June 2008


From the editors of CCH’s Banking and Finance publications, this update describes significant developments covered in our products in recent reports, as well as product enhancements.

Past issues of the Banking and Finance Update, can be viewed on the Banking and Finance Web page at: http://business.cch.com/updates/bankingFinance.

If you have questions or comments concerning the information provided below, please contact the Banking and Finance Update editor at Serena.Lynn@ wolterskluwer.com.

The Hot Topic of the month is included below to provide guidance on researching an issue of current interest.

 

Subprime, Mortgage and Securitization Law Update


New Newsletter Debuts with Feature Story on Subprime Litigation
The first issue of the CCH Subprime, Mortgage and Securitization Law Update, a new newsletter covering the entire range of legal topics raised by the subprime lending crisis, is available in print and online on June 2, 2008. Federal and state legislative changes, court decisions, federal banking regulatory issuances, international developments and industry news on subprime lending and asset securitization issues will be covered in each monthly issue.

The inaugural issue leads with an article entitled Subprime Litigation Soars in First Quarter discussing the unprecedented surge of litigation brought on by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. In early 2007, a slew of suits were filed against loan originators. Subsequently, the path of subprime litigation has broadened to encompass real estate agents, title companies and real estate appraisers alleging a variety of predatory lending practices and securities violations based on misrepresentation in the loan origination process. Claims include charges that: excessive fees were financed into loan principal amounts; loans were issued regardless of a homeowner’s ability to pay; and loans were made with higher interest rates than the lowest rate for which the homeowner might be eligible. A more recent target of subprime litigation is accountants. As subprime litigation numbers continue to rise, banks and lenders are learning how to avoid, anticipate and prepare for litigation. Banks at risk are advised to make an exposure analysis.


Federal Banking Law Reporter


Senate Banking Panel Clears GSE Reform, Housing Bill
The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee has approved legislation intended to stem the foreclosure crisis by creating more affordable housing while also strengthening regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 calls for the Federal Housing Administration to insure up to $300 billion in new loans as long as the lenders agree to reduce the principal balances of the loans at risk of default. The bill will be financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through an affordable housing fund. In addition, the reform bill seeks to create a world-class regulator for the GSEs so that they continue to play a critical role in the housing market. "The primary goal here is to keep people in their homes, but also to establish a bottom, a floor to all this," Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said. He stressed that the Regulatory Reform Act will not require any input from taxpayers. This story appears in Letter No. 2268, May 22, 2008.


Bar Association Institute Focuses on Banking Risk Management
A good bank regulatory lawyer understands both the bank's appetite for risk and the regulatory agency's tolerance for risk and works to reconcile them, James E. Scott told the American Bar Association's 4th Annual National Institute on Banking Law II: Risk as the Centerpiece of Bank Regulation. The overall point of the institute was that, in the current climate, bank regulation is focused on managing risks that have become more diverse than only credit risk. Scott noted that risk managers now are dealing with many of the challenges that have faced compliance managers in the past, including training and reporting. He added that the regulators have their own risks to manage, including political risk. This story appears in Letter No. 2269, May 30, 2008.


Proposed Rules Would Address Credit Card, Overdraft Practices
The Federal Reserve Board, Office of Thrift Supervision and National Credit Union Administration have announced proposed rules to prohibit unfair practices regarding credit cards and overdraft services that would, among other provisions, protect consumers from unexpected increases in the rate charged on pre-existing credit card balances. The rules also would forbid banks from imposing interest charges using the "two-cycle" billing method, require that consumers receive a reasonable amount of time to make their credit card payments and prohibit the use of payment allocation methods that unfairly maximize interest charges. Protections for consumers that use overdraft services offered by their banks also are included.


Accepting Card Reload Funds Won't Make Merchants MSBs
Merchants and automated teller machine operators that accepted funds from customers and forwarded those funds to stored value card system members to reload the cards would not be money services businesses (MSBs), according to a recent ruling by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The administrative ruling addressed a nationwide stored value card system with roughly 5,700 financial institution members that have issued about 140 million cards. It was requested because the operating company planned to enhance the system to allow customers to reload the cards through the 1.9 million participating ATMs and merchants. Under the proposal, the merchants and ATM operators would not have the authority to reload the cards; rather, they would accept a customer's money and forward it to the appropriate financial institution. According to FinCEN's ruling, the member institution would determine whether the card could be reloaded and then credit the correct net amount to the card. FIN-2008-R005 is at ¶76-037.


