InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Seeks Injunction Against Debt Relief Firm's "Abusive" Practices
On May 30, the CFPB filed a complaint in federal district court against a Florida debt-relief company the CFPB alleges violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Dodd-Frank Act by promising certain debt relief services in exchange for upfront payment and then failing to provide the promised services. The complaint alleges publicly for the first time violations of the “abusive” standard established in the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB claims the company and its owner (i) misled consumers by falsely promising them it would begin to settle their debts within three to six months and then failed to provide the services within the promised time frame, if at all; (ii) enrolled consumers despite knowing that their income level made it highly unlikely that they could complete the debt-relief programs; and (iii) collected upfront “enrollment” fees from consumers even though the company knew that the consumers could not afford the monthly payments required by these debt-relief programs. Because these practices took “unreasonable advantage” of consumers, the CFPB charges they are abusive. The CFPB announced that it plans to file a proposed order that, if approved, would (i) require the company to pay a $15,000 penalty; (ii) permanently enjoin the company from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any debt-relief product or service; and (iii) establish a two-year compliance monitoring and reporting period for the company.
CFPB, State Regulators Announce Supervision Framework
On May 21, the CFPB and the CSBS released an agreement to coordinate supervision of entities subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the CFPB and one or more state regulators. The Supervisory Coordination Framework is a nonbinding guide that builds off of the parties' 2011 Memorandum of Understanding, which has since been signed by 59 state regulators. The Framework establishes processes for information sharing, consulting on corrective actions, and coordinating exam schedules and supervisory plans. The Framework also includes a general process for resolving disputes between the CFPB and state regulators, and directs the parties to develop additional processes and procedures to ensure standardization and consistency in implementing the Framework.
CFPB Announces RESPA Action against Homebuilder
On May 17, the CFPB announced an enforcement action against a homebuilder the CFPB alleges violated Section 8(a) of RESPA through joint venture arrangements. According to the CFPB, the homebuilder created two joint ventures, one with a state bank and the other with a nonbank mortgage company. The CFPB consent order alleges the homebuilder referred mortgage customers to the joint ventures in exchange for payments from those ventures, and that such payments violate RESPA’s prohibition on the acceptance of any fee, kickback, or thing of value in exchange for referral of customers for real estate settlement services. The homebuilder did not admit to the allegations, but agreed to disgorge over $100,000 and cease from performing any real estate settlement services, including mortgage origination. The CFPB investigation resulted from an FDIC referral. That agency issued an enforcement action in June 2012 against the state bank for related alleged activities.
OCC, FDIC Announce Overdraft Enforcement Actions
On April 30, the OCC and the FDIC announced parallel enforcement actions against a national bank and an affiliated state bank to resolve allegations that the institutions violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in their marketing and implementation of overdraft protection programs, checking rewards programs, and stop-payment processes for preauthorized recurring electronic fund transfers. The OCC claims that (i) bank employees failed to disclose technical limitations of the standard overdraft protection practices opt-out, (ii) the bank’s overdraft opt-in notice described fees that the bank did not actually charge, (iii) the bank failed to disclose that it would not transfer funds from a savings account to cover overdrafts in linked checking accounts if the savings account did not have funds to cover the entire overdrawn balance on a given day, even if the available funds would have covered one or more overdrawn items, (iv) the bank failed to disclose technical limitations of its preauthorized recurring electronic fund transfers that prevented it from stopping certain transfers upon customer request, and (v) the bank failed to disclose posting date requirements for its checking reward program. The OCC orders require the bank to pay approximately $2.5 million in restitution and a $5 million civil money penalty. In addition, the bank must (i) appoint an independent compliance committee, (ii) update its compliance risk management systems with appropriate policies and procedures, and (iii) adjust its written compliance risk management policy. The FDIC order requires the state bank to refund customers roughly $1.4 million and pay a $5 million civil penalty.
Federal District Court Holds Financial Institution's Fraud On Itself Triggers Potential FIRREA Liability
On April 24, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a federally insured financial institution may be prosecuted under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) for allegedly engaging in fraud that “affects” the same institution. U.S. v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, No. 11-6969, 2013 WL 1749418 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013). In this case, the government alleges that the bank and one of its employees provided clients with false, incomplete and/or misleading information about the way it determined currency exchange rates for its “standing instruction” foreign exchange transactions, from which the bank profited, and which ultimately exposed it to “billions of dollars in potential liability.” Based on a lengthy analysis of textual meaning and congressional intent, the court concluded that the “text and purpose of FIRREA amply encompass the alleged conduct,” and that the government’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the bank was negatively affected by the fraud. The decision represents the first time a court has interpreted the meaning of the phrase “affecting a federally insured financial institution” under FIRREA to allow the government to prosecute a financial institution for its own alleged misconduct.
