| • | | required JPMorgan Chase Bank and its affiliates to provide a credible plan for resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, referred to in this prospectus as the “Bankruptcy Code,” and provides sanctions that include divestiture of assets or restructuring in the event the plan is deemed insufficient. |
The Department of the Treasury, FSOC, SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, referred to in this prospectus as the “CFTC,” Federal Reserve, OCC, CFPB and FDIC are engaged in extensive rule-making mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act.
In October 2014, the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and certain other prudential banking regulators approved a final rule that mandates risk retention for securitizations, including credit card securitizations. The final rule, which became effective December 24, 2016, requires the sponsor or a wholly-owned affiliate of the sponsor to retain, unhedged, a minimum of 5% of the credit risk of the securitized assets. See “Retained Interests—Credit Risk Retention” for more information on the application of this rule to the issuing entity.
In August 2014, the SEC adopted final rules that significantly revise Regulation AB and modified the existing regulations that govern disclosure requirements, offering processes and periodic reporting for asset-backed securities, including those offered under JPMorgan Chase Bank’s credit card securitization program, referred to in this prospectus as “Regulation AB II.” The SEC has indicated it may revisit certain proposals not reflected in the final rules, such as required disclosure of grouped-account data for credit card securitizations, in the future.
A certain amount of the rule-making under the Dodd-Frank Act still remains to be done. As a result, the complete impact of the Dodd-Frank Act remains uncertain. It is not clear what form some of these remaining regulations will ultimately take, or how the asset-backed securities market, including the issuing entity, Chase Card Funding or JPMorgan Chase Bank, as well as credit card lending generally, will be affected.
No assurance can be given that the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulations or any other new legislative changes enacted will not have a significant impact on the issuing entity, Chase Card Funding or JPMorgan Chase Bank, including on the level of receivables held in the issuing entity or the amount of notes that may be issued in the future.
The sponsor, servicer, transferor and the issuing entity could be named as defendants in litigation, resulting in increased expenses and greater risk of loss on your notes.
The sponsor, servicer, transferor and the issuing entity are subject to the risks of litigation as a result of a number of factors and from various sources, including the highly regulated nature of the financial services industry, the focus of state and federal prosecutors on banks and the financial services industry and the structure of securitization funding programs in the credit card industry.
In June 2019, a lawsuit (Petersen et al. v. Chase Card Funding, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-00741 (W.D.N.Y. June 6, 2019)) was filed against Chase Card Funding and the issuing entity. The putative class action was brought by several New York residents with credit card accounts originated by JPMorgan Chase Bank (which is not named as a defendant), who alleged that JPMorgan Chase Bank securitized their credit card receivables in the issuing entity. The complaint contended that the defendants are required to comply with New York state’s usury law under the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2505 (June 27, 2016) because they are non-bank entities that are not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in August 2019 and in January 2020, and in September 2020 the court granted the defendants’ motion to
28