InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Increases HMDA Asset Size Exemption Threshold
On December 31, the CFPB published a final rule to amend the official commentary that interprets the requirements of Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), to increase the asset-size exemption threshold for financial institutions. HMDA and Regulation C require most mortgage lenders located in metropolitan areas to collect and report data about applications for, and originations and purchases of, home loans and refinancings, which the CFPB uses to identify possible discriminatory lending patterns and to assess whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their communities. Effective immediately, banks, savings associations, and credit unions with assets of $42 million or less as of December 31, 2012, are exempt from collecting data in 2013. Regulation C requires the CFPB to adjust the asset threshold based on the year-to-year change in the average of the CPI–W, not seasonally adjusted, for each 12-month period ending in November, rounded to the nearest million. During the 12-month period ending in November 2012, the CPI–W increased by 2.23 percent, resulting in an increase in the threshold from $41 million to $42 million.
Senate Confirms FHA Commissioner and Other Key Agency Nominees
On December 30, the Senate confirmed Carol Galante as Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration Commissioner. Ms. Galante, who was nominated for the position in October 2011, has been serving in an acting role. Her confirmation was made possible after certain Senators, including Bob Corker (R-TN), who had expressed concerns about the pace of reforms at the FHA, secured a commitment from Ms. Galante to (i) place a moratorium on the full drawdown reverse mortgage program, (ii) substantially increase underwriting criteria for borrowers with FICO scores between 580 and 620 by establishing a meaningful maximum debt-to-income ratio, (iii) increase the down payment requirement and the insurance pricing for loans between $625,000 and $729,000, and (iv) increase underwriting requirements for borrowers who have been foreclosed upon within the last seven years. On January 1, as described in media reports, the Senate confirmed Joshua Wright as FTC Commissioner and Mignon Clyburn as FCC Commissioner, and also confirmed Richard Berner for the new position of Director of the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research.
Fourth Circuit Holds Bankruptcy Trustee Cannot Pursue Former Directors of Bankrupt Holding Company for Alleged Mismanagement of Subsidiary Bank
On December 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court holding that a bankruptcy trustee lacked standing to sue former directors of an insolvent bank holding company for alleged mismanagement of a failed subsidiary bank. In re Beach First Nat’l Bancshares, Inc., No. 11-2019, 2012 WL 6720911 (4th Cir. Jan. 2, 2013). The district court determined previously that the directors and officers of the holding company and the subsidiary bank were one and the same, and that the harm caused to the bankrupt holding company was the direct result of the failure of the subsidiary bank. As such, the district court held that the trustee’s claims on behalf of the holding company are derivative claims that can only be pursued by the FDIC as receiver for the failed subsidiary. On appeal, the trustee argued that the claims are direct, not derivative, claims that fall outside of the FDIC’s purview, and, in the alterative, the claims are proper even if derivative because the FDIC has declined to act. The appeals court agreed with the district court and held that the trustee pled mainly claims deriving from defalcations at the subsidiary bank level, and not a distinct and separate harm specific to the holding company. Further, the appeals court held that the FDIC retains its statutory authority to act, and, in any event, has no statutory authority to transfer to another party its right to act on behalf of the failed subsidiary. The appeals court reversed the district court with regard to one of the trustee’s claims, holding that the trustee’s claim that the directors caused the holding company to improperly subordinate its equity interest in a company that owned real property could proceed on remand as a direct claim against the directors because the alleged actions caused damages unique to the holding company.
California Federal District Court Dismisses Privacy Class Action for Lack of Injury
On December 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action alleging that Google Inc.’s privacy policy violates the federal Wiretap Act and state consumer protection statutes. In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig., No. 12-01382, 2012 WL 6738343 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012). The plaintiffs allege that Google’s universal privacy policy, which applies across its various products and allows Google to aggregate, store, and cross-reference certain personal information collected across those products, violates consumer privacy rights by allowing the company to collect information from one product where the consumer has an expectation of privacy, and use that information to, for example, target advertising to the consumer in other products. The court held that no precedent exists in the Ninth Circuit or any other appellate court to allow claims to proceed based on only the alleged unauthorized disclosure of personal information, let alone such disclosure of information by the defendant to itself, as is the case here. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to support their claims under the federal Wiretap Act that a provider can intercept information when such information already is in its possession, particularly given that the Act excludes the provider’s own equipment from the definition of device. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead sufficient injury to establish standing, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with leave to amend.
CFPB Publishes Final Rule To Clarify Its Rulemaking Procedures
On December 28, the CFPB published a final rule to clarify what events constitute the “issuance” of its rules. As explained by the CFPB, an agency may treat events other than publication of a rule in the Federal Register as events constituting the issuance of a rule. In some cases the date of issuance of a rule has legal consequences. Pursuant to its final rule, CFPB rules will be considered to be issued on the earlier of the date that such rules are either posted on the CFPB’s website or published in the Federal Register. The rule took effect immediately.
