Money Transmitter Regulatory Developments

25 May 2016

The controversy swirling around the application of state money transmitter laws to payments companies just won’t abate. The difficulty stems from state regulators grappling with applying old statutory language to the new world of payments. And it leaves payment companies struggling to keep up with those new interpretations.

Next week the Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) will be facilitating the conversation by hosting a Money Transmitter Policy Day in Washington, D.C. A state regulator and FinCEN representative will speak. I am looking forward to participating by presenting a talk there, on June 2nd, on where things stand in “The Changing Regulatory Landscape”. If you are concerned that the myriad of state money transmitter laws may apply to your business, I hope you will join us.

Historically, the states regulated money transmission companies to protect the “unbanked” – consumers that used non-banks for financial services such as check cashing and wire transfers. The goal was to provide oversight of companies holding consumer money. Regulated companies were required to obtain a state license. The regulated activity typically was defined as selling or issuing stored value or receiving monetary value for transmission. That wording is so broad that it arguably brings within its sweep unintended links in the payments chain, such as independent sales organizations.

Barely a week goes by without another state money transmitter development. Some state legislators are taking a fresh look at their statutes, amending the laws to apply to new technologies, such as virtual currencies. Other states are interpreting existing laws in new ways, focusing the application of the licensing requirements on payment processors. And others are recognizing that the purpose of the money transmitter laws was never to regulate the card processing business. Those regulators are publishing guidance indicating that various arguments support the interpretation that the money transmitter laws do not apply to payment processors.

It will be some time before the issue of the extent to which state money transmitter laws apply to payment processors is settled. A vigilant eye on developments is critical to the payments industry. The policy day organized by the ETA, and panel discussions at other industry conferences, is exactly what is needed to keep the conversation flowing and the industry informed.

–Holli Targan, Attorney and Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

State Operation Choke Point Efforts

15 Apr 2016

Regulatory Alert: State governments are now getting into the Operation Choke Point mode. Over the last few years the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies have tried to enforce their laws and regulations by cutting off fraudsters’ access to electronic payments networks. By choking off the flow of funds, the federal government puts the fraudsters out of business. This has come to be known as “Operation Choke Point.” Now state governments are getting into the act.

The most recent example comes from Arizona. The Arizona Attorney General has decided to target processors and acquirers in its attempt to enforce its ban on tobacco sales without state licensure. Relying on an Arizona law which prohibits any person from knowingly providing “substantial assistance” to a person who violates a tobacco product sales ban, the Arizona Attorney General seeks to have processors and acquirers prohibit the completion of any tobacco sales into Arizona by unlicensed merchants. In other words, the Arizona Attorney General, like the FTC before it, wants to turn processors into policemen.

And Arizona’s efforts are paying off. On April 14, 2016, Visa released an announcement advising acquirers that they must take immediate action to ensure that their merchants comply with all applicable laws related to the sale and shipping of cigarettes. Visa advised that acquirers must identify and terminate merchants that engage in illegal online cigarette sales. The Visa bulletin further noted that it is the acquirers’ responsibility to confirm that all transactions introduced into the Visa system by their merchants are legal in both the buyers’ and sellers’ jurisdictions.

To protect the integrity of the payments system, acquirers and ISOs are required to review their merchant portfolios to identify any merchants that sell cigarettes online and then take the following concrete actions:

  • Underwrite the principal owners to validate their eligibility to hold a merchant account;
  • Carefully examine the merchant’s website to make sure they are not engaged in illegal activities, have appropriate shipping restrictions in place, and are not circumventing cigarette tax laws;
  • Use a mystery shopper to confirm compliance;
  • Confirm the merchant is not on the list created under the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act;
  • Recheck the MATCH list; and
  • Terminate merchants that are identified as violating applicable laws.

Visa warns that violations of Visa Rules will result in substantial non-compliance assessments.

We expect that other states and agencies will jump on the band wagon in the near future and use the payment networks as leverage to put an end to conduct that they may not have a capacity to regulate on their own. Higher scrutiny of merchants engaged in regulated activities prior to on-boarding is well-advised.

