Wednesday, June 11, 2008

GlobeSt.com

Check Conversion is Moving to the Back Office

May 2007

By Charla L. Hausler and James E. Michel, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Now more than ever, retailers are processing customers’ checks electronically. Image exchange or electronic check conversion via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network are valid options. Back Office Conversion (BOC), which goes into effect on March 16, 2007, will provide retailers with a new option in check conversion.




Electronic Check Conversion: A Retailer’s Options

Processing paper checks can be expensive and inefficient. Handling, delivery, collection and fraud lead to increased costs and inefficiencies. Converting checks to electronic payments allows retailers to reduce labor and processing costs, minimize fraud, and get money faster.
Check conversion through the ACH Network is governed by the ACH Rules established by the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA). Before BOC, retailers had one option for converting checks received at the point of sale: Point of Purchase transactions (POP). Some retailers have found that POP is not the right option for their business due to training and implementation costs. POP requires that checks be converted to ACH transactions at the point of sale. Retailers must provide equipment to each cashier and ensure that POP requirements are being followed.



The Nuts and Bolts of BOC

With BOC, checks can be converted in a back office setting, rather than at the point of sale. Checks eligible for conversion include consumer and business checks in the amount of $25,000 or less that do not contain the “Auxiliary On-Us” field.


Customer authorization is required before a check can be converted into a BOC transaction. A retailer obtains authorization by providing a notice that informs customers that the retailer is authorized to use information from the check to make a one-time electronic funds transfer from the customers’ account. A copy of the notice must also be provided to customers at the time of sale. A telephone number that is answered during normal business hours must be made available for customer inquiries.


Until January 1, 2010, retailers must also notify customers that funds can be withdrawn from a customers’ account that same day and that customers will not receive the check back from their bank.


Notices to customers must be posted in a prominent and conspicuous location. A retailer must also provide an opt-out option, such as allowing customers to use a different form of payment such as a credit card.
Retailers must create an electronic image of the check and retain the image for at least two years. The original check must be securely stored until it is destroyed.



Deciding What’s Right for Your Business

Retailers should consider the advantages and disadvantages of BOC before deciding if it is the right method of electronic check conversion for their business.
There are several questions which can aid merchants in making the decision:


• Can the merchant safely retain the check until destruction?
• What percentage of the staff will need training?
• Would the cost of staff training be economically viable?
• Is the current staff appropriate to conduct back office conversion?
• How much would the equipment cost?
• Is there enough space available for the required equipment?
• What is the volume of paper checks that the business handles?



Before implementing any check conversion option, retailers need to be aware of requirements imposed by the ACH Rules, as well as applicable federal and state laws. Complying with these laws and the ACH Rules will reduce a retailer’s risk of potential liability and fines. It may also prevent a retailer from being an easy target for fraud.


BOC may be a viable alternative for many retailers in the check processing world. NACHA estimates the potential market size for BOC to be one to four billion payments annually by 2010. With BOC, more businesses may now benefit from electronic check conversion.


The articles and content posted on this blog are intended for general informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

Purging the Paper Trail

Chain Store Age

Purging the Paper Trail

April 2007

By Charla L. Hausler and James E. Michel, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Last month, the new Back-Office Conversion (BOC) rule took effect, allowing retailers to retain paper checks accepted at the point of sale and convert all checks to electronic transfers in a centralized location. For retailers with multiple checkout lanes, this simplifies the POS process and eliminates the need for imaging technology at each lane.


However, the new BOC process carries the added responsibility of what to do with the paper check after the electronic transfer has been completed. Retailers are required to keep an image of the check for at least two years, but may dispose of the actual paper at any time. (Under previous point-of purchase processes, the check was electronically imaged at each POS station and the paper check was returned to the consumer.) “There is a risk, potentially a big liability, with BOC—namely the retailer will be [accountable] for anything that happens with a check,” noted Charla Hausler, an associate in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg, which is ranked among the 100 largest law firms in the United States. “Retailers will have to implement good security procedures. Checks may be locked in a safe for a period of time and then shredded, but there have to be policies in place for when and how the paper is destroyed.” Additionally, the image and information that was electronically captured must be held in a secure, preferably encrypted, database.


The articles and content posted on this blog are intended for general informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

EPN News


EPN News (Electronic Payments News)

Mitigating Legal Risk in ACH Transactions

2nd Quarter - 2008

By Charla L. Hausler and James E. Michel, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

THIS ARTICLE IS AN INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE IN A SERIES OF ARTICLES THAT WILL DISCUSS LEGAL RISKS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FACES WHEN PROCESSING PAYMENTS THROUGH THE AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) NETWORK AND WAYS A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION CAN MITIGATE THESE RISKS.

Use of the ACH Network for processing payments continues to grow. According to the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA), the ACH Network processes over twelve billion payments annually, with this number expected to increase. Although the ACH Network is viewed as a safer and more efficient way of processing payments, financial institutions are subject to liability within the ACH Network.

