InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SBA issues notice detailing remittance of EIDL advances
On January 8, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a procedural notice discussing the repeal of Section 1110(e)(6) of the CARES Act, which required the SBA to deduct the amount of any Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) advance received by a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrower from the PPP forgiveness payment from the SBA to the PPP lender. According to the notice, effective immediately, the SBA will no longer deduct EIDL advances from PPP forgiveness payments and will apply this change to any SBA forgiveness payments that were confirmed by December 29, 2020 or later.
Additionally, for any forgiveness payments that were already reduced by an EIDL advance, the SBA will automatically remit a reconciliation payment to the PPP lender that will include the advance amount, plus interest through the remittance date. The SBA notes that the PPP lender does not need to request the reconciliation payment, but must notify the borrower of the payment, re-amortize the loan, and notify the borrower of the next payment amount or whether the loan has been paid in full.
CFPB issues two new CAS approval orders
On December 30, the CFPB issued two compliance assistance sandbox (CAS) approval orders covering a dual-feature credit card and an earned wage access product. The first approval was issued to a federal savings bank regarding its proposal to develop a “dual-feature credit card,” which would be offered to consumers with limited or damaged credit history to help reestablish more favorable credit history. According to the approval order, the consumer would be required to provide a security deposit to be used with the secured credit card feature and after “at least one year” and meeting certain eligibility requirements, the consumer would be offered to “graduate” to unsecured use of the credit card. The three-year approval order, by operation of TILA section 130(f), provides the bank a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f), as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order.
The second approval order covers certain aspects of an earned wage access (EWA) payment program, which allows employees access to their earned but unpaid wages prior to payday. According to the CAS application, an employee of a participating employer can download the company’s app and agree to the company’s terms prior to engaging in an EWA program. Among other things, the company notes that it will not engage in any debt collection activities related to the EWA program or submit reports to a consumer reporting agency regarding the transactions. The two-year approval order, by operation of TILA section 130(f), provides the company a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f) as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order.
CFPB reaches $2 million settlement with installment lender for MLA, EFTA violations
On December 30, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Nevada-based consumer lender resolving allegations that the company violated the Military Lending Act (MLA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the CFPA when making installment loans. The settlement is part of “the Bureau’s sweep of investigations of multiple lenders that may be violating the MLA.” According to the Bureau, the company allegedly made loans to active-duty servicemembers and their dependents (covered borrowers) in violation of the MLA by requiring borrowers to repay installment loans by “allotment.” Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the company violated the EFTA by requiring all of its covered borrowers to authorize the company “to initiate an electronic-fund transfer on the first business day after the due date of a payment that has been missed.” This requirement, the Bureau states, violates the EFTA’s prohibition against requiring borrowers to preauthorize electronic-fund transfers as a condition of receiving credit.
Under the terms of the consent order, the company is required to pay a $2.175 million civil money penalty, and must also, among other things, (i) provide notice of the Bureau’s consent order to all covered borrowers repaying their loans by allotment, along with notice that they may elect to change their repayment method; and (ii) provide training to employees involved in loan origination. Furthermore, the company is prohibited from accepting payment by allotment without first obtaining signed authorization from the borrower, and is banned from providing any incentives to employees or considering the number or rate of consumers who elect to repay by allotment during performance evaluations.
Fed targets Swiss bank for BSA/AML compliance deficiencies
On December 22, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a Swiss bank for alleged Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance risk management deficiencies found during a 2019 examination of the bank’s New York branch. The consent order outlines a number of corporate compliance and governance measures that the bank is required to undertake, such as: (i) submitting a joint written plan by the board of directors, risk committee, and senior management within 90 days that outlines measures for strengthening their respective oversight of the bank’s U.S. operations’ compliance, including “provid[ing] for a sustainable governance framework that, at a minimum, addresses, considers, and includes actions to improve policies, procedures, and controls for BSA/AML compliance across the U.S. operations”; (ii) providing a written revised customer due diligence program for the New York branch within 90 days, which must outline measures such as risk-based policies and procedures to ensure complete and accurate customer information is collected, retained, and analyzed for all account holders; (iii) submitting a revised suspicious activity monitoring and reporting program demonstrating that the New York branch is engaging in timely suspicious activity monitoring and reporting; and (iv) implementing independent testing within the New York branch to ensure compliance with all applicable BSA/AML requirements.
CFPB releases annual HMDA and TILA adjustments
On December 22, the CFPB announced final rules adjusting the asset-size thresholds under HMDA (Regulation C) and TILA (Regulation Z). Both rules took effect January 1.
Under HMDA, institutions with assets below certain dollar thresholds are exempt from the collection and reporting requirements. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $47 million to $48 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $48 million or less as of December 31, from collecting and reporting HMDA data in 2021.
TILA exempts certain entities from the requirement to establish escrow accounts when originating higher-priced mortgage loans (HPMLs), including entities with assets below the asset-size threshold established by the CFPB. The final rule increases this asset-size exemption threshold from $2.202 billion to $2.230 billion, thereby exempting creditors with assets of $2.230 billion or less as of December 31, from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for HPMLs in 2021.