–Eric Linden and Holli Targan, Attorneys and Partners, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

 

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

Upcoming Events

11 Apr 2016

 

With so much going on in the electronic payments arena, the gathering next week (April 19 – 21) at TRANSACT16 in Las Vegas at Mandalay Bay is a perfect opportunity to keep up with the latest developments. In the 20 years we have been attending the Electronic Transactions Association’s (ETA) annual meeting, we have found it to be the place where serious business gets done. And Jaffe is honored to be sponsoring three signature events taking place that week.

The first is Payment Facilitator Day on Tuesday, April 19.  The PayFac event will contain a full day of content-rich programming focused solely on the payment facilitator model.  I will be participating on the “What You Should Ask Your Payments Attorney” panel at the meeting.  For more information, click here.

Second, Jaffe is also sponsoring the W.net SuperLINC, also on Tuesday, April 19, from 1:00 to 4:00.  The topic of the meeting is Diversity in the Workplace.  The discussion, on how diversity has reached the attention of the boardrooms of America, will feature Phyllis James, Chief Diversity Officer of MGM Resorts and Sharon Brogdon, Director of Global Diversity at Intel, and will be moderated by my W.net co-Founder Linda Perry of Linda S. Perry Consulting.  This event is free to TRANSACT16 attendees.  To register, click here.

And finally, I’m proud that Jaffe is also a Bronze sponsor of TRANSACT16 itself.  The Firm has been committed to the ETA for years in multiple ways, and our sponsorship reaffirms our dedication to the goals of the organization.

We look forward to seeing you at one or all of these events next week.

–Holli Targan, Attorney and Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

New Nebraska ATM Interchange Law

1 Apr 2016

Beginning April 1, 2016, a new Nebraska law goes into effect that makes it easier for Nebraska financial institutions to vary ATM fees based on the interchange rates charged by their switches. This ends the moratorium that has been in place since May 2015, when amendments to Nebraska’s ATM law went into effect.

Under the Nebraska Banking Act, ATMs in the state must be available on a “nondiscriminating basis,” meaning that ATM usage fees must be the same for cardholders of all Nebraska-based accounts. In September 2014, four Nebraska banks filed a lawsuit against Metro Health Services FCU, an Omaha-based credit union, alleging discrimination in ATM usage fees in violation of state law. Metro FCU defended the lawsuit by arguing that the different rates charged to customers were not for its own fees but instead were “switch fees” set by the switches that route ATM transactions between financial institutions. In May 2015, the Nebraska legislature amended the law to clarify when financial institutions are permitted to vary ATM fees charged to other Nebraska financial institutions. An important piece of that law that allows financial institutions to implement the new changes takes effect April 1, 2016.

The new law provides that each switch must have a uniform interchange rate that it charges for all Nebraska-based financial institutions for essentially the same service, but each switch may decide its own rate. The financial institution that establishes or sponsors an ATM may contract with multiple switches for routing ATM transactions, and a new provision provides that it is not considered a discriminatory practice for the financial institution to charge different ATM usage fees based on which switch handles the transaction, if the switches’ fees differ from one another.

In addition, the law now excludes surcharge-free networks among affiliate institutions from the anti-discrimination requirements, so a financial institution may charge one rate for surcharge transactions and a different rate for surcharge-free transactions (even if routed over the same switch). If an ATM offers different transaction services from other ATMs, then differences in usages fees would also not constitute unlawful discrimination.

The law set a moratorium on changes to ATM usage fees and new agreements until April 1, 2016, with existing contracts still subject to the old law. Beginning on April 1, 2016, ATM-sponsoring financial institutions and switches can once again sign new customers and modify existing contracts. All new (or newly amended) contracts made after this date must be in compliance with the new law. While existing contracts are temporarily grandfathered in under the old law, beginning November 1, 2016, all ATM usage must comply with the new provisions, so even existing contracts will need to be modified if they do not currently comply.

This law does not affect fees charged to customers of financial institutions outside of Nebraska, or fees charged by financial institutions outside of Nebraska.