Agencies Issue Proposed Rules on Risk-Based Pricing Notices
The Federal Reserve Board and Federal Trade Commission have proposed regulations that generally would require a creditor to provide a consumer with a risk-based pricing notice when, based in whole or in part on the consumer's credit report, the creditor offers or provides credit to the consumer on terms less favorable than the terms it offers or provides to other consumers. Risk-based pricing refers to the practice of using a consumer's credit report, which reflects his or her risk of nonpayment, in setting or adjusting the price and other terms of credit offered or extended to that particular consumer. Many creditors offer more favorable terms to consumers with better credit histories. The proposed rules would apply, with certain exceptions, to all creditors that engage in risk-based pricing. Under these rules, a risk-based pricing notice generally would be provided to the consumer after the terms of credit have been set but before the consumer becomes contractually obligated on the credit transaction. The joint agency notice is at ¶95-238.


FinCEN Proposes to Amend CTR Exemption Regulations
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would significantly simplify the current requirements for depository institutions wishing to exempt their eligible customers from currency transaction reporting. FinCEN is seeking to amend the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) regulation allowing depository institutions to exempt certain persons from the requirement to report transactions in currency in excess of $10,000, in accordance with the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) recent recommendations and FinCEN's independent research on the underlying issues. As the GAO highlighted in a February report, Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) provide unique and reliable information essential to supporting investigations and detecting criminal activity. The FinCEN notice is at ¶95-224.


Product Enhancements


Agency Letters and Opinions Available Under New Heading on IRN
A new publication heading “Federal Banking Law Reporter Agency Letters and Opinions” now appears on the CCH Internet Research Network to house Federal Reserve Board interpretations, Comptroller (OCC) Letters, FDIC Advisory Opinions, OTS General Counsel Opinions and FinCEN Rulings and Guidance. Agency opinion and letters had previously been housed in the Federal Banking Law Reporter Issuances publication, which has been renamed Federal Banking Law Reporter Regulatory Developments. The new structure will enable users to search Regulatory Developments for agency rulemaking action and notices or to search Letters and Opinions for agency guidance.


QuickCharts Highlights


New Current Developments QuickChart Available on IRN
The Federal Banking Law Reporter on the CCH Internet Research NetWork is enhanced with a new type of QuickChart at the beginning of June. The Current Developments QuickChart presents recent activity by document type and topic. Users can review recent rule amendments, proposals, agency guidance and court decisions. In addition, bill text and conference committee reports are provided for significant legislation. A topical breakdown within each category allows you to narrow your review by subject matter. A concise description of each development is provided. Banking agencies, courts and relevant date information are identified, including effective dates of rule amendments and comment dates on proposals. Results provide links to source materials, such as agency issuances, court decisions and legislative documents. Updates for recent periods (such as 7 days or 60 days) can be highlighted in yellow. The Current Developments QuickChart supplements the previously issued Federal Banking Topics QuickCharts on Bank Secrecy.


Consumer Credit Guide


Seventh Circuit Addresses FCRA Issues Surrounding “Firm Offer of Credit”
In an opinion deciding three consolidated cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has addressed a number of questions about what constitutes a "firm offer of credit" that gives a lender a permissible purpose to obtain consumer report information under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). One of the cases dealt with a cellular telephone company's offer of a free telephone to new subscribers, while the other two cases considered loan solicitations by national banks. The various consumers before the court challenged the businesses' conduct in several ways. They asserted that the solicitations did not qualify as “firm offers of credit” under the FCRA and that the telephone company willfully violated the FCRA by failing to give required disclosures clearly and conspicuously. The court rejected nearly all of the claims by the consumers. In addition, although the telephone company’s disclosures failed to meet the requirements of the FCRA, the lender's interpretation of the Act was not so reckless that it rose to the level of a willful violation. Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc (7thCir), ¶52,163.