CFPB reaches settlement with remittance transfer provider
On December 21, the CFPB announced a settlement with a large non-bank remittance transfer provider resolving allegations that the company violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the Remittance Transfer Rule by failing to adequately comply with the rules’ requirements. According to the Bureau, the company sent $2.2 billion in remittance transfers from the United States to several countries in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and Africa. In sending the remittance transfers, the Bureau claims the company failed to (i) honor cancellation requests or provide cancellation rights; (ii) develop and maintain appropriate error resolution policies and procedures; (iii) promptly investigate whether errors have occurred and make error determinations; (iv) provide consumers with written reports of investigation findings; (v) refund certain fees and taxes when funds were not available on time; (vi) treat international bill pay services as remittances covered by the Remittance Rule; and (vii) make proper disclosures in numerous instances. The consent order requires the company to pay a $750,000 civil money penalty, and prohibits the company from offering or providing remittance transfers without complying with EFTA and Remittance Rule requirements. The company is also required to adopt a compliance plan to ensure that its remittance transfer acts and practices are in compliance with all applicable federal consumer financial laws and the consent order.
FHFA seeks to implement minimum GSE liquidity and funding requirements
On December 17, the FHFA announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding liquidity and funding requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). The NPRM seeks to, among other things, implement two cash-flow based requirements and two long-term liquidity and funding requirements. These new requirements include (i) a short-term, 30-day liquidity requirement—based on a cumulative net cash outflow analysis plus requiring an additional $10 billion cushion of highly liquid assets; (ii) a 365-day liquidity requirement “extending the short-term cumulative cash outflow analysis to a full year”; (iii) a requirement that the “ratio of long-term unsecured to less-liquid assets must be greater than 120 percent”; and (iv) a requirement that the “ratio of the spread duration of unsecured debt to the spread duration of retained portfolio assets must be greater than 60 percent.” FHFA notes that the NPRM is intended to help ensure the GSEs “have enough liquid assets to continue supporting the mortgage market during times of severe stress.” The NPRM also supports FHFA oversight of GSE “prudential management, including compliance with standards pertaining to ‘adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves.’” Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
OCC clarifies Dodd-Frank preemption standards
On December 18, the OCC released a letter clarifying the agency’s interpretation of preemption standards and requirements codified by Dodd-Frank in 12 U.S.C. § 25b. The letter notes that section 25b codifies three standards pursuant to which federal law may preempt state consumer financial law, focusing on the procedural requirements for OCC “preemption determinations,” which are “affirmative conclusion[s] by the OCC that federal law preempts a state consumer financial law” made under the Barnett standard in section 25b. The letter explains that a “preemption determination” is “limited to a regulation or order issued by the OCC that concludes that a state consumer financial law is preempted pursuant to the Barnett standard,” and does not include “[a]n OCC action that has only indirect or incidental effects on a state consumer financial law,” or when the OCC “concludes that (1) a state consumer financial law is preempted pursuant to the discriminatory effect or other federal law standards or (2) a state law other than a state consumer financial law is preempted.” The letter addresses the OCC’s authority to make preemption determinations by regulation or on a “case-by-case basis,” including the circumstances under which CFPB consultation is required, the substantial evidence standard, and the requirement to publish preemption determinations. It clarifies that the section 25b periodic review requirement applies to any OCC conclusion that a state consumer law is preempted, which is not limited to determinations made under the Barnett standard. The interpretive letter also confirms that section 25b does not affect OCC interpretations of the authority to charge interest under 12 U.S.C. § 85, addresses the level of deference the OCC is afforded with respect to its interpretations, and describes the agency’s framework for complying with the standards and requirements for preemption determinations.
CFPB settles with auto loan company for inaccurate furnishing
On December 22, the CFPB announced a settlement with a nonprime auto loan originator and servicer (company) for allegedly violating the FCRA by providing erroneous consumer loan data to consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). According to the consent order, between January 2016 and August 2019, the company (i) furnished inaccurate information to CRAs it knew or should have known was inaccurate; (ii) failed to promptly update information with the CRAs once it was determined to be inaccurate or incomplete; (iii) failed to furnish dates of first delinquency for severely delinquent or charged off accounts; and (iv) failed to implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy of furnished information. The consent order imposes a civil money penalty of $4.75 million and requires the company to, among other things, correct all inaccuracies identified by the Bureau, conduct monthly reviews of information furnished to CRAs, and establish reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of furnished information.
CFPB announces $5.5 million loss mitigation settlement
On December 18, the CFPB announced a settlement with a mortgage servicer for allegedly violating the CFPA and RESPA’s implementing regulation, Regulation X, due to widespread failures in the handling and processing of homeowners’ applications for loss mitigation options. According to the consent order, which was entered with the mortgage servicer’s successor in interest, the mortgage servicer violated Regulation X by, among other things, failing to (i) state in the acknowledgement notices the additional documents and information borrowers needed to submit to complete loss mitigation applications; (ii) provide a reasonable due date for submission of borrower documents; (iii) properly evaluate borrowers for all loss mitigation options available to them; and (iv) treat certain applications as “facially complete” in accordance with Regulation X. Additionally, the consent order states that the servicer’s alleged failure to “accurately review, process, track, and communicate to borrowers information regarding their applications for loss mitigation options” is an unfair act or practice and the alleged failure to send accurate acknowledgement notices is a deceptive act or practice. The Bureau asserts that the servicer’s failures delayed or deprived some borrowers of a reasonable opportunity to obtain the benefits of a loss mitigation option, resulting in additional harm such as negative credit reporting, additional late fees, and additional interest.
The consent order requires the successor in interest to pay nearly $5 million in total redress to over 11,000 consumers. The consent order also imposes a $500,000 civil money penalty and includes requirements for operational changes should the successor in interest resume mortgage servicing operations.