The new law makes it easier for Nebraska financial institutions to vary ATM fees based on the interchange rates charged by their switches. Now that financial institutions and switches can resume contracting for ATM services, it is important to ensure that new contracts comply with the law’s new provisions.

—Daniel Ungar, Attorney, Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Daniel Ungar

Daniel Ungar

Daniel M. Ungar is a member of the Firm's Electronic Payments and Corporate Practice Groups. His practice is in corporate, commercial, and intellectual property matters, including business contracts, technology licensing, M&A, and startup/emerging companies matters such as entity formation and venture financing. Daniel is a former patent examiner and holds an advance computer science degree from Johns Hopkins University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

dungar@jaffelaw.com

CFPB Strikes New Ground

16 Mar 2016

A few weeks ago the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) struck new ground when it entered into a consent order with online payment platform Dwolla. The CFPB found that Dwolla misrepresented its data security practices and the safety of its system. The CFPB ordered Dwolla to pay a $100,000 penalty and revise its internal practices.

This represents the first time that the CFPB has used its authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts against a company’s data security practices. It is remarkable because the action was taken by the CFPB in the absence of any data breach. In other words, the fact that Dwolla’s representations about its security practices were inaccurate was enough to warrant the CFPB action.

The CFPB found that Dwolla falsely represented to its customers that its network was safe and secure, that Dwolla transactions were safer than credit cards, that Dwolla’s data security practices exceed industry standards, and that all information on the Dwolla platform is securely encrypted and stored.

In particular, the CFPB alleged that Dwolla:

  • Failed to adopt appropriate data security policies for the collection and storage of consumer personal information,
  • Failed to conduct adequate, regular risk assessments,
  • Failed to train employees on responsibilities for handling and protecting consumer personal information, and
  • Failed to encrypt consumer personal info, and required consumer information submission in clear text.

Further, Dwolla’s software development of apps was not tested for data security.

Dwolla was ordered to establish data security plans and policies, conduct data security risk assessments twice annually, conduct mandatory employee training on data security policies, develop security patches to fix vulnerabilities, develop customer identity authentication at the registration phase and before effecting a funds transfer, develop procedures to select service providers capable of maintaining security practices, and obtain an annual data security audit.

Two lessons come through loud and clear. First, companies should be very careful about statements made concerning the safety of its system and its security practices. All representations about such issues need to be validated by management to ensure accuracy. Second, the actions mandated by the CFPB, set forth in the paragraph immediately above, point to a new standard. This indicates the types of actions the CFPB will be looking for. Consider this guidance from the CFPB on security practices that should be adopted.

We recommend that all companies heed the lessons gleaned from the CFPB Dwolla action by: 1) reviewing representations to the public to be sure those representations are entirely accurate, and 2) auditing current practices to confirm compliance with the actions ordered by the CFPB.

–Holli Targan, Attorney and Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

Five Critical Issues in a Payments Company Sale

24 Feb 2016

If you are contemplating selling your payments business, there are a few key questions to keep in mind. The sale of merchant acquiring and payments company assets presents concerns that are significantly different than the sale of other businesses.   Below are five important issues to consider.

1.  What do you want to sell?

Selling the company is a very different deal than selling a merchant portfolio. If you sell all or part of a portfolio, you may continue to work under your existing processing agreement. That means minimum deal count or revenue obligations will continue to apply. And a right of first refusal by the processor and non-solicitation clauses may kick in. Further, the buyer may want to convert the merchants to its processing platform. Check to see if your processing agreement permits this.

Selling the entire company will attract a greater multiple, because goodwill and sales rep relationships are also being sold. The buyer may be more interested in the sponsorship relationship itself than in the merchant contracts. If you were savvy enough to obtain a dedicated BIN or have a desirable processor relationship, don’t underestimate the value of that “asset”. A purchase/merger transaction tends to be more involved than a portfolio sale, because there are more assets and contractual relationships to take into consideration.

