InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
2nd Circuit affirms leveraged loans are not securities
On August 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claim that a national bank’s nearly $1.8 billion syndicated loan for a drug testing company were securities. The drug testing company filed for bankruptcy subsequent to a $256 million global settlement with the DOJ in qui tam litigation involving the company’s billing practices.
Plaintiff, a trustee of the drug testing company, brought claims to the New York Supreme Court in 2017 against defendant for violations of (i) state securities laws; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) breach of contract; and (v) breach of the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand after concluding it had jurisdiction under the Edge Act, and later granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting the notes are securities.
The 2nd Circuit held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Edge Act. The court then applied a “family resemblance” test to determine whether a note is a security and examined four separate factors to help uncover the context of a note. In comparing the loan note to “judicially crafted” list of instruments that are not securities, the court found that the defendant’s note “‘bears a strong resemblance’” to one, therefore concluding that the note is not a security and affirming the district court’s earlier decision.
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal of FCA claims following government motion to dismiss
On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower False Claims Act (FCA) case, holding that FCA qui tam relator complaints may be dismissed upon the government’s motion without a hearing, provided the district court consider the parties’ arguments. The plaintiff qui tam here alleged that a bank (defendant) failed to pay penalties to the government for violating economic sanctions. Plaintiff’s complaint specifically alleged that defendant facilitated illegal transactions violating economic sanctions and defrauded the government by concealing the extent of its illegal activities during negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. In a summary order without precedential effect, the 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff’s complaint was initially dismissed by the district court following a motion to dismiss by the government, which intervened in the action to argue that the complaint should be dismissed because it lacked merit and would waste government resources. Consideration of plaintiff’s appeal of the dismissal was delayed until after the Supreme Court issued a decision in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., a different FCA case raising applicable issues regarding when the government has the authority to force the dismissal of an FCA case brought by a whistleblower.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Polansky, the 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, reasoning that district court properly dismissed the qui tam relator claim after the government’s intervention seeking dismissal, since the defendant bank had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. The 2nd Circuit held that “the district met the hearing requirement” established by Polansky for dismissing qui tam relator cases through its careful consideration of the briefs and materials submitted by the parties. In reaching this conclusion, the 2nd Circuit noted that Polansky does “not mandate universal requirements” for an FCA hearing in every case. The 2nd Circuit also rejected plaintiff’s due process arguments, plaintiff’s claim that the court failed to evaluate defendant’s settlement with the government resolving related criminal and administrative violations, and plaintiff’s claim that the district court erred in denying its motion for an indicative ruling, based on new evidence published while the appeal was pending.
OCC announces Tropical Storm Hilary disaster relief
On August 21, the OCC issued a proclamation providing discretion to OCC-regulated institutions to close offices affected by Tropical Storm Hilary in California, Nevada, and Arizona “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the OCC, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
OCC releases enforcement actions and terminations
On August 17, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. The new enforcement actions include civil money penalty orders, formal agreements, and prohibition orders, each issued with the consent of the parties. The OCC also announced a termination of an existing enforcement action against a bank. Included in the release is a formal agreement entered into with a Minnesota-based bank on June 27 in connection with OCC findings of alleged unsafe or unsound practices relating to, among other things, consumer compliance and third party risk management. In connection to violations of certain Flood Disaster Protection Act rules, the agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board of directors on a quarterly basis; and (iii) implement a written consumer compliance program. This program must also include procedures and guidance for compliance with all consumer protection laws, rules, and regulations to which the bank should adhere, an independent audit program, a comprehensive training program for bank personnel in the consumer protection laws, rules, and regulations as appropriate, and policies to manage risks in the credit process. It also separately requires revisions to the third-party risk management program addressing due diligence and monitoring of third parties, including monitoring for compliance with consumer protection-related laws and regulations.
White House launches SAVE Plan
On August 22, the White House announced the SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment plan, intended to calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size rather than the loan balance and provide forgiveness for balances after a certain number of years since repayment. It is estimated that over 20 million borrowers could benefit from this plan and that it will have particular critical benefits for low- and middle-income borrowers, community college students, and borrowers who work in public service. In order to encourage participation by borrowers, the Department of Education is partnering with grassroots organizations on an outreach campaign. This plan builds on broader actions taken by the current administration to deliver relief to borrowers and make college more affordable.
