The CISG and the Vis International Moot: Twin Ideas for Effective Lawyering in a Globalized World

This year marks the 17th anniversary of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (The Moot.) The Moot takes place annually in the Spring in Vienna, Austria with participants from over 100 law schools hailing from civil and common law countries. The journey is not only a milestone for the student participants, but a bridge to international understanding through the rule of law. The Moot engages students in the art of effective advocacy, and conveys the important message that the adversarial process is not necessarily an arena for gladiators.

The stated goal of the Moot is "to foster the study of international commercial law and arbitration for the resolution of international business disputes through its application to a concrete problem of a client and to train law leaders of tomorrow in methods of alternative dispute resolution." (www.cisg.law.pace.edu/vis.html).

I was privileged to participate in the Ninth Moot in 2001-2002, while a student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. One year later, I served as coach to a group of students at the Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan. Both events galvanized the premise that law schools in the United States need to engage students in this level of competition to enhance legal education. Specifically, participation in the Moot will bolster legal writing and advocacy skills. The message is being heard as each year, more law schools are discovering the Moot. Some law schools in the United States and Europe have incorporated the Moot into the curriculum. For example, Touro Law School and the University of Pittsburgh have collaborated with schools in Central and Eastern Europe to offer a summer program structured around the Moot. (www.law.pitt.edu/academics/cile/jdprogram/studyabroad).

In the area of advocacy, preparation for the Moot will be extremely beneficial, even to first year law students. In this critical area, the Moot provides students with skills in the art of persuasion. Not only do particpants learn to write persuasive arguments, but they develop, and hone the nuances of rhetoric on the international stage. The Moot is organized around a contractual problem, which asks students to analyze the articles of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (www.uncitral.org). As such, students are exposed to the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and acquire the added bonus of exposure to comparative legal systems. Specifically, for U.S. law students comparing the rules of Article 2 of the UCC with the CISG is both challenging and exciting. As a result, participants in the Moot develop critical skills in international commercial law that even seasoned lawyers lack.

Moreover, the CISG is at the heart of the Moot. This treaty espouses the theory that economic rights are human rights. The treaty provides uniform rules governing certain aspects of the making and performance of everyday commercial contracts for the sale of goods. Article 7 of the CISG provides that "the adoption of uniform rules, which govern contracts for the international sale of goods should take into account the different social, economic and legal systems." The CISG was created to foster the development of international trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit as an important element in promoting friendly relations among states. The CISG aims to promote international trade by removing legal barriers in international trade, and to unify the sales law of international trade.

Although the focus of the moot is commercial arbitration, the format of the Moot serves several pedagogical needs. Foremost among them is a focus on the representation of clients from diverse backgrounds and diverse legal systems. In this age of globalization and multiculturalism, the Moot provides ample opportunity for students' exposure to crucial interpersonal lawyering skills. Participation in the Moot exposes students to principles of fairness in international contracts, which will instill an awareness of multiculturalism and widen the lenses of their worldview. In addition, the Moot provides students with the opportunity for research and writing, oral adovacy and treaty interpretation.

Each year, the Moot problem focuses on issues of contract drafting, which helps students understand choice of law issues. In the practical context, students learn the importance of effective drafting. These issues allow students to grapple with civil and common law systems of procedure. Although the advocacy space is based primarily on arbitration principles, this forum provides participants with the rhetorical skills needed for effective advocacy, albeit in a non-confrontational and less adversarial manner. In addition, preparation for the Moot can bolster student confidence, and help prepare them for oral advocacy.

Finally, the tenets of multicultural lawyering form the bedrock of the CISG. As outlined in its preamble, the overarching goal of the CISG is to erase disparities in international trade. The CISG espouses the principles of effective lawyering through its emphasis on the use of simpler, clearer language in international contracts. According to Professor Harry Flechtner, the CISG seeks the "ommission of awesome relics through its push for a unified language in the drafting of international contracts." See John Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales Under the 1980 United Nations Convention 30 (Harry Flechtner ed., 4th ed. 2009). This transformative capacity of the Vis Moot and the CISG to improve communication across cultures and transfer the rule of law around the globe will enhance the law school experience, and add value to the lawyering process for law students and practitioners.

Citibank's Promise of Free Checking

What does it mean to be free? When many of us open up a new checking account, it is with the intention of doing business with that bank for a period of time. After all, I've not got my online banking set up to send up bill payments. I've ordered printed checks for when I need them. I've got my debit card. It is a hassle to switch banks and have to redo all this. So, it is important that banks disclose account fees at the outset.

So might have believed customers over at Citibank who opened checking accounts advertised as free. Despite the free-hook, Citibank announced that it would begin imposing account fees on these same customers. Apparently about 1 million free accounts were included. The Truth In Savings Act requires banks to disclose account fees. So, free means free. Moreover, one might expect the free status to last for some time. Not surprisingly then, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office complained about the Citibank fee increase. Today, Citibank announced that free will remain free, putting aside overdraft and other fees, for the time being. (See Citibank to Keep Free Checking).

- JSM

Interchange Fees: the Silent Visa Tax

As we've seen the federal government tackle credit, debit and gift cards, new attention is gearing up toward card network interchange fees. Interchange fees are the cost of using debit and credit cards charged to merchants for use of the network (Visa, Mastercard, etc.). The fees are about $.75 for every $100 spent and more than if the consumer uses the a debit card and enters their pin number. The GAO's November 2009 report on Rising Interchange Fees found the fees are posing a problem for merchants as they comprise a larger amount of the revenue earned with some merchants complaining that the benefit of cards such as lower labor costs and increased sales are outstripped by the cost of the interchange fees. The fees are enough that some discount retailers, like Costco, don't accept credit cards, but will allow the debit card usage. Of course, retailers cannot possibly refuse to accept VISA cards, for instance, so the fees are here to stay. While the fees may be here to stay, I suspect that the size of the fees will cause them to come under regulatory supervision at some point in the not so distant future. That seems to be the common result when greed and overreaching get to a point that complaint is loud enough. With small business owners trying to keep their businesses afloat during a recession, it is easy to see why there is more compaint about the size of interchange fees.

The New York Times just did a nice video (and article) giving a pretty good overview of the tension between the networks, merchants and ultimately consumer interests.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

- JSM

The Politics of Bernanke's Reappointment

The Senate today confirmed Chairmen Bernanke's reappointment to a second term at the Federal Reserve by a vote of 70 to 30 (See Bernanke Confirmed). As concerns abounded about the extent of the Federal Reserve's independence, Senator Schummer commented: “If you don’t like monetary policy when the Fed does it just wait until the politicians get their hands on it.” Well said. Bloomberg did a nice (and short) piece about the politics of the reappointment and the need for the Federal Reserve Chariman to go visiting with the politicians to keep his job.

- JSM

Are Mobile Payments the Next Big Thing?

Forget all this business about credit cards (What You Need to Know About the CARD Act), debit cards (What the Fed's New Overdraft Rules Don't Do) and gift cards (Fed Targets Gift Cards). Here comes mobile payments! Mobile what? At least that is what I said to myself when Jim Chen sent me a link to a CBS article The Mobile Triple Threat (Jan. 22, 2010). Perhaps I've just been in denial that this was coming down the pipeline for real (or too busy complaining about the drawbacks of debit cards). Without knowning more, I found myself reacting "don't even think about doing this . . ." Well, perhaps that is a tad harsh. Merchants are serious about opening this door as handheld phones and readers have increasing amounts of applications for them. And, tighter credit and debit card rules couldn't hurt their motivation either, right?