2.  What will you get in exchange?

The most lucrative deal will give you all the money up front. But more typical is that you will get some cash up front and then the remaining amount of cash at some point in the future. During this lag, the buyer has the right to offset against that future cash payment anything you may owe to the buyer, such as trailing chargeback amounts. Or the future payment may be used to satisfy attrition guarantees. Cash/stock deals are also being struck. Here the seller gets some cash at closing, and also stock in the buyer. You are banking on the fact that the purchaser will increase in value, or you will get the benefit of the buyer’s eventual sale. When receiving stock you become an investor in that company, so insist on obtaining representations and warranties from the buyer to back up the stock you will receive.

3.  What will your role be after the transaction?

The role of the former owners after the sale is often the most negotiated aspect of the deal. Usually the buyer will want key players to stay on for a year or two to transition the relationship with merchants and agents. Your expertise may be an attractive asset. Try to determine early in the process what you are willing to do after the deal has closed.

4.  What kind of guarantees can you live with?

It’s hard to argue that you should not be liable for certain events that occurred prior to the closing date. More difficult is to figure out whether you are willing to owe some of the purchase price back to the buyer if the portfolio experiences attrition or excessive chargebacks. This may depend on the nature of your portfolio: if the portfolio has a low loss rate, you may be okay with this guarantee. If you won’t be able to sleep at night knowing that one large merchant termination or loss will do you in, you should sell the portfolio “as is”, spelling out that you are not guaranteeing the attrition rate or revenue that will be generated from the portfolio.  

5.  Whose consent do you need?

This issue gets glossed over, but it takes the most time to sort out and has the greatest potential to gum up the deal. Look at all of the contracts involved in the business to determine whether you are free to assign a particular agreement to the buyer. ISO or sales representative contracts may require you to buyout the contract or obtain consent. Look at each contract to determine what is required.   Even if you don’t need the contracting party’s consent, you will still need to legally assign some contracts to the purchaser.

These are just a few of the big-picture issues to consider when selling a merchant portfolio or payments business. Every deal has its own peculiarities and stress points. You’ve worked hard to be able to cash in: now take the time to negotiate the deal that maximizes the value of your company.

–Holli Targan, Attorney and Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

State Law Mandates New Merchant Contract Requirements

3 Feb 2016

The payments world is in a constant state of change, and the requirements surrounding clauses that must be included in card processing agreements with merchants are no exception.  Typically, language that must appear in merchant contracts is handed down from the card brands.  To remain compliant with those constantly-evolving requirements a close eye on card brand rule revisions has been essential.  But now states are getting into the act as well.     

Tennessee provides the latest example.  Effective March 1, 2016, Tennessee requires that all merchant agreements disclose certain terms, such as the effective date and term of the contract,  the circumstances surrounding early termination or cancellation, and a complete schedule of all fees applicable to card processing services.  These requirements are benign enough, as the vast majority of commercial contracts already contain those provisions. 

But here comes the sticky part.  In addition to the above, the Tennessee statute requires the payment acquirer to provide monthly statements.  So far so good – everyone provides monthly statements.  However, the law mandates that certain data points be included in each monthly statement, including an itemized list of all fees assessed since the previous statement, the total value of the transactions processed, and, if the acquirer is not a bank, an indication of the “aggregate fee percentage”.  The aggregate fee percentage is calculated by dividing the fees by the total value of processed transactions during the statement period.

The troubling requirement is the last one:  that any non-bank payment acquirer include in monthly statements the fees imposed, calculated as a percentage of the total value of the transactions processed during the statement period.  Currently such a calculation is not determined, so systems will need to be revamped to include that information in statements. 

And a determination will need to be made as to who, exactly, this requirement applies to.  The law says it is imposed on non-bank payment acquirers.  Certainly that includes payment facilitators.  But if both an ISO and a bank are a party to a merchant agreement and provide the statement, does the aggregate fee percentage need to be included in the monthly statement?  It’s not clear.  A conservative interpretation would suggest that if any non-bank is a party to a merchant agreement, the aggregate fee percentage should be disclosed each month.

Interestingly, the remedy for non-compliance with the Tennessee law is limited to an option by the merchant to terminate the contract.  Before the merchant may cancel the agreement, it must give the acquirer 30 days’ notice.  If the non-compliance is cured, then the merchant is not permitted to terminate the agreement.

