstakes and interactive promotions.
  • Plaintiffs are former employees of ePrize who acquired ownership units in ePrize.
  • Plaintiffs allege Linkner orally promised them that their interests in ePrize would never be diluted or subordinated.
  • In 2005, plaintiffs’ shares in ePrize were converted into shares in ePrize Holdings, LLC.
  • In 2007, ePrize ran into financial difficulties and required an infusion of cash.
  • To remedy this problem, ePrize obtained $28 million in loans in the form of “B Notes” from various defendantmembers of ePrize and other investors;
  • plaintiffs were not invited to participate in these investments.
  • In 2009, ePrize remained struggling to meet its loan obligations and therefore issued new “Series C Units.”
  • These units were offered to various investors, including those who had obtained B Notes.
  • In exchange for the Series C Units, investors were required, amo
    ng other things, to make capital contributions, guarantee a portion of a $14.5 million loan from Charter One Bank, and convert their B Notes into “Series B Units.”
  • On August 20, 2012, ePrize sold substantially all of its assets and, pursuant to the Operating Agreement, distributed nearly $100 million in net proceeds to the holders of Series C and Series B Units.
  • Plaintiffs received nothing for their common shares.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs sued on April 19, 2013 alleging among other claims, minority oppression under MCL 450.4515. The trial court dismissed the claims, indicating that they were “untimely” under the 3 year statute of limitation period. The Court of Appeals reversed. This matter then went to the Supreme Court.

 

 

In General – Michigan Minority Oppression Statute

Michigan law provides a cause of action against the shareholders/members who are in control of a company and oppressing minority owners:

Minority Shareholder Oppression, MCL 450.1489 (Minority Member Oppression, MCL 450.4515)

“A shareholder may bring an action…to establish that the acts of the directors or those in control of the corporation are:
illegal;
fraudulent;
or willfully unfair and oppressive to the corporation or to the shareholder.” 
“If the shareholder establishes grounds for relief, the circuit court may make an order or grant relief as it considers appropriate, including, without limitation,
an order providing for any of the following:
(a) The dissolution and liquidation of the assets and business of the corporation.
(b) The cancellation or alteration of a provision contained in the articles of incorporation, an amendment of the articles of incorporation, or the bylaws of the corporation.
(c) The cancellation, alteration, or injunction against a resolution or other act of the corporation…
Therefore, if a court finds that those in control of the business committed misconduct against a minority owner amounting to “oppression”, the Court has broad discretion to create the type of relief it deems is best.
Back to the Supreme Court’s Decision in Frank…
a. Statute of Limitations
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that:
“MCL 450.4515(1)(e) contains two alternative statutes of limitations:”
1. (2 years) predicated upon discovery of the cause of action and
2. the other (3 years) predicated upon accrual of the cause of action. Id. at pg 6.
The Supreme Court clarified that under the statute “A plaintiff has two years from the time he or she ‘discovers or reasonably should have discovered the cause of action” to bring a claim [under the minority oppression statute]”. Id pg 13. “…a plaintiff cannot bring a claim three years after accrual of the cause of action, even if he or she did not discover and reasonably would not have discovered the cause of action during that period.”
b. when does an oppression claim accrue?
The Plaintiffs/minority members argued that their claims “did not accrue until they first incurred a calculable financial injury after ePrize sold substantially all of its assets in 2012.” Id. pg 16. They reasoned that no monetary damages occurred until the company was liquidated. Id.
The Supreme Court, however reasoned that the “plaintiffs’ argument conflates monetary damages with ‘harm'”.  The Court held that:
the actionable harm for a member-oppression claim under MCL 450.1515 consists of actions taken by the managers that “substantially interfere with the interests of the member as a member,” and monetary damages constitute just one of many potential remedies for the harm.
Therefore, the Court held that :the Court of Appeals erred by focusing on the availability of monetary damages, rather than on when plaintiffs incurred ‘harm’.” The Court reversed the Court of Appeals on this issue. Id. 17.
“Once a plaintiff proves that a manager engaged in an action or series of actions that substantially interfered with his or her interest as a member, the “harm” has been incurred, and therefore the claim has accrued.” Id.
Application 
In application, the Supreme Court therefore found that the alleged harm occurred when the minority members’ interest were subordinated (in 2009) by amendment of the operating agreement and not when the sale occurred (in 2012). Id. at 20.
So, unless plaintiffs can show fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs’ claims for monetary damages are barred.

