In July 2018 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced its decision to begin accepting applications from fintech companies for special purpose national bank charters (the Fintech Charter Decision). The New York State Department of Financial Services recently filed a federal court complaint seeking to enjoin further actions by the OCC to implement the Fintech Charter Decision and related actions, arguing that such acts are lawless, ill-conceived and destabilising for financial markets.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recently announced – to much anticipation – that it will begin accepting applications from fintech companies for special purpose national bank charters (commonly referred to as 'fintech charters'). However, state banking regulators are likely to once again challenge the OCC's authority to grant fintech charters, which could create some uncertainty for early applicants.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network recently issued new frequently asked questions regarding its customer due diligence (CDD) rule. The CDD rule applies to banks, among others, and includes four core elements of CDD, each of which should be included in anti-money laundering programmes.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has announced revisions to the Annual Report of Foreign Banking Organisations (FR Y-7) which will enable foreign banking organisations (FBOs) to certify their compliance with US risk committee and home country capital stress testing requirements under Regulation YY. The FR Y-7 is an annual report submitted by qualifying FBOs to provide financial, organisational, shareholder and managerial information to the board.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that California's statute prohibiting credit card surcharges violated the First Amendment as applied to the proposed surcharge practices of the merchant-plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit used the same reasoning as a recent Supreme Court case to hold that California's surcharge ban regulated speech rather than conduct, therefore posing First Amendment concerns.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) criminal office recently announced criminal charges against employees of an oil and gas operation for tampering with and disabling pollution controls and on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems on the company's truck fleet. The EPA and DOJ are expected to continue to shift towards mobile source enforcement, particularly regarding OBD systems.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry recently released a draft toxicological profile for perfluoroalkyl compounds which asserted that they may be harmful to human health at low levels. Due to their non-stick properties, perfluoroalkyl compounds have been used as non-stick coatings for cookware, as paper and cardboard surface coatings and in firefighting foam.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality recently published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, seeking comment on how best to update its implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act. The Trump administration has identified the National Environmental Policy Act process as a key contributor to slowing down infrastructure projects and has floated changes to it on several occasions.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved Oklahoma's proposed permitting programme for the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments, making the state the first to have a federally approved CCR disposal programme under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia recently enjoined the Environmental Protection Agency's rule defining the term 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act, which establishes the act's jurisdictional reach. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case and faced a substantial threat of irreparable injury without the preliminary injunction.
The US District Court for the District of Columbia recently vacated CMS's 2014 final overpayment rule, applicable to the Medicare Advantage programme, granting summary judgment to UnitedHealthcare that the final rule violated the Medicare statute, was inconsistent with the Affordable Care Act and the False Claims Act and violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Because the decision vacates the overpayment rule entirely, further rulemaking may be necessary.
The Sixth Circuit recently resurrected the relator's case in United States ex rel Prather v Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. In a two-to-one decision, the majority held that the relator's materiality and scienter allegations sufficed under Universal Health Services, Inc v United States ex rel Escobar. The gulf between the majority and the vigorous dissent by the judge reflects persistent questions about how Escobar applies at the pleading stage.
The Department of Justice has stepped in to defend a relator's attempt to use statistical sampling to prove False Claims Act liability, contending that if the government cannot utilise sampling in False Claims Act cases, "then defendants would be incentivized to commit fraud on a large scale". The resolution of this issue will have significant implications on the scope of False Claims Act claims going forward, particularly those based on lack of medical necessity.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) recently filed a complaint in intervention against a compounding pharmacy, alleging that it had violated the False Claims Act by paying illegal kickbacks to induce prescriptions for drugs reimbursed by TRICARE, the federal healthcare programme for active duty military personnel, retirees and their families. Notably, the DOJ was also pursuing claims against a private equity firm that had a substantial ownership stake in the pharmacy.
In its recent decision, the Second Circuit held that the relator's failure to plead sufficiently that the allegedly defrauded agency had changed its reimbursement practices after becoming aware of information supposedly withheld by the defendant doomed the complaint on materiality grounds. The decision underscores the significance of the materiality requirement at the motion to dismiss stage.