• About Section
  Section Home Page Section Council Section Membership Benefits Section Activities and Programs Section Committees Section Bylaws Join Us! Contact Us
• Meetings / CLEs
  Council Meeting Notices Council Meeting Minutes Upcoming CLE Programs and Events Prior CLE Programs and Materials
• Publications
  Annual Reports
• Links/Resources
  Practice Links Business Law Listserv General Practice Links Helpful Search Engines State Administrative Materials Federal Administrative Materials State Case Law Federal Case Law Company Information Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Legal Ethics Legal Forms International Law State Law Federal Laws Legislative Resources Public Records Research Guides Statistics Resources All Sections MSBA Home Page
• Online Services
  Listservs MSBA Services Fastcase mndocs practicelaw.org e-events
• Join Section

Banking Law Committee

The Banking Law Committee hosts the annual Banking Law Institute in conjunction with Minnesota CLE and holds CLE lunch meetings throughout the year.

The Banking Law Institute and luncheon CLEs feature national and local attorneys on current issues in banking law, valuable handouts, and lively discussions. The committee also reviews and/or drafts new Minnesota legislation affecting financial institutions.

Co-Chairs: Karen Grandstrand and Joe Green.

Helpful Resources:
2002 MINNESOTA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE: PREDATORY LENDING AND USURY

10-1-12 Hot Topics in Business Law: Financial Services CLE

by Jason Seashore, Securities Writer, Thomson Reuters Westlaw

As part of the October 1, 2012 all-day Hot Topics in Business Law CLE at Hamline, Banking Law Committee co-Chairs Joe Green and Karen Grandstrand participated in a Financial Services panel along with Sam Sigelman from Lindquist & Vennum.  The panel was moderated by Hamline Professor Ann Graham, Director of the Hamline Business Law Institute.  About 40 attorneys participated in person with more viewing via webcast (unfortunately, the talk was not preserved for archived viewing).

A Powerpoint of their presentation and copies of the handouts are available here.

Highlights of the covered topics included:

* Dodd-Frank and the four reasons why it’s different from past legislation (the sheer enormity of it; it encompasses huge complexity and scope; it is directed at bureaucrats rather than people; and it creates differentiation between banks based on size) and the questions it leads to (Do you have to be a certain size to succeed?  Will we see mass consolidation?  There’s been more M&A in the last 6 months than since 2007).

* The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: overview of hiring, differences in examinations and enforcement activity, and current rule-making.

* The new capital requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Basel international accords, and the ongoing push from existing regulators.

* Federal pre-emption: Dodd-Frank eliminated the ability of subsidiaries of banks from using pre-emption; they are now subject to state law.  Although agency support for pre-emption post Dodd-Frank has diminished, there are some early signs that banks will continue to receive broad federal pre-emption (e.g., the recent California Supreme Court case Parks vs. MNBA America Bank).

* The state of the industry: the number of troubled institutions has gone down; bank rating numbers have gotten better; and exam activity affects policy (as a result of the foreclosure crisis, examiner questions about robo-signing, single point of contact for consumers, and dual-track mortgages are filtering down to the smaller banks; this is a real effect even though it doesn’t come in the form of a regulation).

* Discussion of the new Receivership Bill, which Sam co-authored: the new, comprehensive rule codifies existing practices.

* Lender Liability: the “Show Me The Note” defense has essentially failed in MN; see Welk v. GMAC Mortgage for a fun US District Court of MN case re a local attorney who was intentionally delaying the legal process so people could stay in their houses longer; and check out MN Court of Appeals case Minnwest Bank vs. Arends to learn how not putting “IMPORTANT–LEGAL NOTICE” on your envelope can cost you $350,000.

- Last Updated 05/25/2010 -