InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies again defer action against foreign funds under Volcker Rule
On July 17, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC (collectively, the “agencies”) announced that they will not take action against foreign banks for qualifying foreign excluded funds, subject to certain conditions, under the Volcker Rule for an additional two years. The announcement notes that the agencies consulted with the SEC and the CFTC on the decision. Since 2017, the agencies have deferred action on qualifying foreign funds that might be covered under the Volcker Rule (covered by InfoBytes here and here). In a joint statement, the agencies note that they have not finalized revisions to regulations implementing Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, and in order to “provide interested parties greater certainty about the treatment of qualifying foreign excluded funds in the near term,” the agencies are proposing not to take action through July 21, 2021.
Rhode Island requires virtual currency business activity to be licensed
On July 15, the Rhode Island governor signed HB 5847, which adds virtual currency to the existing electronic money transmission and sale of check license law and adds additional provisions clarifying the licensing process. Specifically, the bill renames Chapter 19-14.3 of Rhode Island’s General Laws titled, “Sale of Checks and Electronic Money Transfers” to “Currency Transmission” and includes within the definition of currency transmission, virtual currency. The bill defines virtual currency as a, “digital representation of value that: (A) [i]s used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value; and (B) [i]s not legal tender, whether or not denominated in legal tender.” Among other things, the bill excludes from the definition of virtual currency a “[n]ative digital token used in a proprietary blockchain service platform.” Subject to certain exceptions, the bill requires a person engaging in currency transmission business activity to be licensed with the state. Additionally, the bill, among other things, (i) requires virtual currency licensees to provide resident users of their services specified disclosures; (ii) subjects applicants and licensees to mandatory compliance programs and monitoring; and (iii) prohibits licensees from engaging in unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices. The act is effective January 1, 2020.
9th Circuit: Law firm owner liable for restitution from mortgage relief scheme
On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the FTC in an action alleging two attorneys controlled or participated in a mortgage relief scheme, which falsely told consumers they could join “mass joinder” lawsuits that would save them from foreclosure and provide additional financial awards. In September 2017, the district court granted summary judgment against both defendants, concluding that the defendants knowingly deceived consumers when they falsely marketed that consumers could expect to receive $75,000 in damages or “a judicial determination that the mortgage lien alleged to exist against their particular property is null and void ab initio” if they agreed to join mass joinder lawsuits against their mortgagors. The operation resulted in over $18 million in revenue from the participating consumers.
On appeal from one defendant, the 9th Circuit agreed with the district court, determining the FTC provided “sufficient undisputed facts to hold [the defendant] individually liable for injunctive relief at summary judgment.” Specifically, the appellate court agreed that the FTC sufficiently proved three separate legal entities, one of which the defendant was the co-owner and corporate officer, “operate[d] together as a common enterprise,” which violated the FTC Act and Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule with their mortgage relief operation. Moreover, the appellate court determined that the defendant was “at least recklessly indifferent to [the other entities’] misrepresentations,” based on his knowledge of previous schemes operated by the other owners and reliance on a non-lawyer’s assurance that the marketing materials had been “legally approved,” making him “jointly and severally liable for restitution for the corporation’s unjust gains in violation of the FTC Act.”
FDIC proposes to relax disclosure requirements under Securitization Safe Harbor Rule
On July 16, the FDIC approved a proposal revising certain provisions of the Securitization Safe Harbor Rule (rule). The current rule mandates that documents governing a securitization must disclose information regarding the securitized financial assets on a financial asset or pool level and on a security level that, at minimum, complies with Regulation AB, whether or not the transaction is an issuance covered by the regulation. The proposal would eliminate the requirement that securitization documents comply with Regulation AB, where Regulation AB by its terms would not apply to the issuing transaction. According to a statement by Chairwoman, Jelena McWilliams, the proposal “would remove one potential obstacle that [insured depository institutions] face in providing mortgage credit to homeowners.” FDIC Director Gruenberg dissented from the approval of the proposal.
Comments on the proposal will be due within 60 days after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register.
Rhode Island creates Student Loan Bill of Rights Act
On July 15, the Rhode Island governor signed HB 5936, which creates the “Student Loan Bill of Rights Act” to define responsibilities for student loan servicers and establish guidelines related to the issuance of postsecondary loans. Notably, federal or state chartered banks or credit unions, as well as their wholly owned subsidiaries, that originate student loans or act as servicers are exempt from the majority of the act’s requirements, including sections 19-33-4, 19-33-6 through 19-33-11, 19-33-12(9), and 19-33-14.
