By: Siqi Wang The proliferation of free or low-cost investment apps has disrupted the financial industry in recent years. Major brokerage firms have been pressured to go to zero fees due to intense competition from their fintech counterparts. While these apps have extended their products and services to those underserved by traditional brokers, some of their practices raise consumer protection concerns. Namely, the practice of “payment for order flow,” which helps fintech startups sustain a zero-commission model, could lead to subordinating customers’ best interest to market makers who acquire their retail orders from these fintech startups. Further, “cash management accounts,” newly popular among fintech startups with an ambition to compete with chartered banks raise questions about the use of idle customer assets and the protections afforded to these accounts in case of liquidation. This Note considers the products and services of these investment apps in the context of existing U.S. regulations and regulators for broker-dealers, investment advisors, and chartered banks. To illustrate this, this Note analyzes the potential consumer financial protection issues arising out of these fintech-based investment platforms’ distinctive business models and the services they provide. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 19 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 43
Month: February 2021
Cyber and TRIA: Expanding the Definition of An “Act of Terrorism” to Include Cyber Attacks
By: Nehal Patel The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought on financial losses that caused insurers and Congress to reevaluate how the United States approaches terrorism risk coverage. Congress quelled concerns of insurers evading coverage of future terrorist attacks by enacting the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act in 2002. This Note considers the difficulties presented by the out-of-date language employed by Congress in 2002 and proposes amendments so that the Act more clearly covers acts of cyberterrorism, which are ever-growing in their destructive potential. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 19 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 23
Ripple Effects: How in Re Ripple Labs Inc. Litigation Could Signal the Beginning of the End of the Payment Platform
By: Lindsay Martin Ripple Labs provides an international payment network that allows financial institutions to transfer money more cheaply and quickly than traditional international payments. Ripple’s native digital currency, XRP, supports global payments by acting as intermediate currency between different currencies, eliminating correspondent bank’s need to hold deposits in foreign currencies. In an ongoing class action lawsuit, XRP purchasers claim that the digital asset qualifies as a security under federal securities laws and that Ripple illegally offered and sold XRP as an unregistered security. Given Ripple’s rising prominence as a tool for financial institutions, this pending case will impact cryptocurrency markets and international payments. Because XRP is most likely a security subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), this matter poses an existential threat to the Ripple network. This note examines the legal issues leading up to the Ripple litigation and explains why XRP is most likely a security. It concludes by discussing the SEC’s likely approach to Ripple’s unregistered Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 19 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1