ISOs, banks, and processors should review the new Tennessee statute to ensure compliance with its provisions.  And now that the payments industry is on the radar of state legislators, card processors will need to monitor state law developments to keep up with shifting obligations. 

–Holli Targan, Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

Next Generation Payment Systems

27 Oct 2015

Given the importance of payment infrastructure to the global economy, and the lucrative prospects of owning or running such infrastructure, it will come as little surprise that many entrepreneurs are racing to develop new payment solutions and large payment companies have been on acquisition sprees as they seek to update and build out their existing networks.

This focus on developing new payment systems and enhancing existing payment systems has caught the attention of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”).  For the benefit of those working to develop and improve their payment systems, the CFPB has issued nine consumer protection principles to keep in mind in connection with such development:

1. Consumer Control Over Payments.  Consumers should have control over payments, including their authorizations, the length of time for which such authorization is valid, and the ability to revoke an authorization.

2. Data and Privacy.  Consumers should be kept informed as to how their data is used, who has access to their data, and potential risks associated with transfer of their data.  Data collected should only be used to benefit consumers, and consumers should be able to specify what data is accessible by third parties.

3. Fraud and Error Resolutions Protections.  The system should incorporate protections against mistaken, fraudulent, unauthorized, and erroneous transactions.  The system should also create adequate records for post-transaction evaluation, allow the reversal of erroneous and unauthorized transactions, and comply with all regulatory requirements.

4. Transparency.  Consumers should have real-time access to information about each transaction, such as payment confirmations and receipt of funds, as well as timely disclosure of costs, risks, fund availability, and security.

5. Cost.  Fees charged to consumers should be disclosed in a way which allows consumers to compare the costs of using different payment options and should not obscure the full cost of making or receiving a payment.

6. Access.  The system should be broadly accessible to consumers, widely accepted by businesses and other consumers, and permit access to such system through qualified intermediaries.

7. Funds Availability.  The system should provide fast guaranteed access to funds.

8. Security and Payment Credential Value.  The system should have built in protection to detect and limit errors, unauthorized transactions, and fraud.  These protections should safeguard against and respond to data breaches.  The System should enable gateway institutions to offer enhanced security protections and limit the value of consumer payment credentials.

9. Accountability Mechanisms.  The system should align the incentive of system operators, participants, and end users.  Commercial participants should be accountable for the risks, harm, and costs they introduce into the system and should be incentivized to prevent and correct fraudulent, unauthorized, or erroneous transactions.  The system should also have automated monitoring capabilities, incentives for participants to report misuse, and transparent enforcement procedures.

The release from the CFPB is available here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consumer-protection-principles.pdf.

We recommend that those companies running or developing any type of payment system accommodate the above principles in their development process.  As this is a rapidly changing area of the law, we also recommend staying up to date with the latest requirements and recommendations of the CFPB and other applicable regulatory agencies.

– James Kramer, Attorney, Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

James Kramer

James Kramer

James is a member of the firm's Electronic Payment Group, Corporate Group and Business Transactions Group. James counsels clients on contractual, regulatory, and compliance matters as well as on purchases, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. He routinely advises and negotiates on behalf of financial institutions and entities in the electronic payments industry.

jkramer@jaffelaw.com

New Card Brand Fee Disclosure Requirements

4 Aug 2015

There is a subtle shift afoot surrounding merchant fee disclosures.  Both MasterCard and Visa have revised their Rules to require more transparency in card processing charges.  Merchant acquirers and payment facilitators would be wise to revise their merchant agreement forms to incorporate the new guidance.

The MasterCard Rules now specify that acquirers and payment facilitators must deliver to merchants and sub-merchants a separate fee disclosure in the merchant contract.  The disclosure must detail, in truthful, clear and simple terms, the methodology by which each merchant fee is calculated. 