The act requires non-exempt student loan servicers that service at least six or more postsecondary student loans within a consecutive 12 month period to comply with certain requirements, including (i) registering with the Department of Business Regulation (Department) no later than September 30 “or within 30 days of conducting student loan servicing, whichever is earlier”; (ii) maintaining loan transaction records; (iii) filing annual reports with the Department; (iv) disclosing repayment program terms and refinance options to borrowers; and (v) responding to borrower inquiries within specified time frames concerning, among other things, credit reporting disputes, application of payments, and record transfers.
Additionally, the act prohibits student loan servicers from, among other things, (i) employing any scheme designed to defraud or mislead borrowers; (ii) engaging in unfair or deceptive practices; (iii) misapplying payments; (iv) failing to report payment histories to credit bureaus; (iv) failing to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; (v) making false statements or omitting material facts in connection with information filed with a government agency or provided in the course of an investigation; and (vi) failing to properly evaluate a borrower’s eligibility for public service loan forgiveness programs or income-driven repayment programs.
The act gives the Department authority to conduct investigations and examinations of registered servicers, as well as impose fines of not more than $2,000 per violation. Furthermore, the Rhode Island attorney general may enforce violations of prohibited conduct as unlawful acts or practices. The act is effective immediately.
The Department of Education has issued an interpretation that servicers that are servicing Direct Loans for the Department of Education would be exempt from state licensing and substantive requirements, but the act does not accommodate that interpretation.
8th Circuit affirms reduction in TCPA statutory damages from $1.6 billion to $32 million
On July 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to reduce a $1.6 billion award in statutory damages for TCPA violations to $32.4 million after the court determined the original award violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The named plaintiffs in the class action alleged that parties involved in the financing and marketing campaign of a film with religious and political themes violated the TCPA through the use of a telephone campaign in which approximately 3.2 million prerecorded robocalls were made in the course of a week. The plaintiffs—who received two of these messages on their answering machine—filed an appeal after the district court concluded that the original award was “‘obviously unreasonable and wholly disproportionate to the offense’” and reduced the statutory damages awarded by a jury from $500 per call to $10 per call.
On appeal, the 8th Circuit addressed several issues, including (i) whether the plaintiffs alleged a concrete injury under the TCPA; (ii) whether the district court abused its discretion concerning instructions on direct liability against one of the defendants; and (iii) whether the court erred in finding the amount of statutory damages to be unconstitutional. The appellate court first reviewed whether the plaintiffs had alleged a sufficiently concrete injury under the TCPA. According to the opinion, “[t]he harm to be remedied by the TCPA was ‘the unwanted intrusion and nuisance of unsolicited telemarketing phone calls and fax advertisements. . . .The [plaintiffs’] harm . . . was the receipt of two telemarketing messages without prior consent. These harms bear a close relationship to the types of harms traditionally remedied by tort law, particularly the law of nuisance.” However, the appellate court stated that the district court was correct to reject the plaintiffs’ direct liability instructions against the defendant who helped finance the film, writing that the plaintiffs “improperly blurred the line between direct and agency liability” and that “to be held directly liable, the defendant must be the one who ‘initiates’ the call,” which the financing defendant did not do. Finally, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the $1.6 billion award violated the Due Process Clause, and highlighted evidence that the advertiser “plausibly believed it was not violating the TCPA” and “had prior consent to call the recipients about religious liberty,” which was a predominant theme of the film being promoted. Moreover, the court noted,”[t]he call campaign was conducted for only about a week,” and recipients could only hear the message about the film if they voluntarily opted in during the call. The court further reasoned that “the harm to the recipients was not severe—only about 7% of the calls made it to the third question, the one about the film. Under these facts, $1.6 billion is ‘so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.’”
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of ADA claim against credit union on standing grounds
On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s claim that a credit union’s website accessibility barriers violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because the plaintiff is not a member of the credit union, nor can he become one. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last year the district court granted the credit union’s motion to dismiss on standing grounds because the plaintiff—who tests software that reads text aloud for visually impaired users to access content on the internet—had no plausible reason to use the credit union’s website because the website was directed at members of the credit union for which he was ineligible. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to allege “concrete and particularized” injuries when he claimed he suffered dignitary and informational harm stemming from his inability to access information on the website, and cited to a recent 4th Circuit decision in Griffin v. Dep’t of Labor Fed. Credit Union, which held that “a plaintiff who is legally barred from using a credit union’s services cannot demonstrate an injury that is either concrete or particularized.”