FTC, DOJ issue permanent injunction and civil penalty for violations of CAN-SPAM Act
On August 22, the DOJ and the FTC jointly announced a permanent injunction and civil penalty of $650,000 against a company that offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services for alleged violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the CAN-SPAM Rule, and the FTC Act. The case, which was filed in the District Court for the Central District of California, asserts that millions of commercial emails sent to consumers did not give the recipients requisite notice of the option to opt-out of future such emails, in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act and Rule. The order enjoined the company from sending commercial emails that do not provide notice of the recipient’s ability to opt-out of future emails, it also enjoins the company from otherwise violating the CAN-SPAM Act, and subjects it to a civil penalty judgment of $650,000.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful business opportunity scheme
On August 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued a temporary restraining order against a business opportunity operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation made claims in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 by, among other things; (i) making false claims that they offered a “venture capital-backed” and “artificial intelligence-integrated” e-commerce business opportunity for consumers to buy into; (ii) falsely promoting themselves as e-commerce experts and self-made millionaires who have assisted others in generating tens of millions of dollars; (iii) relying on false business projections, including that customers would make a “$4k-$6k consistently monthly net profit”; (iv) false claims about the use of AI tools to maximize revenues; and (v) false endorsements, including false claims of success on social media by an affiliate marketer. The court’s temporary restraining order prohibited the operation from conducting business, froze its assets, appointed a temporary receiver, and required the operation to turn over business records to the FTC. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and additional relief as determined by the court. The FTC also highlighted that its ability to provide these refunds would not be possible if the action hadn't predated the 2021 Supreme Court ruling (covered by InfoBytes here) that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to seek monetary relief in federal court. The FTC used the opportunity to encourage Congress to restore its ability to seek monetary relief in federal court.
District Court files temporary restraining order to stop scammers in FTC suit
On August 21, the FTC announced it has stopped California-based scammers (defendants) who allegedly preyed on students seeking debt relief by pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. According to the August 14 complaint, since at least 2019, the defendants allegedly targeted students and illegally collected $8.8 million in advance fees in exchange for student loan debt relief services that did not exist. The defendants allegedly misled consumers by charging them for services that are free through the Department of Education, claiming consumers needed to pay fees or make payments to access federal student loan forgiveness, using names like "Biden Loan Forgiveness," that does not correspond to any actual government program. For instance, one consumer was asked to pay $375 for a processing fee to have up to $20,000 in loans forgiven because of a Pell Grant. Another was told they would get a $10,000 reduction in their loan balance and a new repayment plan with six $250 monthly payments under the “student loan forgiveness program.” The FTC alleges violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts or practices, TCPA, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendants used such misrepresentations to illegally obtain consumers’ banking information, and typically collected hundreds of dollars in unlawful advance fees—sometimes through remotely created checks in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California filed a temporary restraining order, resulting in an asset freeze, among other things. The FTC seeks preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and other relief.
CFPB sues installment lending conglomerate
On August 22, the CFPB announced it is suing a lending company and its subsidiaries that provide installment loans as a refinance option to consumers who have difficulty paying their existing loans. According to the complaint, the Bureau claims that through an array of underwriting, sales, and servicing practices, the company would encourage consumers with limited loan options to repeatedly refinance their existing loans, securing fees with each successful round of refinancing. The CFPB alleges the company and its subsidiaries generated over 40 percent of its net revenue through the loan costs and fees it derived from “churning” consumers in repeated refinances. The complaint includes details of the sales tactics, and how a district supervisor “plainly tells their employees that if they don’t refinance their delinquent customers, they’re not going to meet their monthly growth goals.” In addition, the company allegedly marketed the option to refinance existing loans as a “fresh start” and “solution” to their problems. The Bureau alleges that the company violated CFPA and engaged in unfair and abusive acts and practices.
The Bureau seeks redress for consumers, injunctive relief, and a civil money penalty.
Agencies announce guidance regarding institutions affected by Hawaiian wildfires.
On August 17, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs’ Division of Financial Institutions, the NCUA, and the OCC issued a joint interagency statement covering supervisory practices for financial institutions affected by the Hawaiian wildfires. The agencies announced that, among other things, the regulators would expedite requests made by institutions for temporary operating facilities. The regulators noted that in most cases, “telephone notice to the primary federal and/or state regulator will suffice” for such requests. The agencies also encouraged financial institutions to work with borrowers in affected communities, explaining that “prudent efforts” to adjust terms on existing loans should not be subject to examiner criticism, in light of the unusual circumstances faced by the financial institutions.
Further, the agencies announced that they understood that damage caused by the wildfires may affect the ability of institutions to comply with publishing requirements for branch closings, relocations, or temporary locations, and instructed institutions experiencing such difficulties to contact their primary federal and/or state regulator. The agencies additionally instructed institutions that face difficulty meeting reporting requirements due to the wildfires to contact their primary federal and/or state regulator, explaining that the agencies “do not expect to assess penalties or take other supervisory action” against institutions that take reasonable steps to comply with reporting requirements. The agencies also announced that financial institutions may receive CRA consideration for loans, investments, or services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas. Finally, the agencies encouraged financial institutions to monitor any municipal securities and loans affected by the Hawaii wildfires.