Massachusetts Offers Guidance on Mortgage Modifications for Non-Delinquent Borrowers and Troubled Debt Restructuring
On December 27, the Massachusetts Division of Banks issued guidance regarding the classification of the modification of a residential mortgage loan as troubled debt restructuring (TDR) when the loan is underwater. The guidance explains that the high loan-to-value ratio alone does not necessarily constitute a TDR, provided that the borrower is (i) performing satisfactorily under his or her mortgage loan, and (ii) is not experiencing financial hardships. In such cases, the Division has determined that a lender may choose to restructure or modify a residential loan per the revision in mortgage terms statute (Massachusetts General Laws chapter 183, section 63A), but the lender must (i) consider all facts and circumstances in determining whether the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty and whether the lender is granting a concession and (ii) perform and document its own analysis in making such a determination.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Restitution Order in Overdraft Ordering Case, Allows State Fraud Claims to Proceed
On December 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a national bank’s practice of posting payments to checking accounts in a particular order is a federally authorized pricing decision, and that federal law preempts the application of state law to dictate a national bank’s order of posting. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 10-16959, 2012 WL 6684748 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2012). In this case, after trial the district court enjoined the bank’s practice of ordering withdrawals from “high-to-low” and ordered the bank to pay $203 million in restitution. The court agreed with customers who had sued the bank on behalf of a class that the bank’s ordering practice was designed to maximize the number of customer overdrafts and related fees and as such violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). On appeal, the court held that the bank’s ordering practice is a pricing decision the bank can pursue under federal law, and that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts the unfair business practices prong of the UCL. The court also held that both the imposition of affirmative disclosure requirements and liability based on failure to disclose are preempted. However, the court held that the NBA does not preempt the customers’ claim of affirmative misrepresentations under the fraudulent prong of the UCL. The court also considered as an issue of first impression the effect of the Supreme Court’s intervening ruling in Concepcion on a judgment on appeal after trial. The court declined to grant arbitration, reasoning that the bank’s post-judgment arbitration request was contrary to its conduct throughout the litigation, and that granting the request would prejudice the plaintiff and frustrate the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. The court vacated the district court’s injunction and its $203 million restitution order, and directed the district court to determine appropriate relief on the state fraud claims.
FinCEN Extends FBAR Filing Deadline
On December 26, FinCEN issued Notice 2012-2 to extend the deadline for certain filers to submit the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). FinCEN has extended this deadline several times in the past and the notice explains that FinCEN continues to receive questions from filers that require additional consideration. Pursuant to the notice, individuals previously granted extensions under FinCEN Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2, have until June 30, 2014 to comply.
CFPB Announces First Joint Enforcement Action with State Authorities
On December 21, the CFPB announced that it obtained an order from a federal district court in Florida that requires a nationwide payday debt relief services company to refund up to $100,000 to consumers who were charged advance fees for promised debt-settlement services that the company never actually rendered. While the amount of the refund obtained through the order is relatively small, the action is notable as the first joint enforcement action by the CFPB and certain state partners. The CFPB was joined in the suit by the attorneys general of New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, as well as the State of Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection. Following an investigation into the payday debt solution firm, the CFPB alleged that the company violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Dodd-Frank Act, and various state laws, by telemarketing debt-relief services and requesting or receiving fees from consumers for those services before renegotiating, settling, reducing, or otherwise altering the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts. The CFPB announcement notes that the company cooperated with the CFPB and halted the allegedly illegal operations, and that in addition to the customer refunds the firm will pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the CFPB.
Fair Housing Group Accuses Insurance Company of Redlining
On December 21, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced that it filed with HUD a housing discrimination complaint against a major insurance company regarding the offering of hazard insurance in a certain geographic area. According to the statement filed in support of its complaint, NFHA alleges that the company refuses to underwrite homeowners’ insurance policies for homes that have flat roofs in the Wilmington, Delaware area, a policy that NFHA charges has a racially disparate impact on African-American and minority communities. Although insurance and insurers are not explicitly covered in the Fair Housing Act, NFHA argues that federal courts have given deference to HUD’s interpretation of the statute, holding that the Fair Housing Act applies to all types of discriminatory insurance practices. NFHA’s complaint is based on its own testing of independent insurance agencies and a single university study of the relationship between roof type and race in the Wilmington area. NFHA claims that its testing of six insurance agencies shows that independent insurance agents were willing to underwrite policies on homes with flat roofs, while agents affiliated only with the insurance company targeted by NFHA cited a company policy that disallowed underwriting policies on such homes. Further, NFHA claims that the university study found a statistically significant relationship between minority populations and homes that have flat roofs, and therefore the “no flat roof policy” disproportionately impacts African-American and minority communities. Moreover, NFHA claims that there is no business justification for such a policy and that the insurance company does not apply the same policy in other cities. Under its fair housing complaint procedures HUD will now conduct its own investigation and determine whether further administrative action is required.