Case docket

Regulatory Enforcement — bank orders and corporate registrations

Regulatory Enforcement — 4 court filings in the archive, mostly from California Secretary of State (regulatory filing), filed between March 7, 2011 and August 5, 2024.

Case facts

Court	California Secretary of State (regulatory filing) (2 filings); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1 filing)
Filings	4 public filings
Filed	2011-03-07 – 2024-08-05
Original PDFs	4 of 4

Case summary

This page collects four regulatory filings, none of them a court filing, dated between March 7, 2011 and August 5, 2024. Two are statements and designation by foreign corporation filed with the California Secretary of State, by Oto Analytics, Inc. on March 7, 2011 and by Womply, Inc. on September 19, 2012, each signed by the corporation's president and each designating an agent for service of process in California. The third is Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation consent order FDIC-22-0040b, issued March 8, 2023 to Cross River Bank, Teaneck, New Jersey, under section 8(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The fourth is the written agreement dated August 5, 2024 among Customers Bancorp, Inc., Customers Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Docket Nos. 24-020-WA/RB-HC and 24-020-WA/RB-SM.

Case at a glance

Parties	Cross River Bank, Teaneck, New Jersey, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Customers Bancorp, Inc., Customers Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia; Oto Analytics, Inc. and Womply, Inc., as registrants before the California Secretary of State
Court and docket	Agency and state-registry filings, no court docket. FDIC-22-0040b; Federal Reserve Docket Nos. 24-020-WA/RB-HC and 24-020-WA/RB-SM
Program	Not named in the filings on this page
Claims	Not applicable. The FDIC order rests on the agency's determination of unsafe or unsound banking practices related to fair lending compliance and of violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Truth in Lending Act; the Federal Reserve agreement recites deficiencies in risk management and in Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering compliance; the two California documents are corporate registrations
Disposition or status	Both banking actions were entered by consent. Cross River Bank executed a stipulation and consent dated March 8, 2023 and neither admitted nor denied the charges; Customers Bancorp, Customers Bank and the Reserve Bank mutually agreed to the written agreement of August 5, 2024
Status checked	2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What does the FDIC consent order require?

Within 15 days of its effective date the bank must identify every product through which credit is offered by, through or in conjunction with it, and every other entity offering such a product; within 30 days it must submit that list to the Regional Director, and within 60 days engage an independent third party for an information systems review and a fair lending resources study.

What does the Federal Reserve written agreement address?

The Reserve Bank's examinations identified significant deficiencies in the bank's risk management practices and in its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money-laundering requirements and the regulations of the Office of Foreign Assets Control. The agreement requires written plans within 60 days on board oversight and on risk management for the bank's digital asset strategy.

Do any of these filings concern a pandemic relief program?

No. None of the four documents on this page mentions the Paycheck Protection Program, Economic Injury Disaster Loans, the CARES Act or the pandemic.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

4 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.