Calculation of Attorney’s Fees Under FDCPA Examined
An award of more than $77,000 in attorneys' fees in a suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) has been reversed and returned to the trial court for reconsideration. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the award was based on an hourly rate that was too low and that did not properly take into account the other work the consumer's attorneys could have performed. The court also criticized the way in which attorney fees incurred in presenting the request for fees itself—so-called "fees on fees"—were calculated. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc. (9thCir) ¶52,164.


State Law Update


Kentucky: Legislation enacted in response to the current subprime lending and mortgage foreclosure crisis makes a number of changes to the state's mortgage lending laws. Law at Kentucky ¶6252 (ip access user) and ¶7910 (ip access user).


Minnesota: Changes to the Minnesota Residential Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act establish specific criteria for a mortgage originator to determine a borrower's reasonable ability to repay a residential mortgage loan. Stricter record retention requirements extend from 26 months to 60 months the time period under which a licensee must retain complaint, trust, and business records. Law at Minnesota ¶7202 (ip access user), ¶7213 (ip access user) and ¶7214 (ip access user).


Ohio: Ohio joins the list of states enacting security freeze legislation to protect residents from identity theft. Law at Ohio, ¶6282 (ip access user), ¶6283 (ip access user).


Smart Charts Highlights


Some of the latest changes reflected in Consumer Credit Smart Charts include:
• Consumer Credit Topics Smart Charts The Interest-Usury Topics Smart Chart reflects the current monthly state interest rate modifications for 2008 as well as the changes stemming from the Federal Reserve Board’s recent reduction of the primary discount rate.


• The Legislative Developments Smart Charts are updated regularly as legislation is enacted, allowing users to keep up to date without waiting for a scheduled report. Links to legislative summaries and to full text of laws amended, repealed or added are provided. Recent updates include:

    • Georgia: Identity Theft—Security Freezes.
    • Iowa: Omnibus Banking Legislation.
    • Kentucky: Mortgage Laws—Predatory Lending.
    • Maryland: Credit Card Marketing on College Campuses.
    • Minnesota: Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act—Ability to Repay—Record Retention
    • Ohio: Consumer Credit Report Security Freezes.
    • Oklahoma: Security Breach Notification Act.
    • Virginia: Payday Loan Act Database.

Secured Transactions Guide


Debtor's Payment Obligations Did Not Extend to Its Agent
A payment service, as the agent of an account debtor, was not obligated by Revised Article 9 of the Nevada UCC to make payments directly to the assignee of the account obligation. The assignee's sole remedy was to bring a legal action against the account debtor, the shipper. Nationwide Transport Finance v. Cass Information Systems, Inc. (9thCir) appears at ¶56,147 (ip access user).

Prospective Purchasers Were Not Article 9 “Debtors”
A dealership was not required to provide a notice to disposition to prospective purchasers of a vehicle prior to auctioning the vehicle, because the prospective purchasers were not "debtors" as defined by Article 9 of the Virginia UCC. A debtor is "a person having an interest, other than a security interest or other lien, in the collateral..." The court determined the prospective purchasers had no ownership or possessory interest in the vehicle, because they did not believe that the contract to purchase the vehicle was valid, they stopped their down payment on the vehicle and they voluntarily returned the vehicle to the dealership when they failed to secure financing. Drewry v. Starr Motors, Inc. (EDVa) appears at ¶56,148.


State Law Update


Arizona: If documentation is received and filed in a registering office of the department within 30 days of execution, constructive notice of lien on a motor vehicle or mobile home begins on the date of execution. Formerly, the law allowed only 10 days to file the documentation. In addition, the Director of the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles may now establish an electronic system for applying for a certificate of title for dismantled motor vehicles. The electronic system will allow automotive recyclers to work with law enforcement agencies to help identify stolen vehicles and parts. The law appears at Arizona ¶1054A (ip access user) and ¶1057 (ip access user).


Maine: The list of activities subject to the Maine Secretary of State's motor vehicle filing fee has been expanded to include a second or subsequent security interest noted on an application for a certificate of title, the filing of an assignment of a security interest or for an ordinary certificate of title issued on surrender of a distinctive certificate. In addition, a separate $2.50 fee for those three acts has been repealed. The law appears at Maine ¶1046B (ip access user).


