InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS releases stablecoin guidance
On June 8, NYDFS released new regulatory guidance on the issuance of U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins, establishing criteria for regulated virtual currency companies seeking to issue stablecoins in the state. The guidance outlines baseline criteria for USD-backed stablecoins, including that: (i) a “stablecoin must be fully backed by a Reserve of assets,” such that the Reserve’s market value “is at least equal to the nominal value of all outstanding units of the stablecoin as of the end of each business day”; (ii) stablecoin issuers “must adopt clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by [NYDFS] in writing, that confer on any lawful holder of the stablecoin a right to redeem units of the stablecoin from the Issuer in a timely fashion at par for the U.S. dollar”; (iii) Reserve assets must be segregated from an issuer’s proprietary assets and “held in custody with U.S. state or federally chartered depository institutions and/or asset custodians”; (iv) a Reserve must consist of specific assets subject to NYDFS-approved overcollateralization requirements and restrictions; and (v) a Reserve must undergo an examination of its management’s assertions at least once a month by a licensed certified public accountant.
NYDFS emphasized that these criteria are not the only requirements it may impose when issuing stablecoins, and informed regulated entities that it will also consider a range of potential risks prior to granting a regulated entity authorization to issue stablecoins. This includes risk related to “cybersecurity and information technology; network design and maintenance and related technology and operational considerations; Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money-laundering [] and sanctions compliance; consumer protection; safety and soundness of the issuing entity; and the stability/integrity of the payment system, as applicable.” Additional requirements may be imposed on regulated entities to address any of these risks.
NYDFS noted that the regulatory guidance is not applicable to USD-backed stablecoins listed, but not issued, by regulated entities, and stated it “does expect regulated entities that list USD-backed stablecoins to consider this guidance when submitting a request for coin issuance or seeking approval for a coin self-certification policy.”
OFAC amends Cuban Assets Control Regulations
On June 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a final rule amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, and further implementing portions of President Biden’s foreign policy to increase support for Cuban people. Specifically, the final rule “authorizes group people-to-people educational travel to Cuba and removes certain restrictions on authorized academic educational activities, authorizes travel to attend or organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba, removes the $1,000 quarterly limit on family remittances, and authorizes donative remittances to Cuba.” The final rule is effective June 9.
In conjunction with the announcement, OFAC published a number of new and updated Cuba-related frequently asked questions addressing, among other things, remittance transactions, travel activities, and authorized imports.
FinCEN issues ANPRM on no-action letter process
On June 3, FinCEN issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting comments on questions related to implementing a no-action letter process at the agency. The ANPRM is part of FinCEN’s implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, which directed the agency to conduct an assessment of a no-action letter process concerning how anti-money laundering or countering the financing of terrorism laws may apply to specific conduct. The ANPRM follows FinCEN’s June 2021 report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here), which concluded that the agency should undertake rulemaking to establish a process for issuing no-action letters that will supplement its current forms of regulatory guidance and relief. FinCEN noted in its announcement that the addition of a no-action letter process (“generally understood to be a form of enforcement discretion where an agency states by letter that it will not take an enforcement action against the submitting party for the specific conduct presented to the agency”) could overlap with and “affect other forms of regulatory guidance and relief that FinCEN already offers, including administrative rulings and exceptive or exemptive relief.” The agency is seeking public input on whether the process should be implemented and, if so, how the process should work. Included in the ANPRM are questions concerning, among other things, FinCEN jurisdiction (specifically “[w]hat is the value of establishing a FinCEN no-action letter process if other regulators with jurisdiction over the same entity do not issue a similar no-action letter”), whether there should be limitations on which factual circumstances could be considered, and whether the scope of a no-action letter should be limited so that requests may not be submitted during a Bank Secrecy Act examination. The ANPRM also asked questions related to changes in circumstances, revocations, denials and withdrawals, confidentiality and consultation concerns, and criteria for distinguishing no-action letters from administrative rulings or exceptive/exemptive relief.
Comments on the ANPRM are due August 5.
Special Alert: Fed finalizes rule for FedNow platform
The Federal Reserve Board recently issued a final rule for its FedNow instant-payments platform that offers more clarity on how the new service will work while essentially adopting the proposed rule. FedNow will stand alongside private sector initiatives and, like more modern payments systems, will feature credit payments to push funds rather than debit payments to pull funds, offering faster processing.
Highlights of the new rule and FedNow
- Not yet open for business. The Fed continues to target release of FedNow for sometime in 2023. It will implement the 24x7x365 real-time payments service in stages, each with additional features and enhancements.
