InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS puts CFDL compliance obligations on hold
On December 31, NYDFS announced that providers’ compliance obligations under the state’s Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (CFDL) will not take effect until the necessary implementing regulations are issued and effective. The CFDL was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February 2021, to expand coverage and delay the effective date to January 1, 2022. (See S5470-B, as amended by S898.) Under the CFDL, providers of commercial financing, which include persons and entities who solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party, are required to give consumer-style loan disclosures to potential recipients when a specific offering of finance is extended for certain commercial transactions of $2.5 million or less. In October 2021, NYDFS published a notice announcing a proposed regulation (23 NYCRR 600) to implement the CFDL, which provided that the compliance date for the final regulation will be six months after the final adoption and publication of the regulation in the State Register (covered by InfoBytes here). Comments on the proposed regulation were due December 19. NYDFS noted in its announcement that “[i]n light of the significant feedback received, the Department is carefully considering the comments received and intends to publish a revised proposed regulation for notice-and-comment early in the new year.”
Fed updates legal interpretations related to several regulations
On December 30, the Federal Reserve Board added several new frequently asked questions related to legal interpretations of the Board’s regulations, including Regulations H, O, W, and Y, as well as questions concerning covered savings associations. The Fed noted that, unless specified, the FAQs are staff interpretations and have not been approved by the Board. Future revisions or supplements may be released as necessary or appropriate.
- Regulation H: Five new FAQs discuss (i) branch closing procedures and required notices; (ii) the ability to conduct branch activities should a bank relocate its main office; (iii) when a bank may acquire a debt obligation under its general powers to lend under state law; and (iv) public welfare investments made by state member banks involving housing projects with multiple residential buildings.
- Regulation O: A revised FAQ states that banks may not offer discounts on loan origination fees to an insider if the discount is not available to members of the public with one exception: a bank is not prohibited from “extending credit to an insider as part of a benefit or compensation program that (i) is widely available to employees of the member bank and (ii) does not give preference to any insider of the member bank over other employees of the member bank.”
- Regulation W: Thirty-four new FAQs address various topics related to (i) provisions concerning nonaffiliate and affiliate lending and extensions of credit under the attribution rule; (ii) valuation and timing principles; (iii) revolving credit facilities and loan commitments involving nonaffiliates; (iv) asset purchases from affiliates; (v) a bank’s acquisition of another company’s shares and liabilities; and (vi) exemptions.
- Regulation Y: Nine new FAQs discuss (i) circumstances under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) where “a bank or company that holds bank shares in a fiduciary capacity [would] be considered to have sole discretionary authority to exercise voting rights”; (ii) tying restriction qualifications, exceptions, and safe harbor; (iii) factors considered in the acquisition of bank securities or assets; (iv) trustee powers; (v) filing requirements for persons acquiring ownership or control of shares; (vi) appraisal standards for federally-related transactions; and (vii) rules for engaging in an activity that is complementary to a financial activity. The Fed notes that while these FAQs refer at times to bank holding companies, the FAQs are also applicable to foreign banking organizations that are subject to the BHC Act in the same manner as a bank holding company under the International Banking Act of 1978.
- Covered Savings Associations: Twenty-nine new FAQs address topics related to covered savings associations (CSAs) and companies that control a CSA pursuant to Section 5A of the Home Owners’ Loan Act. Among other things, the FAQs address (i) the scope of Section 5A; (ii) a CSA’s membership in the Federal Reserve System; (iii) filing requirements; (iv) requirements applicable to a CSA or a company controlling a CSA, as well as mutual CSAs and mutual holding companies controlling a CSA; (v) transactions involving a CSA or a company controlling a CSA; and (vi) the termination of an election to operate as a CSA.
FDIC releases November enforcement actions
On December 30, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in November. During the month, the FDIC made public fourteen orders consisting of “three Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Consent Order, three Termination of Consent Orders, one Order Terminating Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive, one Amended Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive, two Orders of Prohibition from Further Participation, and three Section 19 Orders.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Nebraska-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “made, increased, extended or renewed a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral”; and (iii) “failed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $6,500 civil money penalty.
The FDIC and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation also issued a consent order to a California-based bank, which alleged that the bank had unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to management, capital, asset quality, liquidity and funds management, and violations of law. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, retain qualified management and “maintain its total risk-based capital ratio in such an amount as to equal or exceed 12 percent.”
FDIC publishes new primary purpose exception to the brokered deposit rule
On December 31, the FDIC published a notice in the Federal Register of a new business relationship that may now qualify for the primary purpose exception to the brokered deposits rule through a new designated exception. According to the notice, the following additional business arrangement meets the primary purpose exception: “[t]he agent or nominee is ‘engaged in the business of placing’ customer funds at IDIs [insured depository institutions], in a custodial capacity, based upon instructions received from a depositor or depositor’s agent specific to each IDI and deposit account, and the agent or nominee neither plays any role in determining at which IDI(s) to place any customers’ funds, nor negotiates or set rates, terms, fees, or conditions, for the deposit account.” Notice or application to the FDIC is not required to rely on this exception. The notice also pointed out “that a depositor or depositor’s agent that meets the deposit broker definition and uses the services of a custodial agent that meets this designated exception to place deposits would result in such deposits being classified as brokered deposits,” and that “[t]he involvement of the non-discretionary custodial agent does not change the classification of deposits placed by, or through the facilitation of, an entity that otherwise meets the deposit broker definition.” Full compliance with the new brokered deposit rule became required on January 1, 2022.
