Gramm-Leach-Biley Act Impacts Business Credit.

Since the revelation at NACM's annual legislative conference in March of this year that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB") was intended by the US House Banking Committee to apply to virtually all business entities in the US with respect to the privacy provisions, numerous questions and issues have been raised by NACM members and others as to how the GLB will affect their businesses. Unfortunately, because the regulations have not yet been adopted by any of the federal agencies with authority and direction to do so, there is still a great degree of uncertainty as to many of the specifics dealing with the GLB. This article will attempt to provide an overview of the issue.

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 represents the most significant change to impact banking activities in the US since the Depression. While the GLB has received wide-spread media coverage focused on how the law will expand the opportunities of banks to provide services to customers outside traditional banking activities, virtually nothing has been said about Title V of the Act entitled "Privacy," which significantly magnifies the effect of the GLB.

The preamble to Title V of the GLB is quite innocuous when it provides: a. PRIVACY OBLIGATION POLICY -- It is the policy of Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' non-public personal information.

As with most congressional enactments, definitions are extremely important. With the GLB, one of the key terms is "financial institution," Unless a search goes past the facade of the legislation, one would assume that it only applies to banks and similar types of businesses. A closer review of the definition of "financial institution" in the GLB discloses that a reader's initial assumption is incorrect. Indeed, the GLB is far broader in its interpretation and provides that a "financial institution" is any entity which conducts business that is "financial in nature."

When questioned in-person on March 4 of this year at NACM's Annual Legislative Conference about the law's seemingly broad interpretation, Robert Gordon, Counsel to the US House Financial Services Committee (formerly known as the House Banking Committee) and chief draftsman of the GLB, unequivocally confirmed that it was the intention of Congress to subject all business entities in the US to the provisions of the GLB, unless and until either the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, or any other rulemaking or regulatory authority over the GLB, issue rules and regulations to the contrary. This is not a situation where there is an interpretation of an ambiguous provision of the Act-it is clear that the GLB is intended to cover all business entities in the US unless subsequently limited by rule or regulation promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Trade Commission. This means that all NACM members, as well as all NACM Affiliates, will be subject to the provisions of the GLB as it is presently written.

Section 502 of the GLB states: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a non-affiliated third party any non-public personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with Section 503.

Since most credit executives recognize that the Uniform Commercial Code and many other uniform state and federal laws define a consumer transaction as one that is primarily for personal, family or household use, one would then expect that the applicability of the GLB would be substantially limited to consumer transactions and not be applicable to the extension of trade credit. However, based upon recent letter rulings and interpretations by the FTC in connection with its regulatory authority over the FCRA, this assumption is cast into doubt.