Banking and Finance Law Daily Wrap Up, WORTH NOTING—Other regulatory, legislative, litigation, and industry developments, (Mar 20, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

A weekly roundup of other items of interest to the banking and finance law community.

BANK SECRECY ACT—The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has published frequently asked questions and responses regarding its recently issued Geographic Targeting Order (GTO), aimed at further combating the illicit activities and money laundering of Mexico-based cartels and other criminal actors along the southwest border of the United States. The GTO subjects certain money services businesses—which provide financial services outside of a formal bank—to enhanced reporting requirements with FinCEN.

CAPITAL AND BASEL ACCORDS—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have issued a joint notice and request for comment on two proposed information collections. The agencies are seeking comment on a proposal to extend for three years, with revision, the following information collections: (1) Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulatory Capital Rules; and (2) Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Market Risk Capital Rules. Comments are due 60 days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register. The agencies recently issued a series of proposed rulemakings that would revise the regulatory capital requirements (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Mar. 19, 2026).

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU—The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is providing an additional 30-day comment period on a reinstated authorization for Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (Regulations J, K, and L), beginning March 20. The notice comes after the CFPB solicited comment for 60 days beginning Dec. 9, 2025 (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Dec. 12, 2025), with the latest comment period offering the opportunity, through April 20, to respond to those comments, as well as original topics such as the applicability of the survey to purported goals and the accuracy of its estimated annual burden of 242 hours among 483 respondents.

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has announced a series of enforcement actions and terminations in March 2026 involving individuals and OCC-supervised institutions. First, the OCC issued an order of prohibition against Tabitha McCallister, a former client service representative at Old National Bank in Evansville, Ind., for making unauthorized withdrawals totaling more than $19,000 from bank customer accounts. The order permanently bars McCallister from participating in the affairs of any insured depository institution based on misconduct that violated fiduciary duties and constituted unsafe or unsound practices. Meanwhile, the agency terminated a 2024 consent order against Heritage Bank, National Association, Spicer, Minn., after determining the bank had corrected previously cited unsafe or unsound practices related to capital adequacy, capital and strategic planning, credit review, liquidity management, and allowance methodology. Similarly, the OCC terminated a 2024 formal agreement with 1st National Bank, Lebanon, Ohio, which had required corrective action for weaknesses in strategic planning, capital planning, liquidity risk management, and interest rate risk management. In addition, the agency ended a 2024formal agreement with Slovenian Savings and Loan Association of Franklin Conemaugh, Conemaugh, Pa., originally imposed to address unsafe or unsound practices and violations of Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations, including deficiencies under 12 C.F.R. §21.21 and 31 C.F.R. §1020.210. Finally, the OCC terminated a 2024 formal agreement with Touchmark National Bank, Alpharetta, Ga., after the bank resolved supervisory concerns involving strategic planning, board and management oversight, liquidity and interest rate risk management, credit risk management, audit, and information technology.

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING—The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a Fair Credit Reporting Act case alleging false reports to a consumer reporting agency. According to the court, the allegedly forged documents only purport that plaintiff is a guarantor. To determine that plaintiff is not a co-obligor or co-borrower does not require determining whether the guaranty documents were forged and can be based on the pleadings. (Smith v. Trans Union LLC, 5:25-cv-00323-BO-BM (E.D. N.C. March 16, 2026))

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING—Motion for summary judgment was granted because plaintiff Gervacio failed to meet his threshold burden of offering sufficient evidence to show that a reasonable jury could find that his credit reports contained inaccurate information within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)—no reasonable jury could find that the information that Gervacio challenged was inaccurate or incomplete within the meaning of the FCRA. Gervacio brought the case against LVNV Funding LLC alleging that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681s2(b)(1)(A), by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation after he disputed the accuracy of certain information listed in his credit card account after LVNV reported the account to the three major credit reporting agencies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion) (Gervacio v. Medical Business Bureau LLC et al, 1:23-cv-00231(N.D. ILL March 16, 2026)).

FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE—The Federal Reserve Board announced that the Federal Open Market Committee voted on March 18 to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent, citing solid economic growth, subdued job gains, and inflation that remains somewhat elevated. The committee said uncertainty about the economic outlook remains high, including unclear implications from developments in the Middle East, and reiterated its focus on balancing risks to both maximum employment and price stability. The decision drew one dissent, with a single voting member favoring a quarter-point rate cut. Alongside the policy statement, the Federal Open Market Committee released updated economic projections showing modestly higher forecasts for inflation and economic growth in 2026, while the unemployment outlook remained unchanged. The median projection for the federal funds rate continues to anticipate one rate cut in 2026 and another in 2027, with the longer-run rate estimate edging higher. Policymakers emphasized that future adjustments will depend on incoming data and the evolving balance of risks, underscoring that monetary policy is not on a preset path.

FINANCIAL STABILITY—The Federal Housing Finance Administration has published its annual performance plan for fiscal year 2026-2027. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2026/27 Agency Performance Plan (APP) sets out performance measures and targets to support the goals of the U.S. Federal Housing Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2026- 2030 (Strategic Plan), which the FHFA issued in March 2026.The APP has four components: (1) strategic goals; (2) strategic objectives; (3) performance measures and associated targets; and (4) means and strategies.

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY—A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate on March 13 seeks to prohibit the Social Security Trust Funds from investing in cryptocurrencies. In his announcement, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his No Crypto in Social Security Act was needed as the White House pushes to expand crypto’s role in the financial system. The Social Security Trust Fund’s $2.56 trillion in assets are currently invested solely in U.S. Treasury securities, Durbing said, noting recent $2 trillion declines in crypto asset value as demonstrating the risk of such investments for retirees. The measures, introduced as amendments to Section 201 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Mar. 11, 2026), specifically prohibit Social Security trust fund investments in any “digital asset or any crypto-related investment;” prohibit Social Security trust funds from investing in cryptocurrency; and prevent distressed crypto firms from receiving financial assistance with taxpayer dollars. The amendments come after Durban previously introduced a bill to crack down on crypto ATM fraud.

FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY—Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) introduced the No Bailout for Crypto Act to prohibit bailouts of digital asset market participants. According to a one-pager released by Durbin, the legislation would: instate a prohibition on federal agencies providing financial assistance, for the purpose of preventing the failure or bankruptcy of the crypto industry or other financial institutions, with respect to digital asset activities; restrict access to any emergency liquidity facility; and prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from using any amounts in the Exchange Stabilization Fund for the benefit of the crypto industry or other financial institutions, with respect to digital asset activities. The bill is cosponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). Durbin recently filed amendments to legislation to prohibit Social Security trust funds from investing in cryptocurrency and prevent distressed crypto firms from receiving financial assistance with taxpayer dollars (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Mar. 11, 2026).

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTITIES—The Federal Housing Finance Administration has released its annual strategic plan for fiscal year 2026-2027. The plan includes three strategic goals: responsibly oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored Enterprises; supervise the Federal Home Loan Bank System; and efficiently manage U.S. federal housing operations. Each of the strategic goals include several strategic objectives to reach that goal.

MORTGAGES—The Federal Reserve Board is seeking unrevised renewal of its information collection for Registration of Mortgage Loans, according to a notice published to the Federal Register on March 17. The public has until May 18 to comment on aspects of the renewal, such as the applicability of the survey to purported goals and the accuracy of its estimated annual burden of 24,440 hours among 15,999 respondents.

MORTGAGES—The Federal Housing Finance Agency has issued a technical amendment restoring longstanding “grandfather” exceptions to its Private Transfer Fee Covenants (PTFC) rule, in a notice published to the Federal Register on March 17. The amendment reinstates timing and transitional provisions that had been eliminated in FHFA’s 2024 update to the regulation. The move comes after the FHFA said stakeholders warned the removal of the exceptions could cloud property titles. The FHFA said the reinstated exceptions allow Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to handle mortgages tied to certain private transfer fee covenants created before or pursuant to agreements predating Feb. 8, 2011, with the latest amendment applying retroactively to July 16, 2012, the original effective date of the rule. The rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.