The whole idea here is that the consumer could be in a store looking at merchandise and not only do research on the product using their mobile device, but also check inventory and make payment for the product (by a charge to their cell phone bill). Other possibilities include small credit card terminals that small merchants could plug into their own mobile device in order to run a customer's credit card (See, Twitter Co-Founder Tackles Mobile Payments). Pretty cool and technically beyond my expertise (See, Discover: Contactless Payment Sticker Users Inadvertently Crippling Performance). But . . . payments wise, this presents the same (and more) problems than consumers just paying at the register with their credit or debit cards. Surely, there are issues about how well the application transfers money and what to do about errors. One would hate to be walking through Best Buy with your phone in your pocket and accidentally purchase several televisions. Moreover, the risk of credit card data being misused or misappropriated is already a problem without the involvement of mobile devices. Poor reliability and speed follow along as potential pitfalls.

Apparently, Paypal, Google and Amazon already have mobile payments capability, so mobile payments appear to be upon us. Mobile payments companies are beginning to receive funding for their ventures, so this will be an area to watch develop (Mobile Payments Startup Boku Lands $25 million). Always a big question regarding payment methods is the cost associated with its use and disclosure to consumers. For me, it will be a while before I pay using my phone.

- JSM

The Big One!

Bless them boys, Who Dat! and Geaux Saints! As someone that spent most of my life in Louisiana, the Saint's getting to the Superbowl feels like an impossible dream that just came true. As someone who lived in New Orleans most of my adult life, who watched from afar after moving away from Louisiana the city that was the state's most visible symbol destroyed by the "big one," that no one thought would come seeing the Saints eligible to play in the "Big Game," that again, no one thought would come, seems surreal. In New Orleans before Katrina, the newscasts would advertise for hurricane preparedness, asking proverbally "what if the big one hit New Orleans." Well it did, and the city has never been the same. For many, the New Orleans Saints represented a break from the reality of mold covered homes and lost possessions -- a way to forget that the city they loved was now forever marked by the eye of a perfect storm, that destroyed lives, houses, and hopes. No symbol was more emblematic than the Superdome -- a building whose exterior mirrored the cities pain for so long.

Tonight's game was bigger than football. It seemed to confirm that the past is over. And maybe that's ok. In New Orleans, the past, before Katrina seemed ideal. It was the after-Katrina world that was so scary. But tonight's win in the same dome where people's lives in the city were forever changed, maybe offers a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the future can be better than the past was. The past was filled with inequality and political cronyism. Maybe that has not changed, but with every new day lies new hope. The Saint's showed that the future does not have to be worst than the past.

In reality, the last few minutes of the game seemed to encapsulate the Saint's and New Orleans' history. The Saint's offense seemed more like the aints' after the first half; the defense gave up first downs and big plays; and the season seemed like so many others of late -- lots of promise, but just short of the big one. And then, as if by divine intervention, the Big Ones came -- the biggest interception; the biggest forty-yard kick-off return; the biggest fourth and inches conversion, and the biggest forty-yard field goal; and, perhaps, the biggest win that the team and the city of New Orleans needed. The future is bright. The only thing I think I can say to match my thoughts -- Bless them Boys! And Geaux Saints.

And now, pulling a trick from Dean Chen's book, I can think of no better song to offer you than U2 and Greenday's The Saints are Coming

Marc (MLR)

Bankers Without a Clue?

Paul Krugman wrote a nice op ed piece in today's New York Times titled Bankers Without a Clue. Krugman observes disappointingly that the bankers just don't get it. In truth, comments like the financial crisis was just a perfect storm (Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein) and that no one could have predicted its coming (Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase & Co.) are pretty unbelievable. I hope that the executives of these large financial insitutions aren't and weren't really that clueless. That said, I agree with Krugman that I don't expect the banks to give much concrete advice on financial reform. The distrust the banks have of regulators (and desire to protect their own pocketbooks) has resulted in many of the banks repaying the TARP funds as soon as possible.

Bill Thomas who is Vice Chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has assured us that at least the questions will be asked. Question is, whether any meaningful financial overhaul will come from this?

-jsm

What You Need to Know About the Card Act

For consumers looking for basic information about the CARD Act, the Federal Reserve just published What You Need to Know: New Credit Card Rules. What credit card companies must tell you:

• when they plan to increase your rate and fees
• how long it will take you to pay off your balance.

The circular also covers all the new rules on fees, rates and limits:

• no rate increases for new cards in the first year
• rate increases only apply to new charges
• restrictions on over-the-limit transactions
• caps on high fee cards
• protections for underage consumers (under 21)

Finally, the circular contains some new rules on billing and payments:

• standardized payment dates and times (i.e. payments due on the same day each month)
• payments applied to highest risk first
• no two-cycle billing.

All and all, the circular is easy to read and even contains handy definitions and links to other information. Hopefully, consumers will be able to find this easily on the Internet (and will read it). Three cheers to the Fed for trying to get the word out.

- JSM

Spot Light Shines on Debit Card Interchange (Finally)

For several years now the hot payment card story has been the rising interchange fees effectively paid by merchants to card-issuing banks on credit card transactions. A major class action attacking those fees is well underway, and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, has an open investigation.

Commentators have disagreed about whether market competition between Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover could yield an appropriate interchange fee or whether more aggressive industry regulation is required. Some say that the only competition is to increase fees to encourage banks to issue a particular network's cards. But some historical evidence suggests that competition among networks does create pressure to lower interchange fees to increase merchant acceptance. There has also been considerable debate about whether interchange fees constitute an unfair tax on those who do not use credit cards.

Surprisingly, however, debit card interchange fees have coasted under the radar since the 2003 settlement in which Visa and MasterCard agreed to pay merchants $3 billion and permit the acceptance of credit cards but not off-line signiture debit cards. At that time, Visa also significantly lowered the interchange fee on its signiture debit cards.

Today's New York Times has a front page story Visa's Strategy in Debit Cards: Push Up Costs by Andrew Martin taking Visa to task for its more recent debit card pricing practices. This attention is long overdue. In contrast to credit cards, the case against Visa and MasterCard's interchange fee pricing practices and the need for regulation are much stronger in the debit arena. Under the right conditions, American Express and Discover could possibly serve as a competitive check on credit card fees, but neither has a significant enough presence in the debit market to challenge the banks issuing Visa and MasterCard. And while the spending flexibility created by credit cards creates significant benefits for consumers and potentially increased sales for merchants -- benefits that may outweigh the cost of credit cards -- debit card benefits are considerably more limited for both consumers and merchants, and their costs are thus significantly less likely to be justified.

The development of debit cards is quite interesting. They began as extensions of ATM cards issued by regional networks of banks with the goal of saving costs by encouraging consumers to switch away from paper checks. Interchange fees were virtually non-existant and, in some cases, banks even paid merchants and consumers to stimulate use of the cards. But banks faced two problems. Like ATM cards, these early debit cards required the entry of a PIN, and most merchants did not have card acceptance systems that could handle PIN entry. Second, because the cards did not generate significant revenue for the banks, they could not justify investing in the advertising necessary to educate consumers about the cards.

Visa responded in the mid-1980s by creating a signiture-based debit card that could run over the Visa credit card network. It permitted any merchant accepting credit cards to also accept debit. And because the card was priced at near credit card levels, the banks were willing to support heavy advertising to stimulate debit card use. The scheme worked. Debit card use exploded.

