Vol. XXXIV, No. 15 UCC Article 12 - Security Interests in Digital AssetsI. Introduction With the passage of LB 649 (Nebraska Financial Innovation Act) in 2021 by the Nebraska Legislature, Nebraska adopted the then current “draft” of Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 12 as proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The new law addresses the perfection and priority of security interests in digital assets. The provisions of UCC Article 12 and accompanying amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code take effect on July 1, 2022. II. Perfecting an Interest in Personal Property Digital assets constitute personal property. Perfection of a security interest in personal property under Article 9 of the UCC can generally be accomplished by filing a UCC-1 financing statement, by taking control of the property, or by taking possession of the property. While Article 9 lists a number of different property types, digital assets are not included. III. Perfecting an Interest in Digital Assets Under Current Article 9 - (Pre-July 1, 2022) Individuals and entities currently own digital assets such as cryptocurrency or non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Individuals or entities with borrowing needs may want to pledge their digital assets as collateral for a loan. Lenders willing to accept digital assets as collateral have raised questions regarding the manner in which to perfect a security interest in the digital assets. Generally, a cryptocurrency is a digital medium of exchange that operates on blockchain technology. A blockchain is essentially a distributed database that allows transactions to be permanently recorded without the need for a central authority or trusted third-party to clear or verify the transaction and provides digitally authenticated record-keeping. In effect, cryptocurrency is a digital, decentralized "money" that has its transaction history recorded on a publicly-available ledger. NFTs use block chain to record and authenticate ownership of unique tangible and intangible assets such as digital collectibles. Unlike cryptocurrency, each NFT is intended to be unique and no two are alike–hence the name “non-fungible” token. NFTs authenticate ownership of digital art and are also used to identify the location of a file such as a piece of digital artwork or audio clip. Cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens are generally referred to as digital assets, which constitute the category of assets issued and transferred using the blockchain. Because Article 9 does not include a separate classification for digital assets, some lenders have treated them as “general intangibles” - which are perfected by filing a UCC-1 financing statement. Others treat digital assets as “investment property” (securities, entitlements, and commodity contracts) - which can be perfected by filing a UCC-1 or by control, with control being the preferred method for perfection. However, it is uncertain under current law whether “control” of the digital wallet for a digital asset is sufficient to perfect a security interest. While filing a UCC-1 may perfect a lender’s security interest in most digital assets, lenders should also consider taking steps to ensure that they will be able to obtain possession and control over the collateral if the need to exercise its remedies against the collateral should arise in the event of default, such as conducting a sale or other disposition of the digital assets serving as collateral. IV. LB 649 - UCC Article 12 - Security Interest in Digital Assets A. Introduction The provisions of UCC Article 12 adopted in Nebraska may be viewed at https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/browse-ucc.php. Among other things, the provisions of UCC Article 12 update the UCC by:
In general, UCC Article 12 provides that a security interest in digital assets or CERs can be accomplished by filing a UCC-1 and/or by controlling the asset. They also provide that a lender that has perfected by control takes priority over a lender that has perfected by filing a UCC-1 but does not have control. For purposes of UCC Article 12, control occurs when a person has (1) the power to enjoy substantially all of the benefits of the CER, (2) the exclusive power to prevent others from enjoying substantially all of the benefits of the CER, and (3) the exclusive power to transfer control of the CER. Article 12 of the UCC is designed to address a limited set of transactions primarily involving emerging technologies, such as virtual (non-fiat) currencies, and distributed ledger technologies (so-called digital assets). Article 12 addresses concerns regarding the lack of definitive rules under the current UCC for transactions involving digital assets, including rules relating to the negotiability of virtual (non-fiat) currencies and the difficulties of secured lending against digital assets, including virtual currencies. Article 12 establishes rules for a class of digital assets – defined as “controllable electronic records” (CERs) – which includes certain virtual (non-fiat) currencies, nonfungible tokens, and digital assets in which specified payment rights are embedded. The amendments allow CER to be transferred in a manner that cuts off competing property claims (including security interests) to the CER. (“take-free” rule) B. Perfection The new provisions of UCC Article 12 provide for a security interest in a CER to be perfected by “control” (or by filing a financing statement) and for a security interest perfected by “control” to have priority over a security interest in the CER perfected only by the filing of a financing statement (or another method other than “control”). C. Definition of "Controllable Electronic Record" (CER) Article 12 covers only digital assets that are controllable electronic records. A controllable electronic record is a record in electronic form that is susceptible to “control.” (e.g., bitcoin). D. Control For a person to have "control" of a CER, the person must have
