COVID-19 Update: FAQ and Other Information for Clients

Archives

Published on:

In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) in 2010, focused on addressing sectors of the financial services industry. Dodd-Frank was to be implemented over time: Section 1071 (15 U.S. Code § 1691c-2(a)) has been pushed back on the implementation timeline, as it does not become effective until the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) implements regulations – which it has not.

Section 1071 amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.  It requires financial institutions and governmental entities to compile, maintain, and submit data to the CFPB regarding credit applications submitted by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.

Continue reading →

Published on:

In connection with its legislative directive to “specify the formats and methods for all filings and certifications required pursuant to this section and generally, for all filings and certifications required under the purview of the division” the Director of the Division of Revenue and Enterprise Services announced certain streamlined mechanisms for entities of revoked status in New Jersey. Continue reading →

Published on:

We are often asked by our clients for non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements (often referred to as NDAs) in the transactional setting as well as in litigation settlement agreements – but what if the employment contract or settlement includes provisions regarding a discrimination claim?

Effective as of March 18, 2019 in New Jersey, lawyers must be wary of employment or settlement agreements that include any provision that “has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation or harassment.” If a provision is contained in a settlement agreement to which the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) applies, it is unenforceable against the employee. If the employee chooses to reveal claim specifics in a way that the employer is “reasonably identifiable,” the employer may likewise reveal formerly confidential information. In fact, such settlement agreements must contain a bold, prominently placed notice that “although the parties may have agreed to keep the settlement and underlying facts confidential, such a provision in an agreement is unenforceable against the employer if the employee publicly reveals sufficient details of the claim so that the employer is reasonably identifiable.” Continue reading →

Published on:

In the September 2018 edition of the National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (“NAMWOLF”) Newsletter, Jacklyn Fetbroyt,  Member of KHF, writes Firm FinCEN’s Customer Due Diligence Rule and Implementation.

JF-Square-300x275-1

In 2016, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its final rule on customer due diligence and beneficial ownership requirements (the “CDD Rule,” 31 CFR Parts 1010, 1020, 1023, et al.), promulgated under the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and other legislation, which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the ‘‘Bank Secrecy Act.” Notably, the Bank Secrecy Act lacks a requirement that financial institutions know the identity of the beneficial owners of their accounts – i.e., the individuals who control legal entity customers – which therefore allow a shield of anonymity for the beneficial owners. To address this perceived weakness and the limit the money laundering that it enabled, FinCEN issued the CDD Rule on May 11, 2016, and it became effective on July 11, 2016; however, covered financial institutions—including federally regulated banks, federally insured credit unions, mutual funds, brokers and dealers in securities, futures commission merchants, and introducing brokers in commodities—had until May 11, 2018, to come into full compliance with the CDD Rule. Continue reading →

Contact Information