- Not a consumer or business app or service. Depository institutions that are eligible to hold Reserve Bank accounts will be able to use FedNow, which will be administered by the 12 Reserve Banks. Consumers and businesses may not participate in FedNow directly, and therefore, could not send payment orders to a Reserve Bank through it. They would instead send instant payments through their depository institution accounts.
- Bank v. nonbank direct participation in FedNow. Eligible institutions include banks, savings associations, credit unions, U.S. branches and agencies of non-U.S. banks, Edge or agreement corporations, some systemically important financial market utilities, and government-sponsored entities (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). We use the term “banks” throughout to simplify the discussion.
- Not yet open for business. The Fed continues to target release of FedNow for sometime in 2023. It will implement the 24x7x365 real-time payments service in stages, each with additional features and enhancements.
FTC to modernize guidance on preventing digital deception
On June 3, the FTC announced that it is soliciting public comment on modernizing the agency’s business guidance titled “.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising,” which was published in 2013 and provides guidance to businesses on digital advertising and marketing. In seeking public comment on possible revisions, the FTC is seeking information on the technical and legal issues that consumers, the FTC’s law enforcement partners, and others believe should be addressed. The issues include, among other things: (i) the usage of sponsored and promoted advertising on social media; (ii) advertising embedded in games and virtual reality and microtargeted advertisements; and (iii) the usage of dark patterns, manipulative user interface designs used on websites and mobile apps, and digital advertising that pose unique risks to consumers. According to the Commission, this effort “is one of a number of initiatives the FTC is undertaking to tackle dark patterns and digital deception, including issuing a click-to-cancel policy statement, proposing strengthened advertising guidelines against fake and manipulated reviews, arming staff with new tools to investigate dark patterns, and authorizing a Notice of Penalty Offense against deceptive reviews.” Comments close on August 2.
SEC publishes final rule requiring certain electronic filings
On June 3, the SEC announced a final rule requiring certain forms to be filed or submitted electronically. The final rule also amends forms to require structured data reporting and remove outdated references. According to the SEC, the final rule is “intended to promote efficiency, transparency, and operational resiliency by modernizing how information is filed or submitted to the Commission and disclosed to the public.” The SEC also noted that electronic filings will be more accessible and available on the SEC website in searchable formats. The public comment period will be open for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The SEC released a Fact Sheet providing information on the amendments to electronic filing requirements. According to a statement released by SEC Chair Gary Gensler, the final rule “will modernize and increase the efficiency of the filing process—for filers, investors, and the SEC.”
FHFA publishes final rule on GSE capital plans
On June 1, the FHFA announced a final rule requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) to submit annual capital plans and provide prior notice for certain capital actions “consistent with the regulatory framework for capital planning for large bank holding companies.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2021, FHFA issued the noticed of proposed rulemaking. These capital plans must include several mandatory elements, including (i) “[a]n assessment of the expected sources and uses of capital over the planning horizon that reflects the [GSE]’s size, complexity, risk profile and scope of operations, assuming both expected and stressful conditions”; (ii) “[e]stimates of projected revenues, expenses, losses, reserves and pro forma capital levels,” along with any additional capital measures the GSEs deem relevant; (iii) “[a] description of all planned capital actions over the planning horizon”; (iv) a discussion of stress test results and how the capital plans will account for these results; and (v) a discussion of any anticipated changes to a GSE’s business plan that may likely have a material impact on the GSE’s capital adequacy or liquidity. The final rule noted that the FHFA intends to review the capital plans for comprehensiveness, reasonableness, and relevant supervisory information, and plans to review the GSE’s regulatory and financial reports, as well as the results of any conducted stress tests and any other information required by FHFA or related to the GSE’s capital adequacy. Should the GSEs determine that there has been or will be a material change to their risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure since the submission of the last plan (or if directed by FHFA), they must resubmit their capital plans within 30 days. The final rule also incorporates the determination of the stress capital buffer into the capital planning process, which will be provided to the GSEs by August 15 of each year, along with an explanation of the results of the supervisory stress test. The final rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Under the final rule, each GSE will submit its first capital plan by May 20, 2023.