The person with control must be able to readily identify itself to a third-party as the person having this power. Identification may be made by a cryptographic key or account number. The exclusivity requirement is satisfied even if there is a sharing of these powers. Comments to proposed Article 12 include the following language: A virtual (non-fiat) currency would be an example of a CER. If a person owns an electronic “wallet” that contains a virtual currency, the person would have control of virtual currency if (a) the person may benefit from the use of the virtual currency as a medium of exchange by spending the virtual currency or exchanging the virtual currency for another virtual currency; (b) the person has the exclusive power to prevent others from doing so; and (c) the person has the exclusive power to transfer control of the virtual currency to another person. Digital assets are stored electronically in what is known as a digital wallet that can only be accessed by using a private key (similar to a password). Without the private key, lenders are unable to access the asset following a default. In order to protect their interests, lenders should consider either acquiring the private key upon execution of the security agreement or having the private key turned over to a third-party custodian to be held in escrow. Merely having access to the borrower’s private key will not prevent a borrower from transferring the asset to another digital wallet, such as a cold wallet, out of the lender’s reach. To minimize this risk, it has been suggested that borrowers transfer their NFTs or cryptocurrency to a digital wallet solely controlled by the lender or by using digital wallets that require more than one key to authorize transactions. Another type of secured wallet is a cold wallet, which is stored off-line and not connected to the Internet, making it more resistant to being hacked. Both of these methods have similarities to obtaining control over a securities or deposit account and provide assurances that the secured lender will have access to the collateral when it needs it. E. Transferee of a Controllable Electronic Record ("Take-Free" Rules) A “qualified purchaser” takes free of third-party claims (which may include both buyers and secured parties). If a CER is purchased (including obtaining a security interest in the CER), the purchaser requires all rights in the CER that the transferor had. Qualified purchaser - A purchaser who obtains control of a CER for value, in good faith, and without notice of a property claim to the CER (filing of a financing statement in and of itself is not notice of a property claim to the CER). Comments to UCC Article 12 provide as follows: Consider again the example of a person in control of a virtual (non-fiat) currency. If the person transfers control to another person, the transferee obtains whatever rights in the virtual currency that the transferor had. If the transferee is a “qualified purchaser” of the virtual currency, the transferee also benefits from the “take-free” rule. F. Tethering and Certain Payment Rights Establishing control over a CER does not “tether” to extrinsic rights and interests. As a result, if a CER does not have intrinsic value but rather derives its value from the tethered asset, control of the CER does not confer priority in the underlying tethered asset to the controlling party – just the rights in the controlling CER. An exception to this rule involves an “account” or “payment intangible,” (as those terms are defined in Article 9 of UCC) embodied under such circumstances. The “account” or “payment intangible” is a “controllable account” or “controllable payment intangible” if the account debtor (the person obligated on the account or payment intangible) has agreed to pay the person in control of the CER. If control of the CER with an embedded controllable account or controllable payment intangible is transferred, the controllable account or controllable payment intangible accompanies the CER, and the transferee is eligible to benefit from the same “take-free” rule that applies to the CER. G. Discharge of Account Debtor Similar to the rules under current UCC Article 9 relating to accounts and payment intangibles, an account debtor (the obligor on an account or payment intangible) receives a discharge by paying the person formerly in control until the account debtor receives a notification signed in writing or electronically by the debtor or its secured party that the secured party has a security interest in the controllable account or controllable payment intangible and a payment instruction (“deflection notification”) to pay the secured party as the person now in control. Following receipt of the deflection notification, the account debtor may obtain a discharge only by paying the secured party and may not obtain a discharge by paying the debtor. Also, similar to current UCC Article 9, the debtor may ask for reasonable proof that the secured party is the person in control prior to paying the secured party. However, unlike current Article 9, for a controllable account or controllable payment intangible the method of providing that reasonable proof must have been agreed to by the account debtor. Absent an agreed method of providing reasonable proof, the deflection notification is not effective, and the account debtor may obtain a discharge by continuing to pay the debtor. H. Scope of Coverage-Exclusions If an electronic record is not susceptible to control, it is outside the scope of the proposed amendments. Excluded from coverage under UCC Article 12 are electronic chattel paper, electronic documents, investment property, transferable records under the federal E-Sign law or the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, deposit accounts, and to some extent, electronic money. I. Applicability UCC Article 12 applies to any transaction involving a controllable electronic record that arises on or after July 1, 2022 and does not apply to any transaction involving a controllable electronic record that arises before July 1, 2022, even if the transaction would be subject to UCC Article 12 if the transaction had arisen on or after July 1, 2022. UCC Article 12 does not apply to a right of action with regard to any transaction involving a controllable electronic record that has accrued before July 1, 2022. J. Savings Clause Any transaction involving a controllable electronic record that arose before July 1, 2022, and the rights, obligations, and interests flowing from that transaction are governed by any statute or other rule amended or repealed by Laws 2021, LB 649, as if such amendment or repeal had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other rule. K. Conclusion The limitation of the applicability of UCC Article 12 to transactions involving a controllable electronic record arising on or after July 1, 2022 and the savings clause described above provide protections for pre-July 1, 