InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Former New York-Based Broker-Dealer Executives Sentenced to Two Years in Prison
Two former executives of a now-defunct New York-based broker-dealer were each sentenced to two years in prison for their roles in a bribery scheme involving a Venezuela’s state-owned economic development bank. On December 8, Tomas Clarke, the former Miami-based senior vice president of the broker-dealer, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to forfeit nearly $5.8 million for his role. On December 4, Ernesto Lujan, the former managing partner at the broker-dealer’s Miami office, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to forfeit $18.5 million. The pair pleaded guilty in August 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to conspiracy to violate the FCPA, the Travel Act, and to commit money laundering, as well as substantive counts of these offenses.
The broker-dealer earned more than $60 million in commissions from trades placed by the Venezuela’s state-owned economic development bank over a five year period. To obtain that business, the broker-dealer paid millions of dollars in bribes to an official, Maria De Los Angeles Gonzalez De Hernandez (Gonzalez), at the development bank, often routing them through third parties and offshore bank accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere. Clarke and Lujan are two of five former broker-dealer executives to plead guilty in connection with this case. In March, two other former executives, including the broker-dealer’s former CEO, were each sentenced to four years in prison. One other former executive, who pleaded guilty in August 2013, has yet to be sentenced. Gonzalez, who pleaded guilty in November 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and to commit money laundering, as well as substantive counts of these offenses, also is awaiting sentencing.
CFPB Reports on Effect of the CARD Act
On December 3, the CFPB published a report summarizing the impact of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) on consumers and the credit market. According to the report, access to credit has increased by 10% since early 2012, with more than 60% of adults owning at least one credit card account. The report states that as a result of the CARD Act placing limitations on the use of over-limit fees, and its requirement that such fees and other penalty fees be “reasonable and proportional” to the underlying violation of account terms, consumers saved billions of dollars from 2011 through 2014. The CFPB’s outstanding areas of concern relating to the credit market include: (i) deferred-interest promotions; (ii) debt collection practices; and (iii) rewards program offers that provide only partial information.
CFPB Issues Fall Rulemaking Agenda, Potential Student Loan Servicing Rules on Horizon
On November 20, the CFPB released its fall rulemaking agenda. The CFPB’s notable current initiatives include: (i) addressing arbitration clauses in contracts related to consumer financial products and services and providing an outline of rulemaking ideas such as “whether to propose rules that would prevent companies from using these agreements to foreclose consumers’ ability to bring class action lawsuits”; (ii) developing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with an anticipated release date in the first quarter of 2016, to address concerns relating to payday and auto title lending; (iii) finalizing its December 2014 proposed rule, “Prepaid Accounts Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z),” to address consumer protection concerns relating to reloadable cards and other similar prepaid products; and (iv) considering rules to designate consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans as “larger participants” under the CFPB’s supervisory authority. Looking ahead, the CFPB’s report highlights the potential for rulemaking to address issues related to credit reporting and student loan servicing. Regarding student loan servicing, the CFPB stresses that it “has made it a priority to take action against companies that are engaging in illegal servicing practices,” and that it will “continue to monitor the market for trends and developments and evaluate possible policy responses, including potentially proposing rules.”
House Report Examines the CFPB's Methodology in Auto Finance Investigations
On November 24, Republicans on the House Committee on Financial Services issued a report regarding the CFPB’s approach for determining discrimination in the auto lending industry. The report questions the CFPB’s proxy methodology and its authority to bring claims against banks involved in indirect auto lending under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s (ECOA) disparate impact theory. According to the report, disparate impact “is a controversial legal theory of liability in discrimination cases.” The report further states that, even if it assumes that the ECOA permits disparate impact claims, the CFPB is nonetheless required to identify the following to establish a prima facie case: (i) a specific policy or practice adopted by the creditor; (ii) disparate impact on a prohibited basis; and (iii) a causal relationship between the challenged practice and the alleged disparate impact. The report states, “[d]ocuments obtained by the Committee show that the Bureau will likely have difficulty proving any one of these requirements, much less all three.” Notably, the report criticizes the CFPB’s adoption of the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding proxy method, which “combines surname- and geography-based information into a single proxy probability for race and ethnicity,” labeling it as “faulty and unreliable.” The report further suggests that the CFPB observed the method to be “less accurate . . . than some proprietary proxy methods that use nonpublic data.” In closing, the report comments on the CFPB’s “ambition to eliminate dealer markup” by summarizing (i) a December 2013 settlement in which the CFPB used its leverage over a bank holding company to negotiate the settlement terms; (ii) the agency’s plans to increase the number of individual enforcement actions on dealer markup and compensation policies; and (iii) potential ECOA rulemaking to “promulgate a regulation prohibiting lenders from compensating dealers based on the terms of a loan.”
OCC Updates Risk Assessment Guidance
On December 3, the OCC revised its Comptroller’s Handbook to include updated guidance regarding its risk assessment system (RAS). The RAS guidance clarifies the relationship between RAS and the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System known as CAMELS. In addition, the guidance revises the definition of banking risk and applies a single definition – “the potential that events will have an adverse effect on a bank’s current or projected financial condition and resilience” – to all categories. Finally, the guidance expands the quality of risk management assessment to include a category of “insufficient,” between the already existing categories of “satisfactory” and “weak,” and also expands the assessment of strategic and reputation risk to consider both quantity of risk and quality of risk management.
