Ripple Prime Raises $275 Million in Senior Notes Offering

Detail	Information
Issuer	Ripple Prime
Offering	$275 million senior unsecured notes
Type	Private placement
Status	Successfully closed
Closing date	August 18, 2026
Rating	BBB, investment grade
Rating agency	KBRA
Lead placement agent	Piper Sandler & Co.
Use of proceeds	Working capital and general corporate purposes
Business focus	Clearing, prime brokerage and financing

The European Payments Council has published version 2.0 of its Verification of Payee Matching Recommendations, offering updated guidance on character handling and payee-name comparisons. The changes aim to improve consistency and reduce avoidable payment friction across participating payment service providers. The European Payments Council (EPC) has published an updated set of recommendations for matching processes under its Verification of Payee (VOP) scheme, following the 2026 rulebook change management cycle and a public consultation. Version 2.0 provides additional guidance on character sets used in VOP requests and responses, as well as how payment service providers (PSPs) and routing and/or verification mechanisms (RVMs) should handle character conversion. The recommendations also address how responding PSPs can prepare and compare payee names before returning a verification result. The objective is to support more consistent implementation across the scheme while reducing unnecessary “No Match” and “Close Match” responses that could create friction during payment initiation. The updated guidance accompanies version 1.1 of the VOP scheme rulebook, which became effective on 20 September 2026. Updated guidance on character sets and conversion The EPC’s recommendations clarify the character sets used in messages exchanged under the VOP scheme. Generally, inter-PSP API messages must use a limited Latin character set transported through UTF-8. The updated document explains how PSPs and RVMs should manage character conversion and handle messages containing characters outside that permitted set. This is relevant in a European payments environment where payee names may contain different scripts, accents, or character combinations. A name entered by a payer may not always match the format supported by the systems exchanging verification messages. The EPC’s guidance provides a framework for managing those differences. However, the recommendations also recognize that alternative arrangements may be used where the parties involved have agreed to them contractually. That flexibility allows participants to account for specific technical or operational arrangements while maintaining a common baseline for scheme implementation. How PSPs should assess payee-name matches The updated recommendations explain how a responding PSP may prepare and compare payee names before determining the result of a VOP request. The scheme uses three possible outcomes: Match: The payee name supplied by the payer matches the name held by the responding PSP. Close Match: The supplied name differs, but the responding PSP identifies a sufficiently close match and may provide the correct payee name. No Match: The supplied name does not meet the responding PSP’s matching criteria. The recommendations cover both natural persons and legal persons. They address common differences that can arise when names are entered, stored, or transmitted across payment systems. Examples include spelling differences, transposed letters, initials, phonetic variations, commercial names, and commonly accepted abbreviations. These cases can create problems for automated verification. A strict character-by-character comparison may return a negative result even when the payer’s intended recipient is identifiable. The EPC’s guidance aims to help responding PSPs account for such variations while preserving the responsibility of each PSP to determine the final result. Reducing payment friction without removing PSP responsibility Verification of Payee is intended to help payers check whether a payee name corresponds with the account details provided before a payment is authorized. A verification result can influence whether a payer proceeds, reviews the information, or changes the payment details. Unnecessary negative results may therefore interrupt legitimate payments and create additional work for customers and payment providers. The EPC says the recommendations are intended to support a consistent and user-friendly implementation while reducing avoidable “No Match” or “Close Match” responses. However, the document does not establish one mandatory matching algorithm for every responding PSP. Each PSP remains responsible for its matching outcome and may apply its own criteria. This leaves room for individual providers to account for their systems, customer data, and operational requirements, while the EPC’s recommendations provide common guidance for the scheme. Version 2.0 follows the updated VOP rulebook. The recommendations follow the 2026 change management cycle for the VOP scheme rulebook and the associated public consultation. Version 1.1 of the rulebook became effective on 20 September 2026. The EPC’s updated matching recommendations are intended to accompany that framework and provide additional operational guidance for participants. The publication is particularly relevant to PSPs and RVMs implementing or refining VOP processes. Character handling, name preparation, and comparison logic can affect the quality of verification responses and the experience presented to payers. The updated recommendations provide further guidance in these areas, but the release does not specify a separate implementation deadline for version 2.0. What payment providers should review For PSPs and RVMs, the updated document provides a reason to review how their systems process payee names and verification messages. Relevant areas include: Character-set support and UTF-8 handling in inter-PSP API messages Conversion rules for characters outside the supported set Name preparation and comparison processes Treatment of initials, abbreviations, and commercial names Criteria used to determine Match, Close Match, and No Match outcomes Contractual arrangements that permit alternative technical handling The practical impact will depend on how each participant currently implements the scheme and whether the updated recommendations require changes to its systems or procedures. The EPC’s publication reinforces the importance of consistent payee verification across European payments. Better handling of names and character variations could reduce unnecessary interruptions, while each responding PSP retains responsibility for the verification decision. Source note: This article is based on the supplied European Payments Council announcement and linked scheme documents. The recommendations’ stated objectives are attributed to the EPC; no independent implementation or performance data was provided. EPC publishes updated recommendations for matching processes under the VOP scheme 👉 Follow us on Telegram: TheFinTechExperts EPCEuropean Payments Councilpayee verificationpayment fraud preventionpayment initiationpayment matchingPayment Service Providerspayments regulationPSPsRVMSEPAUTF-8Verification of PayeeVOP

