InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC announces Oklahoma winter storm relief
On March 3, the FDIC issued FIL-13-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Oklahoma affected by severe winter storms. The guidance notes that the FDIC will consider the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the winter storms. The guidance highlights suggest that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions “may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider relief from certain reporting and publishing requirements.
FTC settles with income scam operation targeting Latina consumers
On March 2, the FTC announced a settlement with a company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) that used Spanish-language ads targeting Latina consumers with false promises of large profits reselling luxury products. The action—a part of the FTC’s “Operation Income Illusion” sweep (covered by InfoBytes here)—alleged the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims when marketing work-at-home opportunities. The FTC also claimed the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, misrepresenting material aspects of the investment opportunities and routinely using threats or intimidation “to coerce consumers to pay Defendants, including but not limited to threatening consumers with damage to consumers’ credit history, false legal actions, and reports to federal government authorities.” The proposed settlement imposes a $7 million judgment, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The defendants are also permanently banned from (i) selling any goods or service that is represented as a means for consumers to make money working from home or elsewhere; (ii) making any deceptive claims about the risk, liquidity, earnings potential, or profitability of any goods or services, and making such claims through telemarketing; and (iii) using threats or intimidation to coerce consumers to pay for goods or services.
Agencies update CRA Covid-19 FAQs
On March 8, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC released updated Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) FAQs related to Covid-19. The FAQs, first issued last May (covered by InfoBytes here), provide guidance for financial institutions and examiners regarding CRA consideration for activities taken in response to the pandemic. Highlights of the five new FAQs include:
- Banks cannot receive CRA service test consideration for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)-related activities; however, the agencies recognize that because the PPP loan program responds to community credit needs, PPP activities will be considered under the CRA lending test when evaluating flexible or innovative lending programs offered by a bank.
- Banks should not report PPP loans that have been rescinded or returned under the SBA’s safe harbor on their CRA loan register. Moreover, examiners will not consider these loans in their CRA evaluations of banks during the applicable time period.
- PPP loans over $1 million in low- or moderate-income geographies or in distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies “will be considered an eligible community development activity.”
- As noted in a joint statement released by the agencies last year (covered by InfoBytes here), favorable CRA consideration will be given to banks providing retail banking services and retail lending activities that respond to the needs of affected low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals, small businesses, and small farms consistent with safe and sound banking practices. These activities may include waiving ATM fees, overdraft fees, and early withdrawal penalties on certificates of deposit (CDs), or allowing LMI consumers to make draws from a HELOC during the repayment period. The agencies note that allowing LMI consumers “to make a withdrawal from an IRA as allowed under the CARES Act, or to draw on a HELOC during the draw period are routine banking services and, as such, are not eligible for CRA consideration.”
- The agencies will consider community development services provided virtually by bank representatives on an individual level based on the event and the benefitted assessment area.
Fed extends PPP Liquidity Facility through June 30
On March 8, the Federal Reserve Board announced the extension of the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) through June 30. The PPPLF was rolled out last year to provide liquidity to banks making loans to small businesses pursuant to the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here). The Board noted, however, that the remaining Covid-19 lending facilities—the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, and the Primary Dealer Credit Facility—will terminate March 31 as planned.
SBA allows self-employed filers to use gross income to calculate PPP loan amounts
On March 4, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule (IFR) to implement recent changes to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculation for IRS Form 1040, Schedule C filers. Self-employed individuals who file Schedule C will now be able to calculate their maximum loan amount using gross income. This calculation change only applies to loans approved after March 4, 2021, and borrowers that have already had their loans approved cannot increase their PPP loan amount based on the new maximum loan formula. SBA also notes that a previously provided safe harbor presumption of making “the statutorily required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith” will not apply to Schedule C filers that elect to calculate their First Draw PPP loan using gross income if they report more than $150,000 in gross income. These borrowers will be subject to additional SBA review as they will most likely have additional sources of liquidity to support business operations. The IFR further removes eligibility restrictions that prohibit businesses owned at least 20 percent by individuals (i) who have a non-financial fraud felony conviction in the last year, or (ii) who are delinquent or in default on their federal student loans. These changes apply to both First Draw and Second Draw PPP loans.
To assist borrowers, SBA released the following revised forms: First Draw application form and Schedule C gross income form, Second Draw application form and Schedule C gross income form, and lender applications for First Draw and Second Draw loans. The IFR takes effect March 4.
CFPB sues payment processor for fraudulent practices
On March 3, the CFPB filed a complaint against an Illinois-based third-party payment processor and its founder and former CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in unfair practices in violation of the CFPA and deceptive telemarketing practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. According to the complaint, the defendants knowingly processed remotely created check (RCC) payments totaling millions of dollars for over 100 merchant-clients claiming to offer technical-support services and products, but that actually deceived consumers—mostly older Americans—into purchasing expensive and unnecessary antivirus software or services. The tech-support clients allegedly used telemarketing to sell their products and services and received payment through RCCs, the Bureau stated, noting that the defendants continued to process the clients’ RCC payments despite being “aware of nearly a thousand consumer complaints” about the tech-support clients. According to the Bureau, roughly 25 percent of the complaints specifically alleged that the transactions were fraudulent or unauthorized. The Bureau noted that the defendants also responded to inquiries from police departments across the country concerning consumer complaints about being defrauded by the defendants. Further, the Bureau cited high return rates experienced by the tech-support clients, including an average unauthorized return rate of 14 percent—a “subset of the overall return rate where the reason for the return provided by the consumer is that the transaction was unauthorized.” The Bureau is seeking an injunction, as well as damages, redress, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.