Minnesota: The Minnesota Department of Commerce has announced an adjustment of the dollar amounts that relate to personal property exemptions. The increase in dollar amounts will be equivalent to 10 percent of the original reference base from December 1980. The exemption for personal property will be $9,450, and for motor vehicles, it will be $4,200. The law appears at Minnesota ¶1151 (ip access user).


Financial Privacy Guide


Credit Card Truncation Class Action Proceeds Against TJX Companies
Allegations that a national retailer was aware of the credit card truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions (FACT Act) and refused to comply were sufficient to allege a willful violation of the FACT Act, a federal district court has determined. Consumers had used credit or debit cards to make purchases at the retailer’s stores. During the course of the transactions, the consumers received printed receipts containing the expiration dates of their cards. Enacted as an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in 2003, the FACT Act prohibits retailers from printing more than the last five digits of the card number or the expiration date of a credit or debit card on any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of sale. Any person that willfully fails to comply with the requirements may be liable to any consumer for actual damages between $100 and $1,000. A story on In re TJX Companies, Inc., FCRA Litigation (DKan) appears in Privacy Extra, May 30, 2008, and the case will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Credit Card Truncation Bill Passes Congress
By unanimous votes, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, H.R. 4008. The bill amends the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACT Act) to provide that, if a company truncated a consumer’s credit card number but did not remove the card expiration date, then the company did not willfully violate the FACT Act and cannot be sued for statutory damages. The provision applies only to receipts printed between Dec. 4, 2004, and the date of the bill’s enactment. This story appears in Privacy Extra, May 30, 2008.


State Law Update


Arizona: A new law in Arizona requires a consumer reporting agency (CRA) to place a security freeze on a consumer's credit report within 10 business days of receiving a written request from the consumer. It also prohibits a CRA from releasing a consumer's credit report or score that has been frozen to a third party without the consumer's prior authorization. A CRA may, however, advise a third party that a security freeze is in effect. This story appears in Letter No. 83, May 16, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Indiana: Indiana's data breach law has been amended to provide that a breach of the security of a system does not include the unauthorized acquisition of a portable electronic device on which personal information is stored if the contents of the device are encrypted and if the encryption key is not compromised. Prior to amendment, the exception was allowed if access to the portable device was protected by a password that was not disclosed. The law is at ¶44-513 (ip access user), and the explanation is at ¶44-151 (ip access user).


Iowa: Recently enacted legislation requires any individual or business that owns or licenses computerized data to give Iowa consumers notice of a breach of security in the most expeditious manner available and without unreasonable delay. However, this does not apply to a person who is subject to and complies with regulations promulgated pursuant to Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. A story on the law appears in Privacy Extra, May 30, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.

Legislation allowing Iowa consumers to place a security freeze on their credit reports has been approved. A consumer reporting agency must place a freeze within five days after receiving a request. The state attorney general is charged with enforcement and may recover the greater of $500 or actual damages for each consumer injured by a violation. A story on the law appears in Privacy Extra, May 30, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Minnesota: The law relating to fees for placing, lifting or removing a security freeze has been amended to allow that a consumer who makes a request by mail may pay the applicable fee by check, money order or credit card. A consumer that makes a request electronically or by telephone may now pay by credit card. A story on the law appears in Letter No. 83, May 16, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Ohio: A new law in Ohio contains security freeze protections, provides for the redaction of Social Security numbers, and allocates funds and resources to local law enforcement agencies enforcing identity theft laws. The law provides consumers with the right to obtain a security freeze on a credit report and gives consumers a private right of action against credit reporting agencies for willful or negligent violations. Liability for willful violations includes statutory damages, actual and punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees. A story on the law appears in Letter No. 83, May 16, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Oklahoma: The newly enacted Security Breach Notification Act provides that individuals and entities that maintain computerized data must notify affected Oklahoma residents if unencrypted or unredacted personal information has been accessed or acquired without authorization and the entity reasonably believes that the access may result in identity theft or other fraud. Failure to provide the required notice of a security breach may result in a civil penalty up to $150,000 per breach or series of breaches discovered by a single investigation. A story on the law appears in Letter No. 83, May 16, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


