BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
X-WR-CALNAME:Articles
PRODID:-//Sitemason, Inc//Sitemason Calendar//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:US-Central
LAST-MODIFIED:19870101T000000Z
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16011104T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0600
TZNAME:CST
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010311T020000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3
TZOFFSETFROM:-0600
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:CDT
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:http://www.sitemason.com/element/d4rutj0/id/11209
SUMMARY:Supreme Court Gives Green Light to States for Consumer-Protection and  Fair-Lending Laws
DESCRIPTION:   Score one for state  oversight of national banks.  States can now challenge the practices of national  banks through judicial enforcement actions.  On June 29\, 2009 the United States  Supreme Court cleared the way for states to enforce their own  consumer-protection and fair-lending laws against national banks.  Historically\,  asserted pre-emption under the National Bank Act (NBA) prevented states from enforcing these laws.  National banks can  expect a substantial increase in law enforcement actions and a hodgepodge of  regulations and laws likely to impact the way they conduct  business. \nThe Supreme Court\, in a 5-4 ruling\, held that  the National Bank Act does not pre-empt state law enforcement of national banks\,  and the Comptroller’s regulation professing pre-emption of state law enforcement  with respect to national banks is not a reasonable interpretation of the  NBA.\n In 2005\, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sent  letters to several national banks requesting the disclosure of certain  non-public information regarding their lending practices “in lieu of subpoena.”   Spitzer was investigating whether the national banks had violated New York’s  fair-lending laws.  Subsequently\, the Comptroller and the Clearing House  Association\, L.L.C. brought suit to enjoin the information request against  Spitzer’s successor in office\, Andrew Cuomo.  The district court granted the  Comptroller’s requested injunction and prohibited the state attorney general  from enforcing state fair-lending laws through demands for records or judicial  proceedings.  The Second Circuit affirmed the decision\, and the U.S. Supreme  Court subsequently agreed to hear arguments on the matter. \n The issue before the  Supreme Court was whether the “Comptroller’s regulation purporting to pre-empt  state law enforcement” could be upheld as a reasonable interpretation of the  NBA.  The Court held that the regulation was unreasonable to the extent that it  claimed pre-emption of state law enforcement against national banks through  judicial enforcement actions.\n The Court noted the  ambiguity of the term “visitorial powers” in the NBA. Generally\, visitorial  powers are those powers associated with a sovereign’s oversight and supervision  of corporations.  The Court afforded the Comptroller deference with respect to  its interpretation of the term “visitorial powers.”  The Court determined\,  however\, that the Comptroller’s regulation interpreting the meaning of  “visitorial powers” was expansive and unreasonable\, because the regulation  sought to encompass ordinary state law enforcement against national banks under  the umbrella term of “visitorial powers.”  The Court cited a line of precedent  in support of the argument that “visitorial powers” are “separate from the power  to enforce the law.”  The Court noted that “if the Comptroller’s exclusive  exercise of visitorial powers precluded law enforcement by the States\, it would  also preclude law enforcement by federal agencies.”  The Court opined that such  a result would be absurd.\nThe Court noted the plain  requirement that exercise of law enforcement by states be “vested in the courts  of justice” in order to be exempt from the general ban on a state’s exercise of  supervisory power by the NBA.  Accordingly\, the Supreme Court affirmed the  injunction against the issuance of executive subpoenas\, but vacated the  injunction to the extent that it prohibited the state attorney general from  bring a judicial enforcement action.\nFor more information\, please contact  Larry  Childs [http\://www.wallerlaw.com/attorneys/2007/06/11/childs-larry-b.4775]\, Brian  Malcom [http\://www.wallerlaw.com/attorneys/2008/10/20/malcom-brian-j.4648] or any member of  Waller Lansden’s Financial  Services [http\://www.wallerlaw.com/services/financial_services/index] practice at  866-362-6380.\nThe opinions expressed in this bulletin are intended for  general guidance only.  They are not intended as recommendations for specific  situations.  As always\, readers should consult a qualified attorney for specific  legal guidance.\n
URL;VALUE=URI:
CATEGORIES:financial-services
CLASS:PUBLIC
SEQUENCE:1
DTSTAMP:20120208T094501
CREATED;TZID=US-Central:20090702T141728
LAST-MODIFIED;TZID=US-Central:20090702T141728
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20090702
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR