Legal Seminar, Denver, CO

SEC ALJ Cameron Elliot

• Cameron Elliot was appointed in 2011

• Previously, Elliot was an ALJ for the Social Security Administration

• He was previously an attorney at the law firm of Darby & Darby P.C. in New York, where he handled intellectual property litigation. • Prior to his private-sector work, Mr. Elliot spent eight years at the U.S. Department of Justice, starting in 1998 as a trial attorney in Washington, D.C., where he was responsible for civil litigation in patent and copyright cases. • From November 2001 until September 2006, Mr. Elliot was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, first in the Southern District of Florida and then in the Eastern District of New York. • Elliot graduated from Harvard Law School in 1996 and clerked for Judge Edward Reed in the U.S. District Court in Nevada from July 1996 to August 1998. • Elliot holds a Bachelor of Science degree in physics and applied physics from Yale College, where he graduated magna cum laude in 1987. He then served for six years as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy and Naval Reserve.

Ninth Circuit: National Banks are Subject to California’s Mortgage Escrow Interest Law • In Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A . (“BofA”) , the Ninth Circuit held that the National Bank Act (“NBA”), interpreted in light of the Dodd-Frank Act and the case law it codified, does not preempt a California law requiring banks to pay interest earned on residential mortgage escrow accounts. • According to the Ninth Circuit, the Dodd-Frank Act addressed NBA preemption by: • Endorsing the standard provided in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson permitting a state to regulate a national bank if it does not prevent or significantly interfere with the bank's exercise of its powers. • Requiring the OCC to follow specific preemption determination procedures. • Confirming that the OCC's preemption determinations are subject to only Skidmore deference • The court concluded that Congress, in passing the Dodd-Frank Act, explicitly recognized the viability of state escrow interest laws and, by extension, did not deem their existence prohibitively disruptive to national banks. To support its holding, the court: • Noted that the Dodd-Frank Act amended existing federal statutes to permit the payment of escrow interest if required by applicable state law. • Cited legislative history revealing Congress's concern over the abuse of escrow accounts by mortgage lenders and servicers. • Determined that the OCC regulation in question erroneously interpreted the Barnett Bank standard and was entitled to little or no deference under Skidmore. • The Ninth Circuit observed that approximately 13 states have escrow interest laws similar to California's.