An initial period of competition arose between Visa and the regional networks (as well as MasterCard) which argued that on-line PIN-based debit was a safer, lower cost option compared to Visa's signiture debit. During this era, Citibank's representative on the Visa board reportedly called the regional network operators "through-put jockeys" because they cared only about increasing volume on the network without paying sufficient attention to bank profits. The campaign thus began to encourage consumers to use signiture debit -- despite the greater potential for fraud and higher processing costs -- through rewards programs and other methods.

These practices led to a mid-1990s major class action led by Walmart and Sears, arguing that Visa and MasterCard illegal tied acceptance of signiture debit cards to credit cards. Six years later, Visa and MasterCard agree to settle the case by permitting merchants accepting credit cards to reject signiture debit and to reduce signiture debit interchange fees.

Although PIN acceptance is now widespread, expensive signiture debit remains a significant market force shifting billions of dollars annually from the retail industry to the banking industry. Why? After the settlement, very few merchants refused to accept signiture debit, fearing that they could lose customers. Today, Costco limits acceptance to PIN debit, and a few other major retailers try to steer customers to PIN, but most do not. In addition, even before the settlement, Visa began a strategy of increasing the interchange fees on its own PIN debit cards, including a major jump in 2007 that left its PIN system's interchange only slightly below its signiture debit interchange. The strategy has had the dual benefit of (1) forcing MasterCard and the regional networks to increase their PIN debit interchange to avoid losing bank support to Visa, and (2) discouraging merchants from disfavoring signiture debit by reducing the pricing spread. A former regional debit network CEO, Ronald Congemi, bemoaned Visa's strategy in the Times article: “What we witnessed was truly a perverse form of competition. They competed on the basis of raising prices. What other industry do you know that gets away with that?”

Critically, debit card issuance is much less costly for card issuers than credit card issuance. Debit cards are issued virtually costlessly to checking account holders as part of the ATM card package. Moreover, they carry virtually no credit risk for the issuer, as the money for the charge is removed from the checking account promptly for signiture debit and immediately for on-line PIN debit. On-line PIN debit also dramatically reduces fraud risk.

Perhaps because credit interchange fees have increased so much, debit cards may appear to be a good deal for merchants. But given the cost differences for card issuers, debit card fees may be much less justifiable and thus a more appropriate target for regulatory attention.

Commercial Law Course Survey Update

I have received 70 responses so far. Once again, I am only reporting the raw numbers to this point, so the percentages reflect the number of times the course option was selected as against the other options (including write in variations). I also include a list of institutions in which someone has posted a response, so if your institution is not represented, please take two minutes to complete the survey by clicking here.

Thanks

Marc (MLR)

Martin, Evans, Wright and More on Consumer Issues in New Lydian Payments Journal

A little self promotion and more. Take a look at the new Lydian Payments Journal. The December issue features:

1. David Evans and Joshua Wright: How the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 Would Change the Law and Regulation of Consumer Financial Products
2. Jennifer S. Martin: What You Should Know about the Debit Card in Your Wallet: Where the Federal Reserve's New Overdraft May Fall Short
3. Francesc Prior Sanz and Javier Santomá: Banking the Unbanked Using Prepaid Platforms and Mobile Telephones in the U.S.
4. Ulf Mattsson: Demystifying PCI Technologies

Happy reading! Yes, after reading all the examinations. I've got a stack of first year Contracts exams coming my way this afternoon.

- JSM

Commercial Law Welcomes Glenys Spence!

Commercial Law is pleased to announce Professor Glenys Spence as our newest guest blogger. Professor Spence practiced civil litigation and immigration law both as a solo practitioner as well as with JBM Immigration Group. In her practice she has represented clients in family-based immigration and deportation defense since 2007. Glenys is an Assistant Professor at Phoenix School of Law. Professor Spence's research focuses on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. We hope to hear her thoughts on the CISG and other commercial topics!

- JSM

What the Fed's New Overdraft Rules Don't Do

Now that classes are over, I've been wanting to turn back to the Federal Reserve's new rules bank overdraft programs (See Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules). Here's a portion of an essay that I've put together for the Lydian Payments Journal:

The largest problems facing regulation of consumer depository accounts are ones created by the need to keep regulations in pace with innovation. That is, bank innovation results in products on the marketplace that are either completely new or are comprised of such variation that the products might as well be new. Services associated with debit cards are a perfect example because debit cards were not commonplace until the late 1990s. Debit cards attach to regular bank depository accounts, yet are not checks, pure ATM cards, or even credit cards. Due to the changing nature of banking products, any regulation must be flexible, rather than static. With respect to debit cards, innovation has progressed unchecked in the wake of consumer excitement for the innovation itself, without creating a parallel regulatory framework. Accordingly, any discussion of the issues consumer depository accounts should take up an examination of the relationship between consumers and banks and explore possible improvements to existing regulatory structure so it may better adapt to innovations in banking products.

Full disclosure of the benefits and detriments of the overdraft programs prior an active enrollment decision is the best approach. If under the Final Rules a consumer enrolls in overdraft protection, resolution of assent and fairness hinges upon the disclosure of the terms of the overdraft service and the practices involved in securing assent. For instance, even though Regulation DD affirmatively requires disclosure of fees, a GAO study found that consumers have difficulty obtaining account terms and conditions and complete fee information even when requested. Moreover, even if the bank discloses the fees, the government does not regulate the reasonableness of fees or the manner in which they are imposed. The terms of overdraft fees are most likely ones of “adhesion,” in that they are offered or imposed without the ability to negotiate them, “take it or leave it” terms. If the GAO is correct, then Banks often fail to disclose the terms at all, even when asked. So, will the Final Rules result in substantial changes in banking practices?

Disclosure is at the cornerstone to most consumer regulations and is the primary prong of financial regulation. The Final Rules address disclosure issues primarily through the model opt-in form that accompanies the rules (the “form”). Importantly, the form: (i) requires that banks affirmatively give customers knowledge of enrollment in overdraft services; (ii) specifies the fee amounts that a bank charges per overdraft transaction, any daily fee charged for the account being overdrawn, and any daily limits on overdraft fees; and (iii) contains information about other, less costly banking services and where the consumer can obtain more information. These changes are significant because under current practice banks enroll many consumers without their knowledge or consent and without such disclosures. Up front disclosure is a key feature of the Final Rules, especially since consumers sometimes have difficulty obtaining fee terms at many banks despite Regulation DD requirements of fee disclosure. Of course, no form is perfect and there remains the potential for consumer confusion.

Curbing bank practices that disadvantage consumers by increasing the amount of overdraft fees incurred is the second prong in the solution to the problems with overdraft protection services banks currently offer. On this point, the Final Rules fall short. Although the Proposed Overdraft Rules addressed the issue of debit card holds by reducing many of the holds from days to just hours, the Final Rules contain no restrictions on holds, leaving wide discretion for the length and size of holds. It is doubtful that a consumer who goes out to gas up the car and buy groceries will know that in order to avoid an overdraft fee caused by a two hour gas pump hold on their card, he or she may want to buy groceries before gas when account balances are low. The Final Rules also do not take up other banking practices that increase the amount of overdraft fees, such as batch reordering of transactions from largest to smallest.