FDIC releases January enforcement actions
On February 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. During the month, the FDIC issued 11 orders consisting of “two consent orders, two section 19 orders, two prohibition orders, two orders to pay civil money penalties, one order terminating consent order, and two orders terminating consent orders and orders for restitution.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty issued against a Tennessee-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claims that the bank (i) failed to provide required lender-placed flood insurance notices to borrowers about the availability of flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Act; (ii) provided an incomplete lender-placed flood insurance notice to a borrower; (iii) allowed flood insurance to lapse during the terms of several loans without placing flood insurance on borrowers’ behalf; (iv) failed to maintain an adequate amount of flood insurance; and (v) failed to provide timely notice of special flood hazards and the availability of federal disaster relief assistance. The order requires the payment of a $4,000 civil money penalty.
FTC adds two defendants to real estate investment scheme suit
On February 25, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection announced the addition of two additional defendants in an action taken against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection claimed that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law by marketing real estate events with false claims and using celebrity endorsements. The defendants allegedly promised consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “a minimum of three times” the price of the workshop within six months. In October 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants, prohibiting the defendants from continuing to make unsupported marketing claims and from interfering with consumers’ ability to review their products.
CFPB files Section 1071 status report, evaluates recommendations
On February 22, the CFPB filed its fourth status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses.
Among other things, the Bureau notes in the status report that it has satisfied the following required deadlines: (i) last September it released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) outline of proposals under consideration (InfoBytes coverage here); and (ii) it convened an SBREFA panel last October and released the panel’s final report last December (InfoBytes coverage here). The settlement next requires the parties to confer about a deadline for the Bureau to issue a Section 1071 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). According to the status report, the Bureau’s rulemaking staff is in the process of evaluating the panel’s recommendations as well as stakeholder feedback, and has begun briefing new Bureau leadership “on the significant legal and policy issues that must be resolved to implement the Section 1071 regulations” and prepare the NPRM. The Bureau notes that the parties continue to discuss an appropriate deadline for issuing the NPRM, emphasizing that if the parties agree on a deadline, they “will jointly stipulate to the agreed date and request that the court enter that deadline.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, acting Director Dave Uejio stated recently that he has “pledged” the Bureau’s Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations “the support it needs to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act without delay.”
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
Chopra testifies before Senate Banking Committee
On March 2, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra testified before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs where he was asked about his plans should he be confirmed as the permanent CFPB director. Chopra released prepared remarks in which he discussed challenges stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic, specifically those related to loan defaults, auto repossessions, credit reporting, debt collection, and foreclosures. Highlighting the need for “fair and effective oversight” in the mortgage market, Chopra also emphasized the importance of addressing systemic inequities faced by families of color. In opening remarks, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), in support of Chopra’s nomination, highlighted several of Chopra’s previous achievements at the Bureau as its first student loan ombudsman and emphasized his “strong record of protecting consumers and small businesses, promoting competitive markets, and holding bad actors accountable.”
Chopra fielded questions from Committee members on a range of topics, including credit reporting, student lending, servicemember protections, and mortgage lending. Chopra stressed his commitment to improving the “transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness” of the Bureau’s supervision and enforcement programs. He further emphasized the need to combat lending discrimination and that fair lending enforcement will be a priority for the Bureau, noting that the Bureau’s Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity office “is established by Congress and [] should play a critical role in making sure the law is being followed.” With respect to credit reporting and debt collection, Chopra stated, “[I]f there are unlawful, egregious practices, it is important for enforcement to make sure that they stop. . . .[T]hat’s what’s best for consumers, that’s what’s best for the honest market participants and that’s the role Congress has asked the CFPB to play.”
With respect to fintech, Chopra said the Bureau needs to “take a hard look” at large technology companies’ expansion into financial services and their potential impact on consumer privacy and data security. He also raised concerns about the potential for bias in algorithm decision-making and underwriting. “[L]ooking at how big data, particularly by large platforms who have detailed behavioral data on all of us is something we must carefully look at. Because, it will change financial services fundamentally,” Chopra stressed. He also discussed the importance of providing restitution for consumers, reaffirming his commitment to ensuring that companies found to have committed violations of law are required to repay consumers for what was taken. “[W]hen victims of fraud and misconduct are not made whole, that doesn’t just hurt them. It also hurts every other business who is trying to follow the law and treat them [] the right way,” Chopra stated.
If confirmed by the Senate Banking Committee, Chopra’s nomination will head to the full Senate for a vote.