InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FINRA updates guidance on verification of Form U4 for individual registration
On May 15, FINRA updated its response to a frequently asked questions regarding verification on Form U4 for individual registration. Under FINRA Rule 3110(e), members are required to have written procedures to verify the accuracy and completeness of an applicant’s initial or transfer Form U4 within 30 calendar days after the Form U4 is filed with FINRA. In light of challenges posed by Covid-19, if a firm is unable to verify the information within 30 days following submission, the firm must document which information could not be verified and the reasons and maintain an appropriate record, including steps taken to verify the information. For an initial or transfer Form U4, firms should make reasonable efforts to verify the information contained therein by June 30, 2020, and, if necessary, file an amended Form U4 to correct any discrepancies.
6th Circuit denies stay of injunction against PPP Ineligibility Rule
On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the SBA’s emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s injunction against the agency’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Ineligibility Rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court granted a preliminary injunction against the SBA’s PPP Ineligibility Rule—which, in relevant part, excludes from PPP loan eligibility “sexually oriented businesses that present entertainment or sell products of a ‘prurient’ (but not unlawful) nature.” The district court concluded that the Rule was in conflict with the Congressional purpose of the CARES Act, which houses the PPP, to protect workers in need during the Covid-19 pandemic, including workers for businesses that have been historically excluded from SBA financial assistance.
The 6th Circuit agreed with the district court, denying the motion for a stay. The court noted that the CARES Act specifies that eligibility “is conferred on ‘any business concern,’” which “encompasses sexually oriented businesses.” It went on to state that “the public interest is served in guaranteeing that any business, including plaintiffs, receive loans to protect and support their employees during the pandemic.”
In dissent, one judge argued that it is “unclear whether Congress meant that any business concern was eligible for a PPP loan regardless of SBA restrictions,” and therefore, the injunction should be stayed pending a decision on the merits.
SEC issues exemption for broker-dealer TALF Agents
On May 15, the SEC granted an exemption to broker-dealers designated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY Fed) as Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) Agents from certain requirements of Section 11(d)(1) of the Exchange Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, under the TALF, the NY Fed will provide loans to U.S. companies that are secured by certain eligible consumer and small business asset-backed securities, such as student loans, auto and credit card loans, loans guaranteed by the SBA and certain other assets. The exemption for broker-dealers was requested by the NY Fed on May 12, because Section11(d)(1) would prevent TALF Agents from arranging nonrecourse loans in which the broker-dealer participated as a member of a selling syndicate or group.
The SEC granted the exemption with respect to asset-backed securities that are or may be designated as “eligible collateral,” declaring that any broker-dealer designated as a TALF Agent and participating in TALF 2020 is exempted from the requirements of Section 11(d)(1).
FTC alleges telemarketer charged organizations for unordered subscriptions
On May 13, the FTC filed a complaint against a Pennsylvania-based telemarketing operation for allegedly misrepresenting “no obligation” trial offers to organizations and then enrolling recipients in subscriptions for several hundred dollars without their consent. The complaint also charged a New York-based debt collector with violating the FTC Act by illegally threatening the organizations if they did not pay for the unordered subscriptions. The FTC alleged that the telemarketing operation violated the FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute by calling organizations such as businesses, schools, fire and police departments, and non-profits to offer sample books or newsletters without disclosing that they were selling subscriptions and then sending publications without the recipients’ consent. The FTC alleged that, if the organizations agreed to accept what they believed to be free publications, the defendants enrolled the organizations in a negative option program without their consent, and automatically charged the organizations for annual subscriptions. The telemarketer worked with a debt collection firm that allegedly misrepresented that the debts were valid and used false threats to collect outstanding balances. According to the FTC, the debt collection firm handled collections nationwide despite not having a valid corporate registration in any state and only being licensed to collect debt in Washington State. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief “including rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies.”
CFPB reaches $18 million settlement in credit-report scheme
On May 14, the CFPB filed a proposed stipulated final judgment and order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against a mortgage lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in January claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products, but instead, the defendants allegedly resold or provided the reports to companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services. The CFPB further alleged that defendants violated the TSR and CFPA when they used telemarketing sales calls and direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, and falsely represented that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and change their servicer to the Department of Education.
If approved by the Court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would (i) impose an $18 million redress judgment against the mortgage lender, of which all but $200,000 would be suspended due to the lender’s limited ability to pay; (ii) require one of the individuals and his company to disgorge $403,750 in profits to provide redress; (iii) impose a $406,150 judgement against a second individual and his company, which will be suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay; (iv) impose a total $450,001 civil money penalty against the defendants; (v) permanently ban the defendants from the debt-relief industry and from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports; and (vi) prohibit the defendants from on using or obtaining consumer reports for “any business purpose other than underwriting or otherwise evaluating mortgage loans.”
