InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Colorado AG releases consumer lending study
On January 23, the Colorado attorney general announced that it sent a study examining the availability of consumer lending in the state to the Colorado General Assembly. Among other things, the study analyzed the availability of safe and affordable credit in Colorado and focused on the availability of two types of loans: (i) small-dollar loans, defined as loans up to $1,000, and (ii) larger installment loans.
Regarding small-dollar loans in Colorado, Proposition 111 enacted in 2018, capped rates on deferred deposit loans at 36 percent. As such, the study noted that there was a significant decrease in the number of lenders who were making deferred deposit (payday) loans and the number of licensed locations as of 2018. It was reported that 95,747 individuals in Colorado obtained alternative charge loans in 2021, which represented a significant decline from 2018. The study also found that, while there was a drop in the number of retail outlets, available evidence indicates consumers who qualify are able to obtain alternative charge loans, given the growth of online lending.
The affordability of alternative charge borrowers is mixed, according to the report. It appears that about one in five borrowers experience substantial difficulty in making the required payments. Other measures suggest a substantially lower percentage struggle.
Regarding larger installment loans, 39,295 consumers obtained “Other Supervised Loans” (defined as loans with an APR above 12 percent) from non-depositories, and non-depositories took by assignment an additional 87,880 Other Supervised Loans in 2021. The number of originated Other Supervised Loans in 2021 was nearly identical to the number originated in 2019. Overall, 25.9 percent of consumers who applied for Other Supervised Loans were approved.
California: TILA does not preempt state laws on commercial financial disclosure
On January 20, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a comment letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in response to a preliminary determination issued by the Bureau in December, which concluded that commercial financial disclosure laws in four states (New York, California, Utah, and Virginia) are not preempted by TILA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a Notice of Intent to Make Preemption Determination under the Truth in Lending Act seeking comments pursuant to Appendix A of Regulation Z on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination. The Bureau noted that a number of states have recently enacted laws requiring improved disclosures of information contained in commercial financing transactions, including loans to small businesses, to mitigate predatory small business lending and improve transparency. In making its preliminary determination, the Bureau concluded that the state and federal laws do not appear “contradictory” for preemption purposes, explaining, among other things, that the statutes govern different transactions (commercial finance rather than consumer credit).
Under the California Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL), companies are required to disclose various financing terms, including the “total dollar cost of the financing” and the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate.” Bonta explained that the CFDL only applies to commercial financing arrangements (and not to consumer credit transactions) and “was enacted in 2018 to help small businesses navigate a complicated commercial financing market by mandating uniform disclosures of certain credit terms in a manner similar to TILA’s requirements, but for commercial transactions that are unregulated by TILA.” He pointed out that disclosures required under the CFDL do not conflict with those required by TILA, and emphasized that there is no material difference between the disclosures required by the two statutes, even if TILA were to apply to commercial financing. According to Bonta, should TILA preempt the CFDL’s disclosure requirements, there would be no required disclosures at all for commercial credit in the state, which would make it challenging for small businesses to make informed choices about commercial financing arrangements.
While Bonta agreed with the Bureau’s determination that TILA does not preempt the CFDL, he urged the Bureau to “articulate a narrower standard that emphasizes that preemption should be limited to situations where it is impossible to comply with both TILA and the state law or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the full purposes [of] TILA, which is to provide consumers with full and meaningful disclosure of credit terms in consumer credit transactions.” He added that the Bureau “should also reemphasize certain principles from prior [Federal Reserve Board] decisions, including that state laws are preempted only to the extent of actual conflict and that state laws requiring additional disclosures—or disclosures in transactions not addressed by TILA—are not preempted.”
Treasury announces task force with South Africa on wildlife trafficking
On January 25, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that Treasury and South Africa’s National Treasury recently formed the U.S. – South Africa Task Force on Combating the Financing of Wildlife Trafficking. According to the announcement, the Task Force will combat illicit finance connected to illegal wildlife trade in three key areas:
- Prioritizing the sharing of financial red flags and indicators connected to wildlife trafficking cases. Specifically, the South African Anti-Money Laundering Integrated Task Force, a public private partnership, will play a key role working in coordination with FinCEN.
- Increasing information sharing between financial intelligence units to support key law enforcement agencies from South Africa and the U.S. This is intended to “bolster law enforcement efforts to use financial investigations to pursue and recover the illicit proceeds of wildlife criminals, especially transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) fueling and benefiting from corruption and the trafficking of, among other things, abalone, rhino horns, pangolins, and elephant ivory.”