The final prong of any solution regarding overdraft fees must address the size and numerosity of fees imposed for consumers who opt-in the service. While banks typically impose credit card over the limit fees on a monthly basis, banks charge overdraft fees on a per transaction basis. Some consumers may continue to believe that credit and debit cards work the same in this respect. Consumers also tend to believe that government regulation is merit oriented, rather than disclosure based. While some in Congress have urged restrictions on overdraft fees to a “proportional” amount, the Final Rules do not take up fee size (see Dodd Says Senate May Expand Beyond Fed Overdrafts). To the extent that some banks charge overdraft fees on NSFs of less than $5, the size of the fee imposed is clearly material to consumers. Some banks have altered current practices to address this issue.

While the Final Rules represent an improvement over the status quo in terms of informing consumers about enrollment in overdraft services, they do not represent a complete solution to open issues of debit and ATM overdrafts. From the industry perspective, there are genuine operational issues at some banks that will require retooling of existing systems. Much of this must take place by July 1, 2010. Despite the successes in the Final Rules, consumers should not believe that they represent a panacea for overdrafts. If they do, disappointment will follow. This type of regulation is long overdue, probably owing to the more recent development of the product and regulatory system’s inability to respond effectively and promptly to developing issues in newer products. At its simplest, a solution to the problems of consumer choice and disclosure in debit card overdrafts favors a default rule system that gives the consumers an arrangement with the lowest cost. Despite the criticisms herein, the Final Rules go a long way toward that goal.

- JSM

Call for Papers: February 2010 Contracts Conference at UNLV

UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law will host a two-day conference, February 26 & 27, 2010, designed to afford scholars and teachers at all experience levels (including those preparing to enter the academy and those whose primary teaching appointment is not in a law school) an opportunity to present/demonstrate and discuss (formally and informally) recently-published and accepted-but-not-yet-published scholarship, works-in-progress, as-yet-fully-formed ideas for scholarship, and pedagogical innovations, and to network with colleagues -- and potential collaborators or mentors -- from around the country and the rest of the (predominantly) common-law world.

Invitation: We invite paper, presentation, and panel proposals exploring any aspect of contract law, theory, and policy writ large (including, but not limited to, bankruptcy/insolvency, commercial law, consumer law, dispute resolution regimes, family law, insurance law, legal systems, and restitution, in addition to more traditional contract topics) from a behavioral, comparative, critical, doctrinal, economic, empirical, equitable, historical, institutional, interdisciplinary, jurisprudential, pedagogical, philosophical, policy-driven, or political perspective. We also solicit volunteers to serve as moderators or discussants for panels that are not "packaged deals."

The CFPs issued earlier this year for the AALS Section on Contracts' January annual meeting program on New Approaches to Teaching Contracts: A "Teach-In" and the AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law's January annual meeting program on The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: A Phoenix Rising from the Ashes of Article 2B and UCITA? each yielded more excellent proposals than either section could accommodate in New Orleans. Both topics remain quite relevant, and I hope to assemble one or more panels on each that will continue the conversations begun in New Orleans. I am also working on the opening plenary, my UNLV colleague Jeff Stempel is organizing a panel on insurance contracts, and Wayne Barnes (Texas Wesleyan) is organizing a panel on comparative contract law and theory. Those efforts, if all bear fruit, still leave room for many more presenters, moderators, and discussants.

We will try to accommodate as many presenters, moderators, and discussants as possible. We particularly encourage junior scholars and those who work in non-U.S. legal systems to propose papers or panels and to volunteer to serve as a discussant or moderator. We also welcome anyone who wishes to attend the conference without presenting or serving as a discussant or moderator. The educational and networking benefits alone are worth the price of admission.

Publication: There is no publication requirement for conference participants, although experience suggests that individual papers and panels often find good homes. The Nevada Law Journal encourages participants to submit individual and panel papers and hopes to publish several works from the conference in upcoming issues.

Likely Attendees: In addition to me, Jeff Stempel, and Wayne Barnes (mentioned above), as of November 18, the following have committed to attend, or expressed a strong desire to attend: Eniola Akindemowo (Thomas Jefferson), Roy Anderson (SMU), Wayne Barnes, Dan Barnhizer (Michigan State), Charles Calleros (Arizona State), Hazel Glenn Beh (Hawaii), Barbara Bucholtz (Tulsa), Gerald Caplan (McGeorge), Miriam Cherry (McGeorge), Carol Chomsky (Minnesota), Karen Cross (John Marshall), Sidney DeLong (Seattle), Larry DiMatteo (Florida, Warrington College of Business), Jay Feinman (Rutgers-Camden), Marjorie Florestal (McGeorge), David A. Friedman (Willamette), Larry Garvin (Ohio State), Danielle Kie Hart (Southwestern), Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Yong-Sung Jonathan Kang (U. of Washington), Tadas Klimas (Lithuania), Chuck Knapp (UC-Hastings), George Kuney (Tennessee), Peter Linzer (Houston), Charles Martin (Florida Coastal), Jennifer Martin (Oregon), Meredith Miller (Touro), Marcy Peek (Whittier), Joe Perillo (Fordham), Deborah Post (Touro), Michael Pratt (Queen's University/Ontario), Cheryl Preston (BYU), Scott Pryor (Regent), Val Ricks (South Texas), Caprice Roberts (West Virginia), Irma Russell (Tulsa), Adam Scales (Washington & Lee), Andrew Schwartz (Colorado), Sean Scott (Loyola-L.A.), Jeff Stempel, Otto Stockmeyer (Cooley), Howard Walthall (Cumberland), Jarrod Wong (Pacific), and Debbie Zalesne (CUNY). All this without a proper CFP until now. I expect attendance will be at least double this number.

Submitting a Proposal: If you would like to propose a presentation or panel, please e-mail a title, brief description, and any supporting materials by January 4, 2010 to keith.rowley@unlv.edu or snail-mail it to me at 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy., Box 451003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-1003. If you would like to discuss or moderate, please let me know your interests and availability by January 4. We will evaluate proposals as they come in and will consider on a space-available basis any we receive after January 4.

Preliminary Schedule: The conference program will begin both Friday and Saturday morning no later than 9:00 a.m. (grazing and conversational opportunities will start earlier) and will run until 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. each day.

Accommodations: The Hyatt Place next to campus (4520 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, NV 89169) is holding a block of rooms at the rate of $118.00 per night (plus tax). The official deadline for hotel registration at the conference rate is January 25, 2010. However, I encourage you to book sooner, as we blocked a limited number of rooms (due to the The Hyatt Place requiring the law school to guarantee at least 80% occupancy and pay the difference if actual registration was less than we anticipate) and will be more likely to get the Hyatt Place to make the conference rate available to additional attendees if early registration is robust.

To book a conference-rate room at The Hyatt Place, go to http://www.lasvegas.place.hyatt.com/; choose a check-in date no earlier than February 25, 2010 and a check-out date no later than February 28, 2010; enter group code G-BOYD for Boyd School of Law Contracts Conference in the box labeled Group/Corporate #; hit the check availability button; if a room is available, verify that your group name is specified next to rate details and if everything matches, then hit book. If you have trouble booking online, or if you prefer to reserve a room over the phone, please call the hotel at (702) 369-3366.

Transportation: For attendees who stay at the conference hotel, The Hyatt Place provides airport shuttle service and we'll provide transportation between the Hyatt Place and the law school for those not wanting to walk the mile or so. Attendees who prefer to stay on The Strip or elsewhere are responsible for their own transportation.

Sustenance: Your registration fee will cover the costs of lunches both days and a reception and dinner Friday evening, as well as coffee, fruit, and baked goods each morning and cold beverage service and morsels each afternoon. The Hyatt Place also offers a complimentary continental breakfast, which might be particularly attractive to those whose body clocks are on Eastern or Central Time.

Registration: We're still finalizing the conference registration fee and process. The registration fee will be no more than $250. This is higher than past spring contracts conferences. Fortunately, the lower conference hotel rate than at prior conferences, free airport transportation for those staying at the conference hotel, and the relative ease and low cost of flying into and out of Las Vegas's McCarran Airport (which is less than two miles from the hotel) compared to the last three venues, will offset the higher registration fee.

Commercial Law Course Survey

I have received 43 responses to the survey on Commercial Law Courses that I posted yesterday. See below for the results so far (note that right now I am only reporting the raw numbers, but I may break the numbers down further as information continues to come in). Also the percentages at this point reflect the number of courses offered, not the number of institutions offering the course. As more numbers come in, I will break down the numbers to reflect institutional offerings, rather than mere occurrences. If you have not entered information on behalf of your school, please do so by clicking here. Its a very short survey and only takes two minutes to complete, if that.

Commercial Law Offerings

I am doing a quick curriculum survey of commercial law offerings at various schools in an effort to see how commercial law courses are taught in a variety of configurations. The survey is only two questions long and will require less than a minute of your time (maybe less than two minutes -- but I offer no warranties as to the time). Please click the link, identify your school and check all of the boxes that apply to your institution regarding the commercial law courses offered by your school. And for those curious as to the overall results, I will post results as they come in updating as appropriate. I will not post by school, but rather will likely group the results according to tiers or by overall group size.

Marc (MLR)

Fed Targets Gift Cards

The Federal Reserve is on a consumer protection roll. Last week, the Fed tackled overdraft fees on point-of-sale and ATM transactions (see Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules). Today, the Federal Reserve announced proposed rules concerning gift cards aimed at fees on the cards and expiration dates (see press release). The highlights are that providers cannot charge fees unless:

1. The card is inactive for one year;
2. No more than one fee is charged monthly; and
3. The provider gives notice of the fees to the consumer.

Moreover, cards cannot expire for at least five years after purchase or reloading of the card. Both store-specific and network based cards are covered by the rules.

- JSM

AALS Program and Print Symposium on the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts

The AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law invites you to attend our Annual Meeting program on The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: A Phoenix Rising from the Ashes of Article 2B and UCITA? and solicits additional proposals for the companion symposium issue.

The Topic: On May 19, 2009, the ALI approved the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, which undertake to weave the currently divergent threads of law governing software contracts into a coherent whole that will guide parties in drafting, performing, and enforcing software contracts, assist courts and other arbiters in resolving disputes involving software contracts, and, perhaps, inform future legislation addressing software contracts. Do the Principles clarify the law of software contracts? Will they successfully unify the law of software contracts? Are they consistent with current best practices in software contracting? Will they encourage desirable future developments in the law and practice of software contracts? These are among the questions our program speakers will address.

The Program: Our annual meeting program, scheduled for Saturday, January 9, 10:30 AM to 12:15 PM, in the Magnolia Room, Third Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside, will feature Principles Reporter Bob Hillman (Cornell) and Associate Reporter Maureen O’Rourke (Boston U.), who will offer their unique insights on the drafting process, key substantive provisions, and their legal and practical implications; Amy Boss (Drexel), who will add her insights about the failures of the UCC Article 2B project and UCITA and the prospects for the Principles’ success; Juliet Moringiello (Widener), who will discuss her and co-author Bill Reynolds's (Maryland) paper "What's Software Got to Do With It?," offering their perspectives on the Principles process, largely ignoring past efforts and debates, and addressing some of the assumptions underlying the Principles and how they address those assumptions; and Florencia Marotta-Wurgler (NYU), who will discuss her and co-author Yannis Bakos's (NYU Stern School of Business) paper "How Much Does Disclosure Matter?," which delves deeper into the value of disclosure -- an important assumption underlying the Principles and a subject the Principles tackle substantively -- and augments the conceptual discussion with empirical analysis.

The Symposium Issue: The Tulane Law Review will publish a print symposium issue including papers from most of our presenters, papers selected from among those who responded to our initial call for proposals as well as others from whom we solicited contributions, and some shorter responses and replies. We can accommodate a limited number of additional papers, responses, and replies in the symposium issue, which is scheduled to go to press in late summer 2010.

How to Submit a Paper or Proposal: If you would like to contribute to the print symposium, and want your proposal to receive full consideration, please e-mail an abstract, précis, or draft by Monday, December 14, 2009 to Professor Keith A. Rowley, Chair of the AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law. E-mail: keith.rowley@unlv.edu. We may consider submissions received after December 14 on a space-available basis. Executive Committee members and the Tulane Law Review's symposium editors will review all timely submissions and notify no later than Monday, January 11, 2010 those authors we would like to contribute to the print symposium.

Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules

Yes, its taken a long time. Yes, it has needed urging through proposed legislation in Congress. Yes, it has taken the coordinated efforts of several federal agencies. But, success at last. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve Bank announced final rules amending Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (see press release). As we've complained here before, these overdraft charges amount to about $1.7 billion each year in fees to banks (See FDIC Study, How Your $4 Cup of Coffee). There were a number of touchy issues with the banks pushing back firmly on how the rules would come out. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve seems to have come down firmly on the side of consumers on most of the issues primarily raised by debit card use.

So, here are the highlights:

1. Banks must comply with the Final Rules as of July 1, 2010


2. Banks cannot charge an overdraft fee on ATM and point-of-sale debit card (POS) transactions without the customer affirmatively opting-in to overdraft protection


3. The rules apply to existing and new accounts


4. Banks must offer the same account terms to customers who do not choose overdraft protection for ATM and POS transactions

Three issues remain unresolved by the Final Rules: (i) the size of overdraft fees (often $35 per transaction with no daily limit on the number of transactions charged; (ii) the batch reordering of transactions done by banks to increase the amount of fees generated on transactions by customers who do opt-in; and (iii) debit holds that trigger overdraft fees on transactions such as gasoline, hotels and restaurants. These gaps aside, the progress made by the Federal Reserve on debit cards is substantial.

Remember, banks can still charge the fees on those who have not opted-in until July 2010. So, still use your debit cards with care. As for me, I will not be opting-in, but will await the sales pitch that banks will inevitably make.

- JSM

Phillip Keitel on Gift Cards

'Tis the season for gift cards! While this piece is from 2008, Phillip Keitel of the Philadelphia Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank has written The Laws, Regulations, Guidelines, and Industry Practices that Protect Consumers Who Use Gift Cards. Here's the abstract:

This paper discusses consumer protections available to gift-card users. Specifically, it examines the ways in which value loaded at the time of purchase is protected for future card use or returned to consumers when the card is not used or has expired. The consumer protection information included in this paper is derived from a number of sources, including several types of state statutes, Federal Trade Commission decisions, financial industry regulatory agency guidelines, and previous interviews with payments industry experts regarding practices concerning network-branded gift cards. This paper expands research begun by the Payment Cards Center in 2004 into prepaid cards generally and the protections available to consumers who use gift cards specifically.

Happy shopping!