Read More →

November 4, 2026

OppFi Withdraws Bank Regulatory Applications for Proposed BNC Acquisition

OppFi has withdrawn its applications to US banking regulators for its proposed $130 million acquisition of BNC, citing a lack of clear evaluation standards and limited opportunities to address potential concerns. The company says it intends to engage with regulators on a framework for fintech-bank combinations. Digital lending platform OppFi has withdrawn its applications to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) related to its proposed acquisition of BNCCORP and its wholly owned subsidiary, BNC National Bank. The decision marks a setback for OppFi’s plan to establish a bank subsidiary, OppFi Bank, through the acquisition of BNC’s national bank charter and banking infrastructure. OppFi agreed to a $130 million cash-and-stock transaction in May. However, the company says it has now stepped back from the regulatory application process after engaging with federal agencies and responding to extensive information requests. The withdrawal does not, by itself, establish that regulators formally rejected the acquisition. Instead, OppFi says it did not have a meaningful opportunity to address potential concerns during the application process. OppFi cites uncertainty in the regulatory review process. In its statement, OppFi said it had proactively engaged with regulators before entering the transaction. It also said it had diligently responded to information requests from the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC. The company nevertheless raised concerns about communication restrictions during the application process and what it described as a lack of clearly articulated, objective standards for evaluating its business and proposed combination with BNC. Todd Schwartz, CEO and executive chairman of OppFi, said the company believes its applications satisfied existing statutory approval criteria. He argued, however, that the standards used to evaluate those criteria were not sufficiently clear. These statements represent OppFi’s position. The supplied report does not include detailed responses from the OCC, Federal Reserve, or FDIC, nor does it identify specific regulatory objections to the transaction. The distinction matters because withdrawing an application is different from receiving a formal denial. The announcement leaves the status of any potential future transaction or revised application uncertain. The proposed acquisition was central to OppFi’s bank strategy. OppFi announced the $130 million cash-and-stock deal in May as part of its plan to acquire BNC and establish OppFi Bank. The proposed transaction would have provided OppFi with a national bank charter and existing banking infrastructure. For a digital lender, a bank subsidiary could change how the business operates and how it structures its lending and financial services. However, bank acquisitions involving fintech companies require regulatory review. The process considers the proposed combination and the relevant statutory requirements, rather than simply the commercial rationale for a transaction. The supplied report does not disclose the proposed transaction’s detailed financing structure, expected closing date, or any revised terms following the withdrawal. Enova’s abandoned Grasshopper Bank deal adds context. OppFi’s decision follows another proposed digital lender-bank combination that did not proceed. In September, Enova scrapped its $369 million proposed acquisition of Grasshopper Bank. Enova CEO Steve Cunningham said at the time that regulators lacked clear standards for nonbank companies seeking to become banks. The two developments have prompted renewed attention to the regulatory path available to fintech companies seeking bank ownership or a banking charter through acquisition. However, the cases should not be treated as identical. The supplied report does not establish that the two transactions faced the same regulatory concerns or that the agencies reached the same conclusions. OppFi plans further engagement with regulators. OppFi says it plans to “substantively engage” with federal regulators on the creation of practical, market- and consumer-based standards for combinations involving innovative community banks and financial technology platforms. The company argues that such standards could help these businesses serve underbanked consumers. Its statement refers to the potential needs of tens of millions of Americans who lack sufficient access to banking services. That objective remains a stated intention rather than a confirmed regulatory initiative or approved transaction. OppFi has not announced a new application, revised acquisition agreement, or alternative bank strategy in the supplied report. What to watch next The immediate question is whether OppFi’s planned engagement produces clearer guidance or a revised path for the proposed BNC combination. Key developments to watch include any public response from the federal banking agencies, whether OppFi and BNC revisit the transaction, and whether regulators articulate standards for fintech companies seeking to acquire or combine with banks. For now, OppFi’s withdrawal highlights the uncertainty surrounding its proposed bank strategy. The company has stepped away from the current application process while leaving open the possibility of further engagement with regulators. Source note: This article is based on the supplied FinTech Futures report dated November 4, 2026. OppFi’s statements and regulatory criticisms are attributed to the company. The report does not include agency responses or confirm a formal rejection of the acquisition. OppFi withdraws bank regulatory applications for proposed BNC acquisition 👉 Follow us on Telegram: TheFinTechExperts bank acquisitionbank charterbanking applicationsBNC National BankBNCCORPdigital lendingEnovaFDICFederal Reservefintech regulationfintech-bank combinationsGrasshopper BankOCCOppFi

Read More →