SEC Fills Enforcement Director, General Counsel Positions
On April 22, the SEC announced that George Canellos and Andrew Ceresney will share responsibilities as co-directors of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Mr. Canellos has been serving as Acting Enforcement Director since January. He previously had been the division’s Deputy Enforcement Director since June 2012, prior to which he served as Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. Mr. Ceresney previously served as a Deputy Chief Appellate Attorney in the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was a member of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force and the Major Crimes Unit. Most recently, he was in private practice with recently-confirmed SEC Chairman Mary Jo White. On April 23, the SEC named Anne Small as General Counsel. Ms. Small is a former Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office where she advised on legal policy questions with a focus on economic issues. She previously worked at the SEC as Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Adjudication and now becomes the first woman to be named General Counsel.
Federal Authorities Announce FCPA Action, First SEC Non-Prosecution Agreement
On April 22, the DOJ and the SEC announced parallel actions against a clothing company to resolve allegations that a subsidiary of the company paid bribes to Argentine officials over a several-year period to obtain improper customs clearance of merchandise. The SEC action included the agency’s first non-prosecution agreement (NPA) related to FCPA misconduct, which the SEC determined was appropriate given “the company's prompt reporting of the violations on its own initiative, the completeness of the information it provided, and its extensive, thorough, and real-time cooperation with the SEC's investigation.” According to the SEC’s NPA, the company’s cooperation involved (i) reporting preliminary findings of its internal investigation to the staff within two weeks of discovering the illegal payments and gifts, (ii) voluntarily and expeditiously producing documents, (iii) providing English language translations of documents to the staff, (iv) summarizing witness interviews that the company's investigators conducted overseas, and (v) making overseas witnesses available for staff interviews and bringing witnesses to the U.S. The SEC agreement also required the company to pay over $700,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest, while the DOJ required the company to pay a nearly $900,000 penalty.
New York Announces Two Additional Lender-Placed Insurance Actions
On April 18, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services obtained two additional separate settlement agreements, one with QBE Insurance Company and one with Balboa Insurance Company, stemming from a DFS investigation of the lender-placed insurance industry. Neither company admitted any wrongdoing in connection with their respective settlements. This follows the DFS’ announcement last month that it had reached an agreement with Assurant, pursuant to which the company agreed to pay a $14 million penalty. Like the Assurant settlement, the QBE agreement requires it to (i) re-file rates for lender-placed insurance, (ii) change its disclosures and notices to borrowers, and (iii) discontinue paying commissions to servicer affiliates in New York. QBE agreed to a penalty of $4 million. Balboa, whose business was purchased by QBE in mid-2011 and is currently in run-off, agreed to a $6 million penalty. In addition, borrowers may be entitled to partial premiums refunds if they (i) can prove they defaulted on their mortgage or were foreclosed upon because of lender placement, (ii) were charged for lender placement at a coverage amount higher than permitted by their mortgage, or (iii) were erroneously charged for lender-placed insurance when they had voluntary insurance in effect, or were charged commercial rates for a residence. BuckleySandler represented both QBE and Balboa in the investigation and its resolution.
CFPB Announces First RESPA Enforcement Actions
On April 4, the CFPB announced enforcement actions against four mortgage insurers against which it filed complaints alleging that their captive reinsurance arrangements with mortgage lenders violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The actions are the first public actions the CFPB has taken to enforce RESPA, and follow investigations started by HUD and transferred to the CFPB in July 2011. The insurers did not admit the allegations but agreed to pay a combined $15.4 million to end the investigations. The consent orders also (i) prohibit the insurers from entering into any new captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements with mortgage lenders or their affiliates, and from obtaining captive reinsurance on any new mortgages, for a period of ten years, (ii) require the insurers to forfeit any right to the funds not directly related to collecting on reinsurance claims in connection with pre-existing reinsurance arrangements, and (iii) subject the insurers to compliance monitoring and reporting. The orders must be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before taking effect.
DOJ Announces Payments Under 2011 SCRA Settlements
On April 4, the DOJ announced that two mortgage servicers will pay a combined $39 million to 316 servicemembers pursuant to SCRA settlements from 2011. Those settlement agreements resolved allegations that the mortgage servicers unlawfully foreclosed upon servicemembers between 2006 and 2010. One of the servicers also is subject to the national mortgage servicing settlement, which required an audit to identify violations of SCRA’s foreclosure provisions between January 1, 2006 and April 4, 2012 and its 6 percent interest rate cap provision between January 1, 2008 and April 4, 2012. DOJ stated that the payment is separate from the national servicing settlement review and represents only the non-judicial foreclosures conducted by the bank during the relevant time period. As the national settlement audits progress, the DOJ will require the servicer to make additional payments for alleged judicial foreclosure and interest rate violations uncovered in the audit.