A federal district judge recently denied a motion to dismiss filed by the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in a lawsuit brought by the New York State Department of Financial Services, which challenged the OCC's decision to begin accepting applications from fintech companies for special purpose national bank charters.
The five US federal agencies responsible for implementing the Volcker Rule have individually released a related notice of proposed rulemaking. The notice proposes amendments to the Volcker Rule regulations that would implement two statutory changes required by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. Comments in response to the notice must be received by the agencies within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register.
In the recent election, the Democrats captured a majority in the House of Representatives and Representative Maxine Waters (D-Calif) is now in line to lead the House Financial Services Committee. As such, it is expected that a significant shift in legislative efforts relating to the financial services industry will occur. During the first Financial Services Committee hearing since the election, Waters announced that deregulation efforts are finished.
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.
Sutter Health recently filed a motion to dismiss the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) complaint in intervention in a False Claims Act suit which alleged that Sutter had knowingly submitted and caused the submission of unsupported diagnoses codes for Medicare Advantage patients in order to inflate Medicare reimbursements. Sutter's motion reflects the industry's continued resistance to the DOJ's enforcement under the False Claims Act on the basis of potentially unsupported diagnoses codes for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, without more evidence.
In a recent opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in the US Department of Justice concluded that an article intended to effectuate capital punishment by a state or the federal government is not subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The OLC's opinion appears to have been issued as a result of litigation involving the FDA's obligation to block the entry of misbranded and unapproved drugs used under state lethal injection protocols.
In a recent decision, the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of qui tam claims, reasoning that the relator's allegations had satisfied Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other things, the defendant contended that the court's intervention is necessary to resolve a deep circuit split on whether Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement can be relaxed where a defendant exclusively holds the information necessary to state a claim.
The Supreme Court recently heard an oral argument in a case that appears likely to resolve a circuit split on a question of critical importance: in non-intervened False Claims Act cases, are relators entitled to invoke the act's alternative 10-year statute of limitations? Clarification of the circuit split on the availability of the 10-year statute of limitations will have a significant impact on False Claims Act cases throughout the United States.
The Third Circuit recently affirmed and vacated in part a district court ruling granting the United States' motion for summary judgment. The case raised, among other things, the issue of whether an individual without any ownership interests in a company can face False Claims Act liability for the company's failure to perform a required act to qualify for reimbursement and whether an unsworn statement is sufficient to create a material issue of fact when weighed against facts admitted during a plea colloquy.