 

Take away for Business owners/Investors/Entrepreneurs:

 

1. Get an attorney involved before the business relationship begins and clearly document the business relationship, especially your shareholder/operating agreement. That will contain the exit strategy and relevant buy-out language. Further, any conduct the parties agree to in their shareholder/operating agreement will not be deemed “oppressive”. However, a breach of the agreement, may deemed interference with your rights sufficient to constitute “oppression” however, this is based on a highly fact-intensive analysis.

2. If you believe you are being frozen out of control/profits in a business – do not wait. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that your claim accrues when the harm occurs. Learn from the Frank Decision.  Michigan law gives you broad remedies, including the minority shareholder/member oppression statutes.

Questions?

Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Fintech Update: Disruption for Good. The OCC’s Remarks Yesterday to Fintech Innovators at LendIt USA in New York

Yesterday, 2015-11-26-13-04-02Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency gave remarks about Fintech Innovation at LendIT USA (The Worlds Biggest Show in Lending and Fintech) Conference in New York. You can read Mr. Curry’s remarks here.

Mr. Curry praised the innovative Fintech Companies who “have fueled healthy competition to modernize and improve how the nation’s financial services needs are met.

What I personally like is Mr. Curry’s emphasis on the opportunity Fintech has to reach the vulnerable in our communities.

According to Mr. Curry:

” Financial inclusion…brings those who are unbanked and underbanked into the fold, and too many of those individuals are concentrated in low- and moderate-income communities that are often the most vulnerable to financial difficulty and predatory practices.”

“What’s encouraging about (Fintech)is that there’s good data from the FDIC and others that suggest these communities that have been left out of the traditional system have higher adoption rates for new services that capitalize on emerging and mobile technologies”

 

****UPDATED

Check out the article by Crowdfund Insider  reporting on Curry’s address: “We Will Be Issuing Charters to Fintech Companies

 

Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.

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

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

Given the hot water that big banks continue to find themselves in, it isn’t surprising that a consumer friendly alternative is attractive, particularly to the vulnerable communities.

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka

Update on Fintech, Social Entrepreneurship and Special Purpose National Bank Charters for Fintech Companies.

January 19, 2017 1 comment

Last month, Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency gave remarks about Special Purpose National Bank Charters for Fintech Companies. You can read Mr. Curry’s remarks here.

Mr. Curry announced that the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) would move forward with considering applications from financial technology (fintech) companies to become special purpose national banks.

Mr. Curry had this to say, in part:2015-11-26-13-04-02

“Over the past year, no topic in banking and finance has drawn more interest than innovative financial technology, and for good reason. The number of fintech companies in the United States and United Kingdom has ballooned to more than 4,000, and in just five years investment in this sector has grown from $1.8 billion to $24 billion worldwide.

“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

Support for Special Purpose National Banks from the Fintech Community.

Today I read an article from CrowdFund Insider: Financial Innovation Now supports the OCC’s charter.

Financial Innovation Now is “a public policy coalition comprised of Amazon, Apple, Google, Intuit and PayPal”

Some heavy hitters.

As reported by Crowdfund Insider, Brian Peters, Executive Director of Financial Innovation Now, 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.”

Why Fintech Intrigues me – Purpose Driven.

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

a. taking a risk doing something different;

b. disrupting business as usual;

c. for the good of others.

That’s social entrepreneurship at its finest.

Given the hot water that big banks continue to find themselves in, it isn’t surprising that a consumer friendly alternative is attractive.

Questions? Comments?

e-mail: Jeshua@dwlawpc.com

http://www.dwlawpc.com

Twitter: @JeshuaTLauka