Increased activity within the ACH Network can expose financial institutions to greater risk. For a financial institution, potential liability can stem from, among other things, fraudulent activity, customers that are not credit-worthy or engaged in disreputable business practices, operational errors, and the failure to have proper agreements in place with customers and third-party senders. Financial institutions, however, can take steps to mitigate risk. Mitigating legal risk begins with understanding the rules and laws governing ACH payments.

Armed with this understanding, financial institutions will be better able to protect themselves from loss. ACH transactions are governed by the National Automated Clearing House Rules (ACH Rules). In addition to the ACH Rules, ACH transactions may be governed by federal and state law, such as Regulation E and Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The ACH Rules and applicable laws set out different rights and obligations for financial institutions.
In an ACH transaction, a financial institution may find that its potential liability is quite different than it may expect. This can be especially true, for example, when the ACH transaction involves a converted check.

Check conversion allows companies (Originators) to initiate ACH debits by using a check as a source document. The ACH Rules allow Originators to convert certain eligible checks to one time ACH payments using Point of Purchase (POP) or Accounts Receivable Entry (ARC) transactions. On March 16, 2007, Originators will also be able to convert eligible checks using a Back Office Conversion (BOC) transaction. When a check is converted to an ACH transaction, it is no longer governed by paper check law, such as UCC Articles 3 and 4. Rather, it is governed by the ACH Rules and applicable federal and state laws.

Check conversion can result in a significant shift in liability for a financial institution. An example of this shift is revealed in situations concerning checks that contain a forged drawer’s signature. Assume a merchant takes a check from a customer in the amount of $2,500 for a new TV. Unbeknownst to the merchant, the check contains a forged drawer’s signature. The merchant then deposits the check with its bank (depositary bank). The check is processed as a paper check. If the paying bank (drawee bank) pays the check over the forged drawer’s signature, the paying bank will generally bear the loss under UCC Article 4-401, for paying a check that was not properly payable.

If the check is converted to an ACH transaction, the merchant’s bank becomes the Originating Depository Financial Institution (ODFI). Under the ACH Rules, an ODFI warrants to the paying bank (RDFI) that the transaction has been properly authorized. Liability is placed on the ODFI for unauthorized debit transactions. Therefore, if the forged $2,500 check is converted to an ACH transaction, the ODFI, not the RDFI, will likely bear the loss as between financial institutions. There are precautions an ODFI can take, however, that will prevent it from ultimately bearing the loss.

An ODFI should ensure that it can pass losses to its customer, the Originator. ODFI’s must make sure that proper agreements are in place with their customers. These agreements should bind Originators to the ACH Rules, require Originators to maintain procedures to safeguard against unauthorized transactions, and place responsibility for unauthorized transactions on Originators.

Even with a proper agreement in place, an ODFI may find itself in a position where it is unable to collect from the Originator, such as in cases where the ODFI files bankruptcy. Therefore, ODFIs must also take steps to know their customer. ODFIs should make certain that their customers are credit-worthy and involved in reputable business practices.

Customer relations can also be strained in situations where a loss is incurred from an unauthorized transaction. Many times customers assume that the bank will bear losses from unauthorized transactions. Therefore, ODFIs should take steps to educate their customers on the ACH Rules and the definition of an unauthorized debit. Originators that are educated regarding unauthorized debits will be more willing to protect against losses. The ACH Rules also require ODFIs to establish, monitor and review exposure limits for Originators.

ODFIs should explain policies and procedures regarding their exposure limits to Originators.
At the end of the day, a financial institution can never completely avoid legal risks involved in ACH payments, but there are ways financial institutions can limit their potential exposure for loss. This article series will continue to address potential liability faced by financial institutions in the ACH Network. Through discussions of hypothetical situations that address potential exposure for loss under the ACH Rules and applicable law, your financial institution can become more aware of the liability it faces and be more prepared to prevent
loss.

The articles and content posted on this blog are intended for general informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.

Charla Hausler

Charla Hausler, (Partner) concentrates her practice in the area of commercial litigation. Ms. Hausler received her B.S. in mathematics education in 1992 from the University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana. She received her J.D. summa cum laude from Valparaiso University School of Law in 2000 where she served as editor-in-chief of the Valparaiso Law Review.
Ms. Hausler is admitted in the States of Illinois and Indiana and before the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Western District of Michigan, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She is a member of the Illinois, Indiana and DuPage County Bar Associations.



James Michel

James E. Michel, (Associate) works in the Intellectual Property and Litigation Departments in the Chicago office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. With experience counseling clients in a variety of areas of commercial litigation, he has particular experience counseling clients and representing financial institutions in banking litigation involving Regulation CC, Regulation E, Articles 3, 4 and 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code and the rules of The National Automated Clearing House Association regarding the ACH network.
Mr. Michel received his B.A. in communication from Purdue University in 1998 and his J.D. from Loyola University School of Law in 2004, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Loyola Consumer Law Review. While at Loyola, Mr. Michel also authored a publication titled “Embarking on Its Most Extensive Review of Media Ownership: The FCC’s Endeavor to Create a Happy Medium,” 15 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 249 (2003). He is a member of the American Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, and Chicago Bar Association, and is admitted to practice in the state of Illinois and before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Together, Charla and James have lectured and presented to numerous companies, groups and organizations. Below is a list of the topics they have addressed:

1. Mitigating the Legal Risk of EFTs (February 2007, before the National Association of Credit Managers); co-presenters with Fifth Third Bank.