FTC settles with e-commerce telemarketers for $1.2 million
On May 13, the FTC announced a $1.2 million settlement with a group of telemarketing companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”) for an allegedly deceptive e-commerce scheme in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the defendants sold products and services to consumers trying to start at-home internet-based businesses, which the defendants claimed would “substantially increase the visibility of and drive customer traffic to consumers’ ecommerce websites on the Internet.” The defendants would allegedly obtain leads by using a service that produces leads of consumers who have recently registered websites. The defendants would contact the consumers by telephone to sell services and would typically continue to call consumers to “upsell” additional products. The FTC argues that “[c]ontrary to [d]efendants’ representations, many consumers who purchase [d]efendants’ products and services do not end up with a functional website, earn little or no money, and end up heavily in debt.” The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the TSR, and the CRFA by, among other things, (i) making unsubstantiated and false earnings and product claims; (ii) making false claims about business affiliations; and (iii) using contract provisions that restrict consumers’ ability to review or complain about purchased products or services.
The settlement with two of the entities and one owner includes a monetary judgment of over $16 million, which is partially suspended due to an inability to pay, and requires the defendants to surrender over $900,000. In separate settlements with the other two owners, large monetary judgments are also partially suspended due to an inability to pay, with one required to surrender over $100,000, and the other required to surrender over $200,000.
SBA, Treasury release PPP loan forgiveness application
On May 15, the Small Business Administration (SBA) in consultation with the Treasury Department announced the release of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Application that borrowers must complete in order to have their loans forgiven at the conclusion of the eight-week covered period, which begins upon loan disbursement. The application provides specific instructions, including several measures designed to reduce compliance burdens and simplify the process. These include: (i) “[o]ptions for borrowers to calculate payroll costs using an ‘alternative payroll covered period’ that aligns with borrowers’ regular payroll cycles”; (ii) the flexibility to count any eligible payroll and non-payroll expenses paid or incurred during the eight-week period after the disbursement of a borrower’s PPP loan; (iii) clear instructions on how to perform calculations to confirm eligibility for loan forgiveness as required by the CARES Act; (iv) a safe harbor from forgiveness reduction for borrowers that were able to rehire employees by June 30; and (v) the addition of a new exemption from forgiveness reduction “for borrowers who have made a good-faith, written offer to rehire workers that was declined[.]” The SBA announced it “will also soon issue regulations and guidance to further assist borrowers as they complete their applications, and to provide lenders with guidance on their responsibilities.”
CFPB, CSBS issue consumer guide on CARES Act mortgage relief option
On May 15, the CFPB and Conference of State Bank Supervisors jointly issued a Consumer Relief Guide to provide information to homeowners with federally-backed mortgage loans regarding their rights to relief under the CARES Act. The Guide outlines steps for requesting forbearance and provides additional resources for borrowers who need assistance when understanding their options or working with their mortgage servicers. The Bureau also refers borrowers to its centralized webpage, which covers consumer financial resources for the Covid-19 pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as its joint housing assistance website launched in coordination with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (covered by InfoBytes here).
Federal agencies allow supplementary leverage ratio flexibility
On May 15, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board (Fed), and the OCC announced an interim final rule (IFR) that temporarily permits depository institutions to choose to exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks from the calculation of the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) to provide flexibility during the Covid-19 pandemic. The exclusion would enable depository institutions to expand their balance sheets to provide additional credit to households and businesses. The SLR and the IFR apply to depository institution subsidiaries of U.S. systemically important bank holding companies and depository institutions subject to Category II or Category III capital standards. According to the FDIC’s Financial Institution Letter FIL-57-2020, if a depository institution elects to exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits from the SLR, it, among other things, (i) must notify its primary federal banking regulator within 30 days after the IFR is effective; (ii) may choose to reflect the exclusion as if the IFR has been in effect the entire second quarter of 2020; and (iii) must obtain approval from its primary federal banking regulator before making a distribution or creating an obligation to make a distribution, beginning in the third quarter of 2020 through March 2021, so long as the temporary exclusion is in effect. The IFR goes into effect upon publication the Federal Register and is effective through March 31, 2021.
See also OCC Bulletin 2020-52 and additional questions for feedback by the Fed.
VA extends foreclosure moratorium for borrowers affected by Covid-19
On May 14, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued Circular 26-20-18, which extends the foreclosure moratorium for borrowers affected by Covid-19 through June 30. Properties secured by VA-guaranteed loans are subject to a moratorium on the initiation of foreclosures, and the completion of foreclosures in process.