Second Circuit Upholds District Court Decision to Dismiss Arbitration Case
On November 19, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Southern District of New York’s decision to dismiss a case alleging that two leading credit card issuing banks schemed to require that disputes be settled in arbitration, as opposed to class action lawsuits. The plaintiffs challenged the District Court’s decision on the grounds that language in United States v. General Motors Corp. should be used “to adopt a rule that the existence of conspiracy is a legal conclusion subject to review de novo.” Ross v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 14-1610 (2nd Cir. Nov. 19, 2015). Plaintiffs further argued that the District Court’s conclusion that the defendants’ actions did not constitute as conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act should not be shielded by the “clearly erroneous” test. The District Court analyzed various “plus factors,” including motive, the quantity and nature of inter-firm communications, and whether the arbitration clauses were “artificially standardized” because of an illegal agreement, to determine whether or not conspiracy existed among the credit card issuing banks. The District Court concluded that the credit card issuing banks’ final decision to implement class-action-barring clauses was reached “individually and internally.” Stating that General Motors has never been applied as generously as the plaintiffs argued for it to be, the Second Circuit’s review of the record found the District Court’s conclusion plausible and not “clearly erroneous.”
DOJ Charges 16 Additional Individuals with FIFA-Related Corruption; Swiss Authorities Arrest Two High-Ranking FIFA Members
On December 3, the DOJ charged an additional 16 individuals in connection with its ongoing corruption investigation into FIFA. The new indictment included a number of high ranking FIFA members, including Alfredo Hawit, the president of the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) and vice-president of FIFA, and Juan Angel Napout, the president of the South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL) and a member of the FIFA executive committee. Both of these individuals were arrested by Swiss authorities in Zurich and are opposing extradition to the United States.
With the additional 16 individuals, a total of 41 people and entities have been charged as part of the DOJ’s ongoing investigation.
CFPB Takes Action Against Nationwide Credit Reporting Company and Owner
On December 3, The CFPB took action against a nationwide credit reporting company and its owner over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the CFPB, the defendants (i) obtained consumer reports, without permissible purpose, from third-party CRAs to generate marketing presentations for prospective clients; and (ii) failed to investigate consumer disputes, including those relating to identity theft. The CFPB further alleged that the company “routinely failed” to provide consumer dispute information to furnishers. In addition to an $8 million civil money penalty, the consent order requires the defendants to submit to the CFPB a compliance plan that ensures their “practices for obtaining Consumer Reports and conducting reinvestigations of disputes [comply] with all applicable federal consumer financial laws, as defined in the CFPA.” Finally, the order prohibits the company from engaging in certain practices, such as the selling or reselling of any consumer report to any person whose purpose for obtaining the report is to consider purchasing any service provided by the defendants, or to generate a lead.
Mortgage Company Resolves DOJ Allegations of False Claims Act Violations
On December 2, a Tennessee mortgage company agreed to pay the United States $70 million to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act. According to the DOJ, the company, acting as a direct endorsement lender, knowingly originated and accepted FHA-insured mortgage loans that did not meet applicable HUD underwriting and quality control requirements. As part of the settlement agreement, the company admitted to engaging in the following conduct between January 1, 2006 and March 31, 2012: (i) employing unqualified junior underwriters to complete important underwriting tasks; (ii) setting high quotas for underwriters and disciplining them if the quotas were not met; and (iii) offering underwriters bonuses based in part on the number of loan files reviewed as incentive to increase loan production. Even though deficiencies in the loan underwriting process were identified in post-close audits, the company did not make any self-reports until 2009 and, even then, “[v]ery few of these self-reported loans were reported for containing serious underwriting deficiencies.” As a result of the company’s conduct, the FHA insured loans that were not eligible, purportedly suffering “substantial losses when it later paid insurance claims on those loans.”
CFPB Releases HMDA Implementation Resources
On December 1, the CFPB released a group of resources designed to help financial institutions understand their obligations under HMDA and Regulation C, as amended by the Bureau's October 15 final rule. The resources include a brief 5-page executive summary of the recent changes, the HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide, two reference tools that show when data must be collected, recorded, and reported and when data can be reported as "not applicable," and HMDA institutional coverage charts for both 2017 and 2018.
The most substantial of these resources is the HMDA Small Entity Compliance Guide that the Bureau describes as, "a plain-language guide to the new rule which makes the content more accessible for industry constituents, especially smaller businesses with limited legal and compliance staff." The guide is 109 pages and covers key changes and effective dates, institutions and transactions that are covered under the new rule, the data points that must be reported and how they should be recorded and reported, as well as small sections on practical implementation and how mergers and acquisitions affect the applicability of the new rule. The guide also provides an e-mail address and phone number for anyone who has reviewed all of the available materials and still has a specific regulatory interpretation question.