- Bringing together government authorities, regulators, law enforcement, and the private sector to enhance controls to combat money laundering and the illicit proceeds connected to drug and wildlife trafficking.
Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen emphasized that in order “[t]o protect wildlife populations from further poaching and disrupt the associated illicit trade, we must ‘follow the money’ in the same way we do with other serious crimes.”
OFAC sanctions key Hizballah money exchanger
On January 24, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against several individuals and associated entities, including a Lebanese money exchanger and a money service business, for facilitating financial activities for Hizballah. Commenting that Treasury “is taking action against a corrupt money exchanger, whose financial engineering actively supports and enables Hizballah and its interests at the expense of the Lebanese people and economy,” Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson issued a warning that the U.S. is committed to holding persons accountable should they “exploit their privileged positions for personal gain.” The sanctions follow designations imposed last month against several individuals and companies that manage and enable Hizballah’s financial operations throughout Lebanon, including Hizballah’s “quasi-financial institution” and its central finance unit. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
As a result of the sanctions, all property, and interests in property of the designated persons, “and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC regulations generally prohibit all transactions by U.S. persons or within the United States (including transactions transiting the United States) that involve any property or interests in property of designated persons unless authorized by an OFAC general or specific license. OFAC further cautioned that “engaging in certain transactions with the individuals and entities designated today entails risk of secondary sanctions,” and noted that the designated persons are also subject to the Hizballah Financial Sanctions Regulations. Pursuant to these regulations, “OFAC can prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that either knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction on behalf of an SDGT or, among other things, knowingly facilitates a significant transaction for Hizballah or certain persons designated for their connection to Hizballah.”
SEC awards whistleblowers $28 million
On January 24, the SEC announced awards totaling nearly $28 million to joint whistleblowers whose information and assistance led to successful SEC enforcement actions. According to the redacted order, the joint whistleblowers’ provided information that prompted the opening of the SEC staff’s investigation and significantly contributed to the success of the action through substantial analysis and ongoing assistance. The SEC also noted that the joint whistleblowers’ actions helped result in the return of millions of dollars to harmed investors.
SEC commissioner discusses state of the crypto industry
On January 20, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce spoke before the Digital Assets at Duke Conference discussing cryptocurrency lessons for the future. In her remarks, Peirce discussed the current state of cryptocurrency, stating that “the crypto world is burning.” She encouraged the audience to “not wait for regulators to fix the problems that bubbled to the surface in 2022” within the crypto industry, and instead incentivize good behavior. She also emphasized “the point of crypto,” which she considers “is not driving up crypto prices so that you can dump your tokens on someone else. Digital assets need to trade, so centralized venues or decentralized exchange protocols are necessary, but trading markets are not the ultimate point.” Among other things related to crypto, she said lessons from traditional finance are equally applicable in crypto. For example, she noted that “[h]igher returns come with higher risks.” She also suggested that the SEC should conduct some form of notice and comment process to resolve the thorniest crypto-related policy issues.
Peirce noted that “sandboxing is coming.” She then explained that SEC Chair Gary Gensler has requested “‘staff to sort through how we might best allow investors to trade crypto security tokens versus or alongside crypto non-security tokens,’[] which is an area in which experimentation through no-action letters and exemptions would be possible.” She also strongly agrees with his sentiment that “‘[g]iven the nature of crypto investments . . . it may be appropriate to be flexible in applying existing disclosure requirements.’”
She also expressed that “[r]egulation is not a silver bullet, but understanding whether, by whom, and how the company is regulated can help you calibrate your own due diligence.” Peirce said that the SEC “needs to conduct better, more precise, and more transparent legal analysis” in crypto. She noted that its continued use of the precedent from the 1946 U.S. Supreme Court case in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. has “fleshed out the investment contract subcategory of securities, we repeat the mantra that all, or virtually all, tokens are securities,” calling the SEC’s application of the test to crypto tokens “askew.” She then noted that “an initial fundraising transaction involving a crypto token can create an investment contract, but the token itself is not necessarily the security even if it is sold on the secondary market.” Peirce also noted that the SEC often “refers to the crypto assets themselves as securities.”