To give the industry insight on what will satisfy the new requirement, MasterCard has published a sample fee disclosure that will comply with the Rules.  We are talking nitty-gritty detail here.  MasterCard recommends that the following be included: 

  • Any monthly minimum fee
  • Qualified rate (credit cards): X.X%
  • Mid qualified rate: Qualified rate + X.X%
  • Non-qualified rate: Qualified rate + X.X%
  • MasterCard assessment fee: X.X%
  • Penalty to cancel prior to expiry date
  • Description of discount rate calculation

Further, MasterCard suggests including the following information on a distinct disclosure page, if not disclosed elsewhere in the agreement:  the date of the contract, cancellation terms, the name and address of the acquirer, the name and address of service providers, the name and address of the terminal provider, and when the merchant will receive payment for transactions.

In addition, MasterCard now requires that card processors and payment facilitators provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the merchant of any fee increase or introduction of a new fee.  This is treading new ground:  rarely have the card brands mandated business terms in a contract with a merchant.  As a best practice, MasterCard advises acquirers and payment facilitators to include terms within the merchant contract that permit the merchant to terminate its agreement without penalty within 90 days of receiving notice of a fee increase or introduction of a new fee.

 Visa, too, has published new merchant fee guidelines.  In May, 2015 Visa noted that the Visa Rules prohibit representing any fee created by an acquirer as a fee levied by Visa.  The guidance explained that Visa charges are imposed on the acquirer, not on the merchant, and therefore that all fees should be described as a “Processing Fee for Visa Transaction” and not Visa fee.  Acquirers and payment facilitators must review their solicitations, marketing material, agreements, notifications, and statements and develop corrective action plans by In September 1, 2015, with full compliance required by January 1, 2016. 

We suggest that card processors analyze their existing merchant agreement forms, and revise the templates to incorporate the MasterCard and Visa mandates.

 –Holli Targan, Partner, Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

Holli Targan

Attorney & Partner

htargan@jaffelaw.com

Surcharging Card Transactions

1 Jun 2015

Surcharging has been making its way back into the news recently.  As the result of settlement agreement in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Litigation, in January, 2013 Visa and MasterCard revised their rules to permit merchants to surcharge credit card payments under certain conditions and within certain limits.  Although the effective date was more than two years ago, it will come as no surprise to those in the industry that credit card surcharging remains a highly contested topic.

Several states ban surcharging outright and a majority of state legislatures have considered legislation regulating surcharging.  In addition, lawsuits have been brought in four states challenging the statutory bans based on first amendment grounds.  The argument set forth in these cases boils down to this: surcharging prohibitions effectively regulate how merchants communicate their prices to customers, and thus violates the merchants’ right to free speech.  At the district court level, California and New York have sided with the plaintiffs and granted injunctions preventing enforcement of the surcharge prohibition statutes, while Texas and Florida have upheld the surcharge prohibition statutes.  Each of these cases has already been, or will likely soon be, appealed.

In most states, surcharging remains a viable option so long as the merchant’s acquiring bank supports the practice.  Surcharging can be in the form of a fixed or variable charge to all credit transactions, referred to as brand level surcharging, or a fixed or variable charge to all transactions of the same product type, known as a product level surcharge.  For those merchants interested in surcharging, several requirements set by the card brand rules must be met.

The merchant and its acquirer must provide the card brands with at least thirty days advanced notice that the merchant is going to surcharge.  In addition, adequate disclosures must be provided to the customer.  Generally the disclosures should include the surcharge dollar or percentage amount, a statement that the surcharge is being assessed by the merchant and is only applicable to credit transactions, and a statement that the surcharge is not greater than the applicable merchant discount rate for the credit card transaction.

In addition to the disclosure requirements, merchants may only surcharge credit transactions.  Current card brand rules cap the surcharge a merchant may apply to a payment.

Merchants that would like to take advantage of the new authority to surcharge card transactions should carefully review the relevant rules and laws and monitor legal developments.  If properly implemented, surcharging can be a useful tool for merchants to cover the costs of accepting credit cards.

– James Kramer, Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, P.C.

James Kramer

James Kramer

James is a member of the firm's Electronic Payment Group, Corporate Group and Business Transactions Group. James counsels clients on contractual, regulatory, and compliance matters as well as on purchases, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. He routinely advises and negotiates on behalf of financial institutions and entities in the electronic payments industry.

jkramer@jaffelaw.com