MORTGAGES—The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is providing an additional 30-day comment period on a reinstated authorization for Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertisements under Regulation N, beginning March 20. The notice comes after the CFPB solicited comment for 60 days beginning Dec. 9, 2025 (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Dec. 12, 2025), with the latest comment period offering the opportunity, through April 20, to respond to those comments, as well as original topics such as the applicability of the survey to purported goals and the accuracy of its estimated annual burden of 3,412 hours among 197 respondents.

PRIVACY—Okla. App.: The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the dismissal of an action alleging a violation of the Oklahoma Financial Privacy Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 6 §§ 2201-2208) over a bank’s disclosure of its customer’s financial records pursuant to a subpoena that had been issued in a separate case. In the action, the plaintiffs, customers of the bank, claimed the bank violated the Act when it produced records of a related business that was also a customer of the bank. The court first determined that an attorney issuing a subpoena to a financial institution is acting on behalf of the court, which is a "government authority," as that term is defined in the Act and that the financial institution is therefore prohibited from releasing the records until the government authority certifies it has complied with the notice provisions of the Act. Because the subpoena for the business customer’s records was not accompanied by the required certification, the bank produced those records in violation of the Act. However, while the court found that the plaintiffs proved the bank failed to comply with the Act when it produced the records of the related business, the bank's duty to comply with the Act was owed to that business customer whose records were subpoenaed and not to other customers, like the plaintiffs, whose financial records were properly contained within the subpoenaed business customer's file. The lower court's judgment in favor of the bank was accordingly affirmed. (Parker v. Valliance Bank, No. 121526 (Okla. App. Jan. 30, 2026)).

REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT—For a year and a half after the death of her mother, plaintiff Kamara was treated as a successor in interest on the mortgage loan but when mortgage servicer Selene Finance took over they refused, saying she was not a confirmed successor in interest on the account. Kamara was confirmed as a successor in interest two years later, after notice of a foreclosure sale had been sent. Defendant correctly argued that, regardless of her status or lack thereof as a confirmed successor in interest, Kamara cannot maintain a private right of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Regulation X because she is not a “borrower” on the Loan. The motion to dismiss was granted (Kamara et al v. Selene Finance LLP et al , 1:25-cv-00611-RDA-WEF (E.D.Va. March 18, 2026)).

Attorneys: Brad Miller, J. Logan Johnson, Jami Rhoades Antonisse, Shawna L. Landeros (Miller Johnson Jones Antonisse & White, PLLC) for Phillip R. Parker, the Phillip R. Parker Revocable Trust, Ki Lynn Parker, the Ki Lynn Parker Revocable Trust, Phillip R. Parker, DDS, MS, MS, P.C., and Old Well, LCC. Joshua C. Greenhaw (Mee Hoge PLLP) and Joe E. White, Jr., Charles C. Weddle III (White & Weddle, P.C.) for Valliance Bank. Andrew Joseph Guzzo (Kelly Guzzo PLC) for Amina Kamara, Abdul Kamara and Ishmael Kamara. Alyssa Lynn Szymczyk (Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP) for Selene Finance, LP.

Companies: 1st National Bank; Heritage Bank, National Association; JSmith Civil LLC; LVNV Funding; Old National Bank; Slovenian Savings and Loan Association of FranklinConemaugh; Selene Finance, LLP; Touchmark National Bank; Trans Union LLC; Valliance Bank

IndustryNews: ArizonaNews BankHolding BankingOperations BankSecrecyAct Blockchain CaliforniaNews CapitalBaselAccords CFPB CrimesOffenses EnforcementActions FairCreditReporting FederalReserveSystem FinancialIntermediaries FinancialStability FinTech FOMC GovernmentSponsoredEnterprises IllinoisNews InterestUsury Loans Mortgages NewMexicoNews NorthCarolinaNews OklahomaNews OversightInvestigations Privacy PrudentialRegulation RESPA SecuritiesDerivatives TexasNews