2022 security interests in digital assets. However, the uncertainty surrounding the manner in which a security interest in digital assets is to be perfected under current UCC Article 9 and concerns regarding the ability of lenders to exercise their remedies against digital assets serving as collateral should move lenders with a such a security interest to take steps to obtain possession and control of the collateral. Lender should take control of the digital wallet by (a) acquiring the private key or having the private key turned over to a third-party custodian to be held in escrow; (b) requiring the borrower to transfer their NFTs or cryptocurrency to a digital wallet solely controlled by the lender; or (c) requiring use of digital wallets that require more than one key to authorize transactions. Full-Text PDF The foregoing Compliance Update is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. As a reminder, the NBA general counsel is the attorney for the Nebraska Bankers Association, not its member banks. The general counsel is available to assist members with finding resources to help answer their questions. However, for specific legal advice about specific situations, members must consult and retain their own attorney.
Vol. XXXIV, No. 14 OCC-SAR Exemptions (National Banks and Federal Savings Associations)I. Introduction To help banks develop more efficient and effective Bank Secrecy Act compliance programs, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has finalized a rule that would allow the agency to issue exemptions from Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) requirements in certain circumstances. Under the final rule, national banks seeking an exemption must submit a request in writing to the OCC. In reviewing these requests, the OCC will consider whether the exemption is consistent with the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act and with safe and sound banking, and may consider any other appropriate factors, including outstanding supervisory concerns regarding BSA/AML compliance. Institutions would also need to seek an exemption separately from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The final rule will enable the OCC to facilitate changes required by the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, and will also make it possible for the OCC to grant relief to national banks or federal savings associations that develop innovative solutions intended to meet Bank Secrecy Act requirements more efficiently and effectively. The FDIC and Federal Reserve have also issued separate proposals regarding SAR exemptions. The rule took effect on May 1, 2022. The foregoing Compliance Update is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. As a reminder, the NBA general counsel is the attorney for the Nebraska Bankers Association, not its member banks. The general counsel is available to assist members with finding resources to help answer their questions. However, for specific legal advice about specific situations, members must consult and retain their own attorney.
Vol. XXXIV, No 13 CFPB Advisory Opinion - Coverage of Fair Lending LawsThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has published an advisory opinion to affirm that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) bars lenders from discriminating against customers after they have received the loan, not just during the application process. The ECOA bans credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, and age. It also protects those who are receiving money from any public assistance program or exercising their rights under certain consumer protection laws. The CFPB advisory opinion and accompanying analysis clarifies that the ECOA protects people from discrimination in all aspects of a credit arrangement. Among other things, the advisory opinion states that the ECOA:
The foregoing Compliance Update is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. As a reminder, the NBA general counsel is the attorney for the Nebraska Bankers Association, not its member banks. The general counsel is available to assist members with finding resources to help answer their questions. However, for specific legal advice about specific situations, members must consult and retain their own attorney.
Vol. XXXIV, No. 12 CFPB - Mitigating Harm From Repossession of AutomobilesI. Introduction The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued a Compliance Bulletin regarding repossession of vehicles, and the potential for violations of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's (Dodd-Frank Act's) prohibition on engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices when repossessing vehicles. The CFPB has issued the Bulletin to remind market participants about certain legal obligations with regard to auto repossession practices under federal consumer financial laws. Loan holders and servicers are responsible for ensuring that their repossession – related practices, and the practices of their service providers, do not violate the law. The CFPB intends to hold loan holders and services accountable for UDAAPs related to the repossession of consumers’ vehicles. The Bulletin became applicable on March 3, 2022. II. Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices in Supervision and Enforcement Matters Under the Dodd-Frank Act, all covered persons or service providers are prohibited from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in violation of the Act. An act or practice is unfair when (i) it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; (ii) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and (iii) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits two types of abusive practices. First, materially interfering with the ability of the consumer to understand a term or condition of a product or service is abusive. Second, taking unreasonable advantage of statutorily-specified market imbalances is abusive. Those market imbalances include (1) the consumer’s lack of understanding of the material risks, costs or conditions of a product or service, (2) a consumer’s inability to protect their interests in selecting or using a product or service, or (3) a consumer’s reasonable reliance on a covered person to act in their interests. A. Unfair or Deceptive Practices During the Repossession Process In its Supervisory and Enforcement work, the CFPB has found the following conduct related to repossession of automobiles to be UDAAPs.