FDIC updates brokered deposit FAQs
On December 29, the FDIC released an update to the Questions and Answers Related to the Brokered Deposits Rule. The FDIC clarified in a new FAQ that, with respect to third-party administrators of health savings accounts (HSAs) that hire third parties, “the HSA exception applies when: ‘[t]he agent or nominee places, or assists in placing, customer funds into deposit accounts for the primary purpose of paying for or reimbursing qualified medical expenses under section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code.’” Therefore, a third party that is an agent or nominee of a customer may qualify for the HSA exception where the third party’s primary purpose is to help place customer funds into HSAs to facilitate the payment for or reimbursement of qualified medical expenses. The updated FAQs also explained that entities relying upon the “25 percent test” to calculate their percentage of total assets under administration at IDIs for reporting purposes must submit a notice and provide quarterly reporting to the FDIC that “include[s] calculations based upon the average daily balance of funds placed at IDIs over the course of each reporting quarter.” Non-compliance with the reporting requirement may lead to revocation of the primary purpose exception and removal from the FDIC’s public register of entities that rely on the primary purpose exception on the FDIC’s webpage. An annual certification is required within 30 days of the anniversary date of the original filing.
OCC revises CRA small and intermediate bank asset-size threshold adjustments
On December 30, the OCC announced revisions to the asset-size thresholds used to define small and intermediate small banks and savings associations under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Effective January 1, a small bank or savings association will mean an institution that, as of December 31 of either of the past two years, had assets of less than $1.384 billion. An intermediate small bank or savings association will mean an institution with assets of at least $346 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two years, and less than $1.384 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two years. The adjustments follow a final rule issued last month, which rescinded the OCC’s 2020 CRA rule and replaced it with a rule based largely on the prior rules adopted jointly by the federal banking agencies in 1995, as amended. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the 2021 final rule, banks are evaluated under different CRA examination procedures based on their asset-size threshold amounts. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC also announced joint annual adjustments to the CRA asset-size thresholds used to define “small bank” and “intermediate small bank” in December.
Jelena McWilliams to resign as FDIC chairman
On December 31, Jelena McWilliams announced her resignation as FDIC Chairman effective February 4. McWilliams, who was appointed in 2018, noted in her resignation letter to President Biden that throughout her tenure at the agency the FDIC “has focused on its fundamental mission to maintain and instill confidence in our banking system while at the same time promoting innovation, strengthening financial inclusion, improving transparency, and supporting community banks and minority depository institutions, including through the creation of the Mission Driven Bank Fund.” She also credited FDIC staff for taking swift measures to maintain stability and provide flexibility for banks and consumers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
McWilliams’ resignation follows a conflict among members of the FDIC Board of Directors related to a joint request for information (RFI) seeking public comment on revisions to the FDIC’s framework for vetting proposed bank mergers. Last month, FDIC Board member Martin J. Gruenberg and Rohit Chopra (who has an automatic board seat as Director of the CFPB) issued a joint statement announcing that the FDIC Board of Directors voted to launch a public comment period on updating the FDIC’s regulatory implementation of the Bank Merger Act. Gruenberg and Chopra indicated at the time that the Board members taking part in this action had approved the RFI. Shortly following the announcement, the FDIC released a statement disputing that any action had been approved. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Chopra issued a follow-up statement challenging the view that only the FDIC Chairperson has the right to raise matters for discussion in Board meetings, and called for “immediate[]” resolution of the conflict, stating that “[a]bsent a return to legal reality and constructive engagement, board members will need to take further steps to exercise independence from management and to ensure sound governance of the [FDIC].” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
FDIC announces Alabama disaster relief
On December 23, the FDIC issued FIL-82-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Alabama affected by severe storms and flooding. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions and their customers affected by the weather and suggested 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 noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
DOJ solicits additional comments on bank mergers
On December 17, the DOJ announced that its Antitrust Division is soliciting additional public comments regarding the potential revision of the 1995 Bank Merger Competitive Review Guidelines (Banking Guidelines) as part of a continuing effort by the federal agencies responsible for banking regulation and supervision. According to the announcement, the division will utilize “additional comments to ensure that the Banking Guidelines reflect current economic realities and empirical learning, ensure Americans have choices among financial institutions, and guard against the accumulation of market power.” The division had previously announced in September 2020 that it was soliciting comments regarding the Banking Guidelines’ potential revision. The call for public comment contained specific questions, including whether: (i) any new guidance should be bank-specific; (ii) any new bank merger guidance should be jointly issued; (iii) the 1800/200 Herfindahl-Hirschman Index screen should be updated; and (iv) there should be a de minimis exception. The announcement also noted that “[b]uilding on the responses, the updated call for comment focuses on whether bank merger review is currently sufficient to prevent harmful mergers and whether it accounts for the full range of competitive factors appropriate under the laws.” The announcement further noted that the division will continue working with the Federal Reserve, OCC, and the FDIC, and will consider comments from the public.
Agencies release statement on the community bank leverage ratio framework
On December 21, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC released an interagency statement regarding the optional community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) framework. According to the announcement, temporary relief measures affecting the framework are set to expire on December 31, 2021, and the CBLR requirement will revert to greater than 9 percent, as established under the 2019 final rule, starting January 1, 2022. The announcement further noted that “[t]he community bank leverage ratio framework includes a two-quarter grace period that allows a qualifying community bank to continue reporting under the framework and be considered ‘well capitalized’ as long as its leverage ratio falls no more than 1 percentage point below the applicable community bank leverage ratio requirement.” Other highlights of the announcement include, among other things: (i) if a banking organization elects the CBLR framework when submitting its March 31, 2022 Call Report, it will be subject to the greater than 9 percent CBLR requirement and must utilize total consolidated assets as of the report date to determine eligibility; and (ii) starting January 1, 2022, “a banking organization in the CBLR framework must report a leverage ratio greater than 8 percent to use the two-quarter grace period.”