Virginia: A newly enacted data breach notification law requires individuals and entities, including businesses and state agencies, to notify affected residents without unreasonable delay if unencrypted or unredacted personal information has been accessed or acquired without authorization and the entity reasonably believes that the access may result in identity theft or other fraud. Persons or agencies subject to and in compliance with the procedures for notification of a breach of a security system in accordance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act are considered to be in compliance with the Virginia law's notification requirements. A story on the law appears in Letter No. 83, May 16, 2008, and the law will be reflected in an upcoming Report.


West Virginia: A newly enacted data breach notification law requires individuals or entities that own or license computerized data that includes personal information to disclose any breach of the data's security to West Virginia residents whose unencrypted and unredacted personal information was, or is believed to have been, accessed and acquired by an unauthorized person and resulted, or is believed to have resulted, in identity theft or other fraud. The law begins at ¶78-511 (ip access user), and the explanation is at ¶78-151 (ip access user).


Bankruptcy Law Reporter


Deficiency Claim Permitted Following Surrender of 910 Vehicles
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has become the fourth appellate court to conclude that Chapter 13 debtors may not surrender their so-called 910 vehicles in full satisfaction of a creditor’s secured claim, precluding payment of any unsecured deficiency claim. Federal law does not prevent a secured creditor from filing an unsecured deficiency claim based on state law. Bankruptcy reform measures did not prohibit bifurcation of 910 car claims into secured and unsecured claims. Congress simply removed the Bankruptcy Code’s method of bifurcation. A story on In re Ballard; Quick (10thCir) appears Report Letter 752, May 28, 2008, and the case will be published in an upcoming Report.


Transfer of Accounts Receivable Properly Avoided
A postpetition transfer of accounts receivable from a Chapter 7 debtor to a lender was avoidable by the trustee because it was not authorized by the bankruptcy court and did not occur in the ordinary course of business. Moreover, the remedy awarded to the debtor’s estate did not constitute an abuse of the lower court’s discretion even though it placed the estate in a better position than it would have occupied had the transfer never occurred. Straightline Investments, Inc. (9thCir) is reported at ¶81,230 (ip access user).


Postpetition Performance Did Not Change Contract’s Status
A project agreement between a Chapter 11 debtor and a commercial real estate developer was an executory contract and, therefore, the debtor possessed a statutory right to reject it despite the real estate developer’s postpetition performance of its own outstanding obligations under the agreement. Neither the terms of the agreement nor any applicable principles of nonbankruptcy law warranted deviation from the general rule requiring treatment of the agreement as executory notwithstanding the real estate developer’s attempt to complete its performance. The Penn Traffic Co. (2ndCir) is reported at ¶81,229 (ip access user).


Individual Retirement Plans Guide


Taxpayers Liable for Additional Tax on Early Distributions
A husband and wife were liable for income tax, the additional tax on early distributions, and the accuracy-related penalty after they received an early distribution from a Simplified Employee Plan IRA and failed to roll over the amount into a new IRA. Although the husband asked his law firm bookkeeper to send a check to his broker within 60 days of receiving the distribution, the broker never received the funds or opened a new IRA for the couple. The couple's argument that the rollover failure was not their fault was rejected. The taxpayers should have been aware that the broker never received the funds because they never received any monthly IRA statements and because the check written by the husband's law firm had never been cashed. The taxpayers were liable for the accuracy-related penalty because they failed to exercise due care or act reasonably under the circumstances. The couple took no steps to follow up on their initial request to open a new IRA and waited for over two years to inquire into the status of the distribution. Atkin v. Commissioner is reported at ¶10,329 (ip access user).


Hot Topic of the Month


This month’s hot topic is consumer reports and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act). Court decisions and federal agency rulemaking continues to arise from the FACT Act, which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to enhance the ability of consumers to combat identity theft, increase the accuracy of consumer reports, and allow consumers to exercise greater control regarding the type and amount of solicitations they receive. Extensive coverage of these topics will be found in the Federal Banking Law Reporter, Consumer Credit Guide and Financial Privacy Law Guide in a variety of document types. A sampling of issues is listed below.