2. Understanding the Legal Framework of Payments (August 2007, part of Camp AAP, presented by the Payments University, Chicago, Illinois).

3. The Essentials of a Remote Deposit Capture Agreement (September 2007, in affiliation with the Southwest Automated Clearing House Association (SWACHA).

4. Mitigating Legal Risk in Electronic Payments: an Overview of ACH, Check 21 and Remote Deposit Capture (December 2007, in affiliation with the Illinois Bankers Association).

Barnes & Thornburg is a member of the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA), The Electronic Check Council within NACHA, the Electronic Payments Network (EPN) and the Illinois Bankers Association (IBA).

Retail Merchandiser



BOC: A Brand New Option in Check Conversion

July 1, 2008

By By Charla L. Hausler and James E. Michel, Barnes & Thornburg LLP

In this digital age, it is a common practice for retailers to process customers' checks electronically. Image exchange, image replacement documents, Check 21 or electronic check conversion via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) network are viable options for processing checks. On March 16, 2007, retailers will have a new alternative for electronic check conversion: back office conversion (BOC).

For a retailer, processing paper checks can be expensive and inefficient. The most common complaints in processing checks involve handling, delivery, collection and fraud. Converting checks to electronic payments is a proven method for retailers to minimize costs and make check processing more efficient. Converting checks to electronic payments allows retailers to reduce labor and processing costs, minimize fraud, and get money faster.

The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) has established the ACH Rules, which govern the conversion of checks toelectronic payments via the ACH network. Under the ACH Rules, paper checks received at the point of purchase can only be converted into electronic payments at the point of sale using a Point of Purchase transaction (POP).
BOC: The Rival to POP

Retailers have not embraced POP because of training and implementation costs. For example, POP requires that checks be converted to ACH transactions at the point of sale. The retailer must return the voided check to the customer. The retailer must then complete checking out the customer’s purchase and then obtain the customer’s written authorization.

Utilizing this practice, retailers would have to train each cashier on the requirements for processing POP transactions. Moreover, the retailer must provide Magnetic Ink Character Readers, (MICR) at each check out counter.

BOC in a Nutshell

BOC can provide a cost effective alternative to businesses that have not found POP beneficial to their business model. BOC will allow retailers to convert checks received at the point of purchase to electronic payments in a back office setting.

Consumer and business checks in the amount of $25,000 or less which do not contain the Auxiliary On-Us Field are eligible for conversion under BOC regulations. BOC requires authorization from the customer before a check can be converted into an ACH transfer.

A retailer can obtain customer authorization by providing a notice that complies with ACH rules. This notice must inform the customer that the retailer is authorized to use information from the check to make either a one-time electronic funds transfer from the customer’s account or to process the payment as a check transaction. In addition, the notice must provide a telephone number for customer inquiries. The retailer must also ensure that the number is answered during normal business hours.

Until January 1, 2010, the notice must state that funds can be withdrawn from the customer’s account that same day. The customer will not receive the check back from their bank. The notice must track, or be similar to the model language provided in the ACH rules. The retailer must post the notice in a prominent and conspicuous location and provide a copy of the notice to the customer at the time of sale. The retailer must also provide customers with an opt-out option which will allow the customer to use a different form of payment such as a credit card, if desired.
Using the BOC method, the retailer retains the original check. This is in contrast to the POP practice. In the back office or any other centralized location, the retailer captures data from the check in order to present it to the customer’s bank for collection. The retailer must also make an electronic image of the check and retain the image for at least two years. The original check must be securely stored until it is destroyed by the retailer.

Is BOC right for your Business?

Retailers will want to consider the operational pros and cons of BOC before deciding if this form of check conversion is right for their business.

Some important questions to consider:
Can the merchant safely retain the check until destruction?
What percentage of the staff will need this training?
Would the cost of staff training be economically viable?
Is the current staff appropriate to conduct back office conversion?
How much would the equipment cost?
Is there enough space available for the required equipment?
What is the volume of paper checks that the business handles?
Is there an existing centralized location to convert checks?

As with any payment process, businesses need to evaluate the legal implications and requirements for electronic check conversion. In addition to the ACH Rules, electronic funds transfers are governed by federal and state law. Failure to comply with these laws subjects a business to potential legal liability. Moreover, if a business fails to comply with these laws, it may find itself an easy target for fraud. Without proper security measures in place to store or destroy retained checks after conversion, fraudsters could easily access the paperwork for their own benefit.
Check conversion remains a cost effective and beneficial tool for processing checks. Once a retailer carefully examines BOC in connection with its own business model and takes into consideration the legal implications of the process, it may find that BOC is the perfect tool to process checks more efficiently.

The articles and content posted on this blog are intended for general informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.
The articles and content posted on this blog are intended for general informational purposes only and are not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.