- JSM

Update on H.R. 3126 Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009

The U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3126, a bill for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Oct. 22 in a 39-29 vote. The bill does not have a date scheduled for a full House vote, and the Senate does not have a companion bill proposed at this time.

In case you've not been following this, the CFPA would have the authority to write new consumer protection rules in the arenas of lending and credit, to monitor banks and other financial institutions for compliance with these rules, and to penalize institutions for any infractions. The CFPA would also have the ability to ban products, marketing tactics, and other business practices that it deems “unfair, deceptive, or abusive.”

The Financial Services Committee added several amendments which altered the Obama Administration’s original outline of the agency. An amendment added Oct. 21 exempts the insurance agency from CFPA oversight and prevents the agency from interfering with state insurance regulators’ oversight of insurance companies and products. An amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) adds five representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to the CFPA Oversight Board. Another amendment phases out the Home Valuation Code of Conduct; the amendment would allow all originators, licensed or registered in accordance with the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, to order appraisals directly.

The bill is now over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee which appears to be amending the bill to replace the executive who was to run the agency with a five-member commission with staggered terms.

- RH (Reid Haataja, posted by JSM)

Harry Flechtner on the Scope of the CISG

Those those CISG fans, Professor Harry Flechtner, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has a new piece Selected Issues Relating to the CISG's Scope of Application. The abstract is as follows:

This paper addresses two issues concerning the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), both of which have arisen in recent decisions applying the Convention: 1) whether requirements imposed by U.S. domestic sales law on attempts to disclaim implied warranties apply to attempts to derogate from the seller‘s obligations under Arts. 35(2)(a) & (b) CISG; and 2) whether burden of proof questions that are not expressly addressed in the CISG are governed by the general principles of the CISG. The paper defends the use of the distinction between substantive and procedural law in defining the scope of the CISG with respect to burden of proof issues, and in determining the whether the Convention provides for the recovery of damages for attorneys’ fees incurred to litigate a claim under the CISG. The paper concludes by arguing that defining the limits of the Convention‘s scope is critical to its success, and to the success of future attempts to create uniform international commercial law.

Happy reading.

- JSM

Consumers May Buy Less Halloween Candy

A Time story this week reports that consumers will spend less on Halloween candy this year! Don't worry too much about this being a terribly large crisis driving little children into a frenzied panic comparable only to a bank run . . . the average spending is expected to be $56.31 per person, down from $66.54 last year. And, no worries, apparently the name brand candies will win out over store brand. As for our family, with three kids we've invested in our share to keep the economy going forward. Miniature Play Dough, chocolates and bubble gum eyeballs will be featured at our door on Saturday.

For the safety conscious, Consumer Reports has a nice piece on Halloween safety. Light the front walk, drive carefully, carry flashlights, practice fire safety with those pumpkins, etc.

Happy Halloween and have fun trick-or-treating!

- JSM

Baby Einstein May Not Make Your Kids Smarter!

Meredith Miller over at the Contracts Blog reported on this little dispute that Disney has had with a consumer group over its Baby Einstein products. See, Miller, Important Consumer Alert. I have to admit that we own about fifty of these dvds that came in a set and my little guys loved them. Are they smarter as a result of Baby Einstein? Well, of course I think they are . . . I can say the kids like the classical music and I play them in Spanish so that they dvds reinforce the second language they are learning.

From Disney's website:

For the past several years, Baby Einstein has been under attack by propaganda groups taking extreme positions that try to dictate what parents should do, say and buy. Our philosophy has always been to focus on creating products that parents and babies love, and to not get sidetracked and pulled down into their street fight.

Unfortunately, with Susan Linn’s latest stunt, we cannot be silent any longer. Linn’s obvious dislike for Baby Einstein has now turned into a sensational, headline-grabbing publicity campaign that seeks to twist and spin a simple, customer satisfaction action into a false admission of guilt. This is clearly not the case.

Linn’s moves are carefully crafted to prey on parental guilt and uncertainty. This time, she began by asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to go after Baby Einstein because, she said, we claimed that Baby Einstein was educational. But we do not make any such claim – and the FTC brought no action.

Not content to rely on the judgment of the federal government, her attacks continued and escalated despite the fact that her assertions have no merit.

That’s where we are today. However, we took a very different approach. We strongly believe that, unlike Linn, our consumers find value in our product, and rather than continue to fight with her, we decided to leave it up to those consumers. That is why we extended a refund policy that was already in place. Although she would like to claim otherwise, there is nothing extraordinary about a company’s willingness to stand behind its product. To the contrary, it is the strongest possible show of confidence in it.

Baby Einstein announced this offer in a press release issued on September 4, 2009, which was largely ignored by the media. Linn’s latest public relations blitz simply distorts the facts and misleads the public. In the end, this smear campaign has everything to do with Linn trying to generate ink and funding for her cause, and not about the value that consumers find in our product.

Thank you for letting us set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Susan McLain
General Manager, The Baby Einstein Company

Not being a big fan of television for kids, we actually found the Baby Einstein dvds had some positive, if not wholly education components. But, clearly there is a difference of opinion. It is difficult to make this really a good case of a breached warranty. It would have to be an express warranty (affirmation of fact) under UCC 2-313. The case that the dvds did not make your kids smarter would seem to have problems on the arguments of opinion, puffery and the like. Disney has put a stop to any claims by just offerring the refund.

In case you want your refund, see babyeinstein.com.

- JSM

Credit Card Rates Up 20%

This Today Show piece discusses a study about increasing credit card rates which finds a 20% across the board rate increase. On of the consumers interviewed is actually a banker complaining of a 20% increase by Chase on his card.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

- JSM

Dodd Seeks to Freeze Credit Card Rates

In a new move against the credit card interest rates, Senator Christopher Dodd introduced new legislation attempting to freeze credit card rates. It seems that many card companies are attempting to increase rates before the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act goes into effect (see Dodd Bill and Dodd Pushes). The banks argue that the freeze would require them to cut back on lending.

Consumers are justifiably mad about the rate hikes (See Debtors Revolt). The Debtor's Revolt has a new youtube video where she calls Chase Bank for raising her interest rate to 21% and closes the account. While I applaud her "revolt" response to bank's raising rates without good cause to do so, consumers need to be cognizant about the effect that closing accounts has on their credit scores. This is particularly true when it is a longer held account (in the Debtor's Revolt Chase incident, it appears to be a newer account as she mentions an introductory rate). Having received one of these rate increases in the mail myself recently, it reminds us all to read these stock letters from the card companies. While paying off credit card debt has historically been a good thing, the changing strategies of banks raising rates, closing accounts and reducing credit lines may force consumers to be more cautious than ever with card companies (See Suzi Orman, Change in Credit Card Strategy). Let's see if Dodd can plug this hole.

See here for the video:

- JSM

Toys R Us to Feature FAO Schwarz

Something to expect this holiday season, Toys R Us will now feature FAO Schwarz boutiques. See Toys R Us to Feature. When FAO went out of business, Toys R Us bought the rights to the name and now intends to use it in about 600 of its stores. Not only will there be in-store purchasing, but there is a website (fao.com) and a holiday catalogue coming. The concept, of course, is to offer different toys that aren't otherwise available. Yes, the prices may be higher in a year that consumers might be looking to cut back a bit. Toys R Us has bought up a number of other brands of late (eToys.com, babyuni- verse.com and the resource site ePregnancy.com). Always on the lookout for fun toys for my own kiddos, I found a set of World of Eric Carl Bath Squirty Toys that my boys will love. And, priced at just $7.99, very reasonable.