DFPI issues NPRM to implement process for handling consumer complaints and inquiries under the CCFPL
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to adopt regulations to implement and interpret certain sections of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) related to consumer complaints and inquiries. (See also text of the proposed regulations here.) As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, AB 1864 was signed in 2020 to enact the CCFPL, which, among other things: (i) establishes UDAAP authority for DFPI; (ii) authorizes DFPI to impose penalties of $2,500 for “each act or omission” in violation of the law without a showing that the violation was willful, arguably representing an enhancement of DFPI’s enforcement powers in contrast to Dodd-Frank and existing California law; (iii) provides DFPI with broad discretion to determine what constitutes a “financial product or service” within the law’s coverage; and (iv) provides that administration of the law will be funded through the fees generated by the new registration process as well as fines, penalties, settlements, or judgments. While the CCFPL exempts certain entities (e.g., banks, credit unions, certain licensees), DFPI’s oversight authority was expanded to include debt collection, debt settlement, credit repair, check cashing, rent-to-own contracts, retail sales financing, consumer credit reporting, and lead generation.
The NPRM proposes new rules to implement section 90008, subdivisions (a), (b), and (d)(2)(D), of the CCFPL related to consumer complaints and inquires. According to DFPI’s notice, section 90008 subdivisions (a) and (b) authorize DFPI to promulgate rules establishing reasonable procedures for covered persons to provide timely responses to consumers and DFPI concerning consumer complaints and inquiries. Additionally, subdivision (d)(2)(D) “permits covered persons to withhold nonpublic or confidential information, including confidential supervisory information, in response to a consumer request to the covered person for information regarding a consumer financial product or service.”
Among other things, the NPRM:
- Identifies entities exempt from the consumer complaints and inquiries requirements;
- Requires covered persons to respond to consumer complaints and to establish policies and procedures for receiving and responding to complaints, including providing a complaint form, acknowledging receipt of complaints, tracking complaints, the timeline for responding to complaints, the contents for such a response, and recordkeeping of such complaints;
- Sets forth requirements for responding to complaints, including documenting when complaints do not require further investigation, performing an investigation of a complaint if warranted, and requiring corrective action to resolve a complaint such as an account adjustment, credit, or refund, and appropriate steps to prevent recurrence of the issue, which may include policy changes and employee training;
- Requires designation of an officer with primary responsibility for the complaint process;
- Requires covered persons to submit to DFPI a quarterly complaint report, which will be made public, and an annual inquiries report;
- Sets forth requirements for covered persons to respond to inquiries from consumers and develop and implement written policies and procedures for responding to such inquiries;
- Provides that covered persons must develop and implement written policies and procedures for responding to requests from DFPI regarding consumer complaints; and
- Exempts certain information, such as nonpublic or confidential information, including confidential supervisory information, from disclosure to consumers.
Written comments on the NPRM are due by July 5.
FHFA announces new public disclosure requirements for GSEs
On May 26, FHFA announced a final rule that amends the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework by introducing new public disclosure requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). The final rule adds new quarterly quantitative and annual qualitative disclosures related to risk management, corporate governance, capital structure and capital requirements and buffers under the standardized approach. The final rule also aligns the GSEs’ disclosure requirements with many of the public disclosure requirements for large banking organizations under the regulatory capital framework adopted by banking regulators, and is intended to ensure the GSEs operate in a safe and sound manner “in particular during periods of financial stress.” “By allowing market participants to assess key information about the [GSEs] risk profiles and associated levels of capital, this final rule will promote transparency and encourage sound risk management practices at the [GSEs],” acting Director Sandra L. Thompson said.
CFPB reminds creditors of ECOA adverse action notice requirements
On May 26, the CFPB released Circular 2022-03 to reiterate creditors’ adverse action notice requirements under ECOA. The Circular, among other things, explains that ECOA and Regulation B require companies to explain the specific reasons for denying an application for credit or taking other adverse actions, even if the creditor is relying on credit models using complex algorithms. Specifically, the Circular stated that “[l]aw-abiding financial companies have long used advanced computational methods as part of their credit decision-making processes, and they have been able to provide the rationales for their credit decisions.” While the Bureau recognized that some creditors “make credit decisions based on the outputs from complex algorithms, sometimes called ‘black-box’ models,” it stressed that the adverse action notice requirements of ECOA and Regulation B apply equally to all credit decisions, regardless of the technology used to make them. The Bureau expressed that “the reasoning behind some of these models’ outputs may be unknown to the model’s users, including the model’s developers,” and that “with such models, adverse action notices that meet ECOA’s requirements may not be possible.” The Bureau further explained that, “[c]reditors cannot lawfully use technologies in their decision-making processes if using them means that they are unable to provide these required explanations.” Stated differently, a “creditor cannot justify noncompliance with ECOA and Regulation B’s requirements based on the mere fact that the technology it employs to evaluate applications is too complicated or opaque to understand.”