OFAC sanctions IRGC foundation and Iranian senior officials
On January 23, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13553 against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Cooperative Foundation, five of the foundation’s board members, the Deputy Minister of Intelligence and Security, and four senior IRGC commanders in Iran. According to OFAC, the sanctions—imposed in coordination with the UK and EU—target a key economic pillar of the IRGC.
OFAC stressed that this “is the ninth round of OFAC designations targeting actors responsible for the crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and efforts to disrupt and cut Iran’s access to the global internet since nationwide protests began in 2022.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Further, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons. Persons that engage in certain transactions with the designated persons may themselves be exposed to sanctions, and “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the persons designated today could be subject to U.S. sanctions.”
NYDFS gives custodial guidance on crypto insolvency
On January 23, NYDFS reiterated expectations for sound custody and disclosure practices for entities that are licensed or chartered to custody or temporarily hold, store, or maintain virtual currency assets on behalf of customers (virtual currency entities or “VCEs”). NYDFS explained that under the state’s virtual currency regulation (23 NYCRR Part 200), VCEs operating under the BitLicense and Limited Purpose Trust Charter are required to, among other things, “hold virtual currency in a manner that protects customer assets; maintain comprehensive books and records; properly disclose the material terms and conditions associated with their products and services, including custody services; and refrain from making any false, misleading or deceptive representations or omissions in their marketing materials.”
The regulatory guidance on insolvency clarifies standards and practices intended to ensure that VCEs are providing high levels of customer protection with respect to licensed asset custody. Specifically, the guidance addresses customer protection concerns regarding:
- The segregation of and separate accounting for customer virtual currency. VCEs “should separately account for, and segregate a customer’s virtual currency from, the corporate assets of the VCE Custodian and its affiliated entities, both on-chain and on the VCE Custodian’s internal ledger accounts.”
- VCEs limited interest in and use of customer virtual currency. VCEs that take possession of a customer’s assets should do so “only for the limited purpose of carrying out custody and safekeeping services” and must not “establish a debtor-creditor relationship with the customer.”
- Sub-custody arrangements. VCEs may choose, after conducting appropriate due diligence, to safekeep a customer’s virtual currency through a third-party sub-custody arrangement provided the arrangement is consistent with regulatory guidance and approved by NYDFS.
- Customer disclosures. VCEs are “expected to clearly disclose to each customer the general terms and conditions associated with its products, services and activities, including how the VCE Custodian segregates and accounts for the virtual currency held in custody, as well as the customer's retained property interest in the virtual currency.” Additionally, a customer agreement should be transparent about the parties’ intentions to enter into a custodial relationship as opposed to a debtor-creditor relationship.
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal of FDCPA, FCRA, RICO action
On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a debt collection action related to alleged violations of the FCRA, FDCPA, and the Racketeer and Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Plaintiff filed a complaint against a telecommunications company and related entities concerning a disputed past-due charge and subsequent debt collection proceeding. The district court dismissed the action and denied the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions. In affirming the dismissal, the appellate court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the FCRA on the basis that (i) the plaintiff failed to allege cognizable damages caused by the alleged violations; and (ii) the credit reporting agencies corrected the allegedly inaccurate information within 30 days of being notified. The 2nd Circuit held that the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims also failed, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., which found that “you have to attempt to collect debts owed another before you can ever qualify as a debt collector” under the FDCPA. According to the appellate court, the plaintiff claimed that the relevant defendants are or were creditors seeking to collect on debts owed to them, and that, as such, they do not qualify as debt collectors under the statute. Finally, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court correctly determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the communications he received from the defendant qualified as mail or wire fraud under RICO.
District Court grants motion to set aside default judgment in FDCPA, FCRA suit
On January 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota granted a defendant “buy now, pay later” service’s motion to set aside the default judgment in an FDCPA and FCRA suit originally entered in a small claims court. According to the order, the plaintiff filed suit in small claims court alleging violations of the FDCPA and FCRA, but the defendant did not receive notice of the suit and, as such, did not respond to the claim. A default was entered against the defendant thereafter. Upon receiving notice of the default, the defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to set aside the default. With respect to removal, the court held that removal was timely because it was made within 30 days of receiving the notice of default and held that removal was proper based on federal question jurisdiction. With respect to the motion to set aside, the court set aside the judgment, finding that there was no evidence of bad faith on the defendant’s part, that there was no prejudice to the plaintiff, and that the defendant did have “meritorious defenses” to the plaintiff’s claims.