Happy shopping!

- JSM

Banks Impose Fees on Those Who Pay Off Credit Cards

Yep, had to know this one was coming. As I watched the Today show this morning, a piece came on about credit card fees (see also MSNBC, USA Today). Not only has the financial crisis resulted in consumers being squeezed by rate hikes (see Consumer Revolt), but banks face new disclosure and other requirements under the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights Act (see Obama Signs). Banks are also scrambling to head off new debit card rules that will surely curtail fees generated by overdraft charges (see Big Banks Alter and Back to Work on Debit). Citibank and Bank of America are the banks imposing these new fees, for consumers who pay off the balance every month, who don't carry a high enough balance or who keep open lines of credit in the event of emergency. Of course, consumers have to be careful in cutting up cards to avoid these fees as it can negatively affect their credit scores. Although consumers can shop around for banks that are not imposing these fees, one must wonder how quickly other banks will follow suit. While credit unions and smaller banks might still provide low cost cards, those options might not be available to many consumers who've been hit hard by the financial crisis. As always, be careful with your cards and reexamine which ones you really want to keep.

Here's the Today show piece:

- JSM

Bernanke Speaks on "After the Fall"

This week Ben Bernanke spoke in Chatham, Massachusetts on the role of the Federal Reserve after the crisis (See Bernanke Speech). Bernanke took the opportunity to observe the difference that a year makes in world finances, but urged (again) that with the crisis "abating" Congress must still act to prevent a future crisis of this severity.

We have seen numerous instances when weaknesses and gaps in the regulatory structure itself contributed to the crisis, many of which can only be addressed by statutory change. Notably, to promote financial stability and to address the extremely serious problem posed by firms perceived as "too big to fail," legislative action is needed to create new mechanisms for oversight of the financial system as a whole; to ensure that all systemically important financial firms are subject to effective consolidated supervision; and to establish procedures for winding down a failing, systemically critical institution without seriously damaging the financial system and the economy.

Bernanke went on to comment on a number of actions the Federal Reserve has taken and also to to take up the issue of consumer protection. Bernanke observed that "effective consumer protection promotes healthy competition in the financial marketplace, supports sound lending practices, and increases confidence in the financial system as a whole." Bernanke commented on the Fed's efforts using consumer testing to help determine when consumers understand financial products and communications from financial institutions. The Fed has used consumer testing in the debate involving debit cards, for instance. While no final regulations are yet in place for debit cards, the consumer testing tool may turn out to help the Fed tackle issues surrounding clarity of disclosures.

Bernanke has been hammering on the topic of needed regulatory changes for some time now. Let's hope that Congress is listening.

- JSM

Back to Work on Debit Card Rules

We've been discussing for some time on the issue of debit card overdrafts (See Big Banks Alter Debit Overcharge Rules , New York Times Takes on Overdraft and How Your $4 Cup of Coffee Can Cost $34 or More), with no success on the rulemaking front. The Federal Reserve has announced, though, that rules are close to completion and will be in the form of an opt-in option for consumers (See WSJ, Fed is Near New Fee Rules). Governor Tarullo of the Fed testified last week before the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that the rules are near completion.

Although the Fed seems poised to finally move on debit cards, Congress appears to lack faith in the ability of the Fed to get this one done. While the Fed has lingered in its rulemaking, the Center for Responsible Lending reports that overdraft fees have increased 35% in the last two years alone. Senator Chris Dodd is leading the charge for Congressional intervention on debit cards. While rulemaking has been long coming, the pressure by Congress seems to also draw attention to the Fed's inability at times to protect consumer interests as part of its core mission. The situation of debit cards is but another example of why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a good idea (See Debate Heating Up). This may well be enough to spur the Fed to finishing up the debit card rules. Here's a piece on the proposed legislation.

-JSM

Comsumer Financial Protection Debate Heating Up

This weekend's New York Times had a piece by Joe Nocera titled Have Banks No Shame? in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Nocera hits it plainly remarking the CFPA's "sole goal would be to try to keep bank — and nonbank — customers from being gouged, deceived or otherwise taken advantage of." It seems like a simple proposition. How could anyone be opposed to this? Of course, there are detractors. The American Banker's Association's (ABA) website has as one of two "urgent action alerts" the opposition of the CPFA. The ABA explains "a separate consumer regulator is not necessary and is in direct contradiction with the existing approach which recognizes that consumer protection and safety and soundness are inextricably bound and should not be separated." Not necessary is a translation of business as usual. A recent editorial at the Wall Street Journal argues that the CFPA will unleash Fifty Eliot Spitzers on the banks for the purpose of harassment. Both represent a call to defeat the CPFA. This piece simply sounds in scare tactics.

Todd Zywicki of George Mason has argued one of the more reasoned oppositions that I've seen. His basic argument seems to be that the CFPA will not increase market competition and goes beyond historical restraints on lending. Zywicki believes that credit card debit is simply in substitution for other debt that consumers have always had, the CFPA will increase the cost of credit and that most consumers understand the products (See, Zywicki Testimony). I disagree with Zywicki on a number of points, particularly with respect to complexity of and transparency in marketing of financial products and basic fairness. I don't believe that consumers understand the terms offerred on financial products or even that lenders and banks actually disclose all relevant terms (c.f., FDIC Study on Bank Overdrafts). Moreover, without a regulator whose mission it is to take up consumer issues, there are impediments to regulatory intervention in products that are not as much on the Federal Reserve's top list, such as debit card overdraft fees. Nocera pretty much sums it up well: "The sooner we can pass the thing, the better."

Here's an interview that Zywicki arguing against the CFPA:

- JSM

Obama Speech on Consumer Protection Agency

Sure, President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize today, but he also spoke in support of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Interestingly, President Obama took up issues not only of mortgages, but of loans in general, even payday loans. He even mentioned one of my favorite gripes, bank overdraft fees. Moreover, he took aim at those opposed to the CFPA. From the transcript:

This agency will have the power to make certain that consumers get information that is clear and concise -- in plain language -- so they can compare products and know exactly what they're getting themselves into. It will ensure that banks and other firms can't hide behind these ridiculously confusing contracts -- pages and pages of fine print that nobody can figure out. It will have the ability to enforce and build on the credit card reforms we passed earlier this year, so that consumers aren't hit with unfair rate hikes and penalties, or hidden charges. It will require brokers to look out for the interests of families if they give advice about mortgages. And it will ensure transparency and fair dealing for other financial products, like bank overdraft services and payday loans.

Here's the video:

- JSM

Adam Levitin on the Consumer Financial Protection Agency

Georgetown's Adam Levitin recently wrote The Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a Pew Financial Reform Project briefing paper. Adam's work is important to this initiative to create the CFPA (See Communication From Academic Faculty). Here's the abstract:

The Obama administration has proposed restructuring financial services regulation by transferring all consumer protection functions from existing agencies to a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). The goal of the CFPA legislation is to address the flaws in the regulatory architecture that have inhibited effective responses to the substantive problems, rather than mandate specific new substantive consumer protection laws.

The current consumer financial protection is based on disclosure regime and is policed through supervisory feedback, enforcement actions, and occasionally prohibitions on terms, products, and practices that are deemed inherently unfair and deceptive. On the federal level, consumer protection in financial services is divided among a number of agencies: the OCC, OTS, NCUA, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, FHFA, HUD, VA, FTC and DOJ. Some of these agencies have the ability to promulgate regulations, some also exercise supervisory authority over financial institutions, and some may only enforce existing regulations. Sometimes authority is over a class of institutions, and sometimes it is over a particular type of product.

