InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California small-dollar lender reaches settlement resolving interest rate allegations
On January 22, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a $900,000 settlement with a California-based lender for allegedly steering borrowers into high-interest loans to avoid statutory interest rate caps. According to the DBO, the lender’s practice of overcharging interest and administrative fees violated the California Financing Law, which caps interest on small-dollar loans up to $2,499 at rates between 20 percent and 30 percent, but does not provide a cap for loans of $2,500 and higher. The DBO also asserts that the lender’s brochures, which advertised loans of “‘up to $5,000’ without stating that the minimum loan amount offered by [the lender] was $2,501,” were false, misleading, or deceptive. Moreover, the lender allegedly failed to allow certain borrowers the opportunity to make advance payments “in any amount on any loan contract at any time.”
Additionally, the DBO alleges that the lender overcharged roughly $700,000 in payday loan transactions by (i) collecting charges twice; (ii) allowing borrowers to take out a new loan before paying off the old one; and (iii) depositing some borrowers’ checks prior to the specified date in the loan agreement without their written authorization.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender will, among other things, provide $800,000 in refunds to qualifying borrowers, pay $105,000 in penalties and other costs, and provide accurate verbal disclosures to borrowers concerning loan amounts and interest rate caps.
Connecticut allows federal employees impacted by shutdown to apply for zero-interest loans
On January 22, the Connecticut Governor signed HB 5765 to allow essential and nonessential federal employees, who are otherwise ineligible to receive unemployment assistance, to apply for zero-interest bank loans of up to $5,000 while the government remains shut down. Federal employees may be eligible for more if the partial government shutdown extends for a longer period. Under the new program, the loans have a 90-day grace period in which banks may not require repayment or charge interest on principal. The grace period begins when the affected employee’s federal agency is funded and is followed by a 180-day repayment period. Among other things, HB 5765 permits municipalities to defer property tax payments from impacted federal employees based on outlined eligibility criteria. According to a press release issued by the Governor, the coordination—where loans will be backed by the state—marks the first public-private partnership in the nation between a state and private banks and credit unions. The act takes effect immediately.
NYDFS fines mortgage loan servicer for alleged violations of Abandoned Property Relief Act
On January 16, NYDFS announced a $100,000 settlement with a New York state-registered mortgage loan servicer for allegedly failing to register and maintain two properties as required by the state’s Abandoned Property Relief Act. Under the Act, NYDFS can hold banks and mortgage servicers accountable should they fail to fulfill certain maintenance obligations at vacant and abandoned residential properties (“zombie” properties) securing mortgage loans in their portfolios. NYDFS rejected claims that the servicer was unable to maintain the “zombie” properties due to not receiving authorization from the mortgagee and that the properties were not subject to the requirements of the Act because backdated lien releases extinguished its maintenance obligation. Under the terms of the consent order, the servicer has also agreed to provide confirmation within 30 days to NYDFS that all properties subject to New York’s Vacant and Abandoned Property Law have been sufficiently registered with NYDFS’ registry of vacant and abandoned properties, are maintained properly, and that all quarterly filings for each property have been submitted.
NYDFS issues whistleblowing program guidance and best practices
On January 7, NYDFS issued guidance providing principles and best practices that all NYDFS-regulated institutions “regardless of industry, size, or number of employees” should consider when designing and implementing a robust whistleblowing program, which the department considers to be an essential component of an institution’s comprehensive compliance program. NYDSF-regulated institutions include New York state-charted branches of foreign banking organizations.
The guidance notes that the design of a whistleblowing program should be based on factors such as the institution’s size, geographical reach and business. However, it outlines ten elements that institutions should, at a minimum, consider how to account for when designing their programs:
- Independent, well-publicized, easy-to-access, and consistent reporting channels;
- Strong protections for whistleblower anonymity;
- Established procedures for identifying and managing the effects of possible conflicts of interest;
- Adequately trained staff members responsible for receiving a whistleblowing complaints, determining a course of action, and competently managing any investigation, referral, or escalation;
- Established procedures for appropriately investigating allegations of wrongdoing;
- Established procedures for ensuring appropriate follow-up to valid complaints;
- Protections against any form of retaliation;
- Confidential treatment, including safeguards to protect the confidentiality of the whistleblower and the whistleblowing matters themselves;
- Appropriate oversight by senior managers, internal and external auditors, and the Board of Directors; and
- A top-down culture of support for the whistleblowing function.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, last December NYDFS issued a consent order against an international bank and its New York branch to resolve allegations stemming from an investigation into the governance, controls, and corporate culture relating to the bank’s whistleblower program.
Massachusetts amends legislation protecting consumers from security breaches
On January 10, the Massachusetts Governor signed HB 4806, following the House and Senate’s adoption of amendments to the bill. The bill, which is effective April 10, amends current law related to security breaches and the protection of consumer financial and credit information. Among other provisions, the amendments to the current law:
- Prohibit users from requesting or obtaining the consumer credit report of a consumer unless the user obtains the consumer’s prior written, verbal, or electronic consent, and discloses the user's reason for accessing the consumer report to the consumer prior to obtaining consent.
- Require every consumer reporting agency to disclose to consumers, when properly identified, (i) the nature, contents, and substance of all information on file (except medical information) at the time of the request; (ii) the sources of all credit information; and (iii) “the recipients of any consumer report on the consumer which it has furnished for employment purposes within the 2-year period preceding the request, and for any other purpose within the 6-month period preceding the request.”
- State that a consumer reporting agency may not charge a fee to any consumer for placing, lifting, or removing a security freeze from a consumer report.
- Specify that a consumer reporting agency may not “knowingly offer a paid product to prevent unauthorized access or restrict access to a consumer's credit.”
- Require persons who experience a security breach to report specific information to the state Attorney General, as well as certify that their credit monitoring services are in compliance.
- State that consumers shall receive notice provisions in the event of a breach of security, including the right to obtain police reports, steps for requesting a security freeze, and various mitigation services.
- Require persons who experience a breach that compromises