Rule Amendments
• A rule adoption provides consumers with an opportunity to opt out before a financial institution uses information provided by an affiliated company to market its products and services to the consumer. The rule became effective on Jan. 1, 2008, and compliance is mandatory on Oct. 1, 2008. Consumer Credit Guide ¶30,115.

• Identity theft red flag rules require creditors and financial institutions to develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of accounts or existing accounts. Credit and debit card issuers must develop policies to assess the validity of a request for a change of address that is followed closely by a request for an additional or replacement card. In addition, the users of consumer reports must develop procedures to apply when they receive a notice of address discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency. Compliance with the rules becomes mandatory on Nov. 1, 2008. Financial Privacy Law Guide, ¶100-353 (ip access user).

Proposed Regulations
• Proposed regulations would require a creditor to provide a consumer with a risk-based pricing notice when, based in whole or in part on the consumer's credit report, the creditor offers or provides credit to the consumer on terms less favorable than the terms it offers or provides to other consumers. Consumer Credit Guide, ¶30,126.

• Proposed rules are intended to ensure the accuracy of information reported to consumer reporting agencies and also cover the circumstances under which a consumer may raise a dispute directly with the furnisher of such information and require the information furnisher to perform a reinvestigation. Consumer Credit Guide, ¶30,117.

Court Decisions
• A lender's solicitation letter, which told a consumer he was preapproved for a home equity loan, qualified as a firm offer of credit, even though the solicitation omitted certain terms such as the interest rate and loan duration. Since the lender provided the consumer with a firm offer of credit, the lender had a permissible purpose to obtain a consumer report. Sullivan v. Greenwood Credit Union (1stCir), Consumer Credit Guide ¶52,156.

• A number of questions about what constitutes a firm offer of credit that gives a lender a permissible purpose to obtain consumer report information were resolved in an opinion deciding three consolidated cases. One of the cases dealt with a cellular telephone company's offer of a free telephone to new subscribers, while the other two considered loan solicitations by national banks. Murray v. New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. (7thCir), Federal Banking Law Reporter Cases ¶101-015.

• The FACT Act requirement that a credit card receipt print no more than the last five digits of the credit card number or the expiration date applied to a receipt sent to a consumer electronically after a purchase over the Internet. Grabein v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (SDFla), Financial Privacy Law Guide ¶100-369 (ip access user).

Report Letter Stories
• Congress has passed a bill to amend the FACT Act to clarify that, if a company truncated a consumer’s credit card number but did not remove the card expiration date, then the company did not willfully violate the requirements and cannot be sued for damages for past violations. The Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act was passed by the House on May 13 and the Senate on May 20. Financial Privacy Law Guide Report Letter Privacy Extra Issue No. 152, May 30, 2008.

• The Federal Trade Commission, the federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration are conducting a survey of consumer information sharing practices by financial institutions and other persons that are creditors or users of consumer reports with their affiliates. Financial Privacy Law Guide Report Letter Privacy Extra Issue No. 142, Dec. 28, 2007


Source material can be found in the text of laws and regulations and is supplemented by CCH explanations, as shown below:
• The FACT Act added subparagraphs (g), Truncation of Credit Card and Debit Card Numbers, and (h), Notice of Discrepancy in Address, to Sec. 605 of the FCRA, which is codified as 15 USC 1681c and found in Federal Banking Law Reporter laws at ¶4504 (ip access user).
• The Identity Theft Red Flag Regulations are codified in Subpart J of the agencies’ Fair Credit Reporting regulations. For example, the OCC regulations are codified as 12 CFR 41.90 and 12 CFR 41.91 and found in Federal Banking Law Reporter Regulations at ¶27-245 (ip access user) and at ¶27-245B (ip access user).
• Contents of Consumer Reports is discussed at ¶64-604 (ip access user) and Identity Theft is discussed at ¶64-613 (ip access user) in the Federal Banking Law Reporter.
• Consumer Reporting Agencies and Identity Theft Measures are discussed at ¶10-047 (ip access user) in the Financial Privacy Law Guide.