There are four main structural criticisms of the current regulatory structure: that consumer protection is a so-called 'orphan' mission; that consumer protection conflicts with, and is subordinated to, safety-and-soundness concerns; that no agency has developed an expertise in consumer protection in financial services, and; that regulatory arbitrage of the current system fuels a regulatory race-to-the-bottom.

Consolidation of consumer financial services protection authority could: place all financial services companies, regardless of the form of their charter, under a single regulator, thus ending its orphan status; separate consumer protection from safety-and-soundness regulation, thus ending subordination; encourage the development of a deep bench of regulatory expertise and knowledge, and; end the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage and any potential race to the bottom.

There are several potential concerns about a CFPA: conflicts with prudential regulators; ambiguity with respect to Consumer Reinvestment Act authority, and; potential overregulation resulting in higher costs of financial products, less product availability, and discouragement of innovation. Still, there are compelling reasons to believe that the present regulatory architecture cannot produce the optimal consumer protection regime and will continue to fail in its task, resulting in unfair treatment of consumers and a potentially significant source of systemic risk. To this extent, consideration of a CFPA should strive to distinguish between the basic thrust of the legislation - a consolidation of the regulatory authority of - and the proposed new substantive powers granted to the agency.

-JSM

Mark Roark on Fixtures

Commercial Law's Mark Roark (LaVerne) has written Defining Fixtures in Law and Policy in the UCC, which will appear in the Cincinnati Law Review. It always warms my heart to see great law review placements on UCC papers! Here's the abstract:

This article offers both a concession and a critique. The article concedes that the law of fixtures under the Uniform Commercial Code is helplessly tied to the various state laws dictating real estate. The natural impact of explicitly tying a UCC doctrine to multiple state law variation is the automatic loss of uniformity. At the center of the fixtures discussion in the UCC is a definition that does not define, and more importantly, does not limit doctrinal extension. Because the UCC offers a non-defining definition, this article considers the function of the fixtures definition. Specifically, the article looks to the original drafters comments about what the purpose of the fixtures definition was intended to accomplish.

Conceding that the definition in the UCC does not define, the article then critiques the definition by asking what role the definition plays in the game of seeking uniformity. Specifically, the article argues that the fixtures definition in UCC Section 9-102(a)(41) performs a function just as important as defining - it narrates. The article argues that the drafters in deciding on a definition of fixtures isolated themes of commonality and described those themes in a concise, but useful description of the fixture. Those themes include the joining of goods to realty, the concept of relation, and the emphasis on interests as a governing factor in the fixtures analysis. The article argues that the narration accomplished by the UCC allows for uniformity, not by mandatory uniformity, but by synchronic dialogue - allowing the themes to create images and the images to compel instinctive beliefs. The article argues, however, that the description provided by the drafters should be reunited with the substantive provisions relating to fixtures since each are tied to the other’s understanding.

-JSM

Consumer Revolts Over Increased Credit Card Fees

I liked this story about a woman who took on Bank of America after they increased her credit card rate to 30% after she was late on one payment in 2008 and a second in 2009. After she launched a widely distributed youtube video, Bank of America agreed to reduce her rate to 12.99%. It is a shame that consumers have to go to such lengths to get a favorable bank response. Here are the videos before and after the renegotiation:

- JSM

Lenders Modifying Home Mortgages

Today's news included a Treasury report that lenders have modified 500,000 home loans to keep home owners in the homes under a trial loan modification program. I applaud the government for encouraging such modifications which would hopefully increase the value to both the mortgage holders and homeowners alike by protecting the asset and obtaining payment on the loan. Yet, I am reluctant to find joy in the number of loans so modified or the ease for consumers seeking loan modifications.

The Making Home Affordable modification program originally advertised that it would help 4 million homeowners retain their homes. (See, Foreclosures, New York Times). Mortgage foreclosures during the second quarter of 2009 were up 16%, reflecting falling housing values and rising unemployment. New Treasury plans include incentives for "short sales," which allow homes to be sold at less than loan value (i.e. market value) to head off foreclosures that are coming in the future (Short Sales Plan).

Two of the biggest impediments to modifications or short sales seems to be time and difficulty. While keeping homes out of foreclosure appears a good idea, lenders are likely earning default fees on the loan. Lenders may also be reluctant to modify loans too early, hoping owners will bring the loans current. Yet, waiting too long can allow the home to slip into foreclosure. Buyers interested in a short sale may also bolt if the bank takes too long or does not approve the home price, which is likely to be substantially below the loan value on the property. The difficulty of obtaining loan modifications and conflicting information received from lenders discourages eligible modifications under the federal plan.

While our home thankfully is not in foreclosure, I can report on our in process home refinancing that probably represents much of the frustrations that home owners face. For instance, in shopping for rates and costs, we found that some of the lending representatives did not return calls. Others had voice-mail boxes that were full so that messages could not be left. One Citi Mortgage representative gave us refinancing numbers, but then later we were never able to reach her. A second Citi Mortgage representative told us the initial numbers were actually wrong. Hardly inspiring. In the end, Wells Fargo actually negotiated rates that beat the competitors, so we are now working on reviewing paperwork with them. We're not done, but at least the refinance is locked in at a favorable rate. Yet, I can see from our own experience for an uncomplicated refi the frustrations that homeowners are reporting, particularly when the situation is complicated by a delinquency or foreclosure.

So, is the 500,000 milestone a reason to celebrate? Probably. But my enthusiasm is lessened by the amount of transactions that remain.

-JSM

Are Card Companies Reverse Robin Hoods?

The New York Times is running a series on various forms of payment cards, and a re-occurring theme appears to be whether card companies effectively rob the poor to reward the rich. Are they Reverse Robin Hoods. Last Friday, Floyd Norris's High & Low Finance column claimed that low income consumers actually pay more than the affluent. He reached this conclusion by reasoning that merchants charge everyone the same price, but that those who carry reward credit and debit cards get a rebate from their card companies. The less affluent who pay in cash thus effectively pay more. I have argued elsewhere that Norris's analysis is too simple and may well be wrong. On today's front page, however, Times reporter Andrew Martin has a story entitled "Prepaid, but Not Prepared for Debit Car Fees" that shows that the situation for the poor may be even worse. This piece argues that pre-paid debit cards -- used by many low income people who lack bank accounts -- charge outrageous fees. These cards are a relatively new product not addressed in the recent credit card legislation or bills addressing traditional debit cards linked to checking accounts. One has to wonder why a pre-paid product should trigger high fees given that the issuer is bearing no credit risk or the administrative costs of billing the cardholder.

These articles, of course, raise more questions than they answer. Is it really true that merchants could lower their prices if they stopped accepting credit cards? If so, why don't we see more merchants doing it. Wouldn't the lower prices they could charge give them a competitive advantage? If not, what is it about the payment card market that seems immune to many forms of competition? For example, why would low income consumers waste money on a pre-paid debit card when they could open a bank account with lower fees? Banks seem to be responding to threatened debit card legislation, and American Express has taken a competitive stance on gift card fees, apparently spurred by recent credit card legislation. Shouldn't market pressures produce competition without actual or threatened legislation? In future posts, I'll try to explore some of these questions and consider ways in which the law might help advance consumer interests.