On appeal, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court, finding that “Illinois law prevents [the plaintiff’s] dignitary harm from materializing into a concrete injury,” and that “indignation at violation of the law” is not concrete or particularized as is required to show standing. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff’s informational harm claim failed as well because “[h]is alleged injury flows from the [c]redit [u]nion’s failure to support his software, not its refusal to disclose information about its services.”
FDIC approves amendments to deposit insurance recordkeeping, joint account determinations
On July 16, the FDIC approved amendments to two final rules designed to resolve issues related to deposit insurance regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the first of the final rules amends Part 370 of the FDIC’s Rules and Regulations for “Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination,” to address issues raised during implementation of the final rule adopted in November 2016 (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the amendments to Part 370 require banks with at least two million deposit accounts to upgrade deposit recordkeeping to allow the FDIC to determine the necessary deposit insurance coverage. The rule also allows for an optional one-year extension of the rule’s compliance date of April 1, 2020, provided prior notice is given to the FDIC. The final rule is effective October 1. FDIC Director Gruenberg dissented from the final rule’s approval.
The second final rule amends Part 330—applicable to banks of all sizes—to update the requirements for verifying participants in joint deposit accounts. Part 330 provides alternatives to the traditional signature card, and will allow satisfaction of proof of joint-ownership to be established by other information contained in a bank’s deposit account records and not solely by signed signature cards of each co-owner. The final rule takes effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FinCEN addresses efforts to counter business email compromise schemes
On July 16, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) discussed efforts designed to restrict and impede business email compromise (BEC) scammers and other illicit actors who profit from email compromise fraud schemes. BEC schemes, FinCEN reports, generally involve “criminal attempts to compromise the email accounts of victims to send fraudulent payment instructions to financial institutions or business associates in order to misappropriate funds or to assist in financial fraud.” An updated advisory provides current operational definitions and general trends in BEC schemes, information concerning the targeting of non-business entities and data by these types of schemes, and risks associated with the targeting of vulnerable business processes. The advisory also discusses opportunities for information sharing between financial institutions concerning subjects and accounts affiliated with BEC schemes in the interest of identifying risks of fraudulent transactions and money laundering. An in-depth strategic Financial Trend Analysis of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data explores industries targeted by BEC scammers as well as employed methodologies, and highlights BSA information collected by regulated financial institutions. Suspicious activity report highlights reveal a nearly tripling of attempted BEC thefts—from $110 million per month in 2016 to $301 million per month in 2018 on average. FinCEN’s release also discusses its Rapid Response Program as well as international information sharing initiatives addressing BEC schemes and associated fraudulently-induced transactions.
GAO recommends CFPB define supervisory expectations for CRAs
On July 16, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted a report to the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Committee on Financial Services recommending that the CFPB improve communications to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers about the Bureau’s supervisory expectations. Specifically, the report—based on a CRA performance audit conducted by GAO from July 2018 to July 2019—presents two recommendations to the CFPB director on communicating expectations to CRAs concerning: (i) “reasonable procedures for assuring maximum possible accuracy of consumer report information;” and (ii) “reasonable investigations of consumer disputes.” According to the report, there are various causes for consumer report inaccuracies: errors in the data collected by CRAs and data not being matched to the correct consumer by CRAs. While the Bureau has “generally focused on assessing compliance with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requirements,” GAO notes that the CFPB “has not defined its expectations for how CRAs can comply with key statutory requirements.” For instance, under the FCRA, CRAs must follow reasonable procedures for ensuring maximum possible accuracy and reasonably investigate consumer disputes. However, although the CFPB has identified deficiencies concerning these requirements in its CRA examinations, the Bureau “has not defined its expectations—such as by communicating information on appropriate practices—for how CRAs can comply with these requirements.” Therefore, GAO concluded, there exist opportunities for the Bureau to improve its oversight of CRAs. The CFPB neither agreed nor disagreed with GAO’s recommendations, and stressed that “it has made oversight of the consumer reporting market a top priority and that its supervisory reviews of CRAs have focused on evaluating their systems for assuring the accuracy of data used to prepare consumer reports.” The Bureau also commented on CRAs’ significant advances in promoting greater accuracy.