B. Other Practices Causing Wrongful Repossession Supervision has also identified other practices related to repossession that resulted in unfair acts or practices. For example, the Bankruptcy Code imposes an automatic stay that bars collection activity, including repossession, from the moment a consumer has filed a bankruptcy petition. Supervision found that when servicers received notice that consumers had filed bankruptcy petitions and their accounts were subject to an automatic stay, the servicers committed an unfair act or practice by repossessing vehicles subject to such automatic bankruptcy stays. Additionally, Supervision has identified that servicers committed an unfair act or practice by wrongfully repossessing vehicles after communicating inaccurate information. For example, Supervision has found that some servicers sent consumers letters stating that loans would not be considered past due if the consumer paid the amount due by a specific date. Consumers reasonably expected the servicers not to repossess before the date listed in the letter. When the servicers repossessed the vehicles prior to that date, they committed an unfair act or practice. C. Representations of Amounts Owed Supervision has also identified that servicers committed deceptive acts or practices by failing to provide consumers with accurate information about the amount required to bring their accounts current. For example, when consumers called to determine what amount would bring their accounts current, servicing personnel erroneously represented to consumers an amount due that was less than what was actually owed. As a result of this misrepresentation, consumers paid an amount insufficient to avoid delinquency and the consequences of delinquency. This later led to repossessions that would not have occurred had consumers received accurate information. This conduct was deceptive because the servicer told consumers that an amount would bring their accounts current when, in fact, that amount would not bring their account current. III. Unfair or Deceptive Practices That May Lead to Repossession The following are examples of practices that lead to repossession of consumers' vehicles that the CFPB has considered to be UDAAPs. A. Applying Payments in a Different Order Than Disclosed to Consumers, Resulting in Repossession Payment application for auto loans is governed by the finance agreements between servicers and consumers. Supervision has found that entities engaged in a deceptive act or practice when they made representations to consumers that payments would be applied in a specific order, and then subsequently applied payments in a different order. For example, Supervision found that servicers represented on their websites that payments would be applied to interest, then principal, then past due payments, before being applied to other charges, such as late fees. Instead, the servicers applied partial payments to late fees first, in contravention of the methodology disclosed on the website. Because servicers applied payments to late fees first, some consumers were deemed more delinquent than they would have been under the disclosed payment allocation order, and these servicers repossessed some consumers’ vehicles. Under these circumstances, servicers’ websites provided inaccurate information about payment allocation order. In some instances, the underlying contract provided the servicer the right to apply payments in any order, which did not immunize the company from liability for the deceptive website content. B. Unlawful Fees That Push Consumers into Default and Repossession The CFPB has found that an entity engaged in an unfair act or practice by operating its force-placed insurance (FPI) program in an unfair manner, in some instances resulting in repossession. The entity purchased duplicative or unnecessary FPI policies and, in some instances, maintained the policies even after consumers had obtained adequate insurance and provided adequate proof of coverage. This conduct caused the entity to charge consumers for unnecessary FPI, resulting in additional fees, and in some instances delinquency or loan default. For some consumers the additional costs of unnecessary FPI contributed to a default that resulted in the repossession of a consumer’s vehicle. Charging unnecessary amounts to consumers and subjecting them to default and repossession caused or was likely to cause substantial injury. This injury was not reasonably avoidable and was not outweighed by countervailing benefits. C. Unfair Practices That May Result in Illegal Fees After Repossession The following are examples of practices that led to illegal fees after repossession of consumers' vehicles that the Bureau has considered to be UDAAPs.
IV. Conclusion The CFPB will continue to closely review the practices of entities repossessing automobiles for potential UDAAPs, including the practices described above. The CFPB will use all appropriate tools to hold entities accountable if they engage in UDAAPs in connection with these practices. The foregoing Compliance Update is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. As a reminder, the NBA general counsel is the attorney for the Nebraska Bankers Association, not its member banks. The general counsel is available to assist members with finding resources to help answer their questions. However, for specific legal advice about specific situations, members must consult and retain their own attorney.
|
STAY CONNECTED |
nEBRASKA bANKERS aSSOCIATION233 South 13th Street, Suite 700
PO Box 80008 Lincoln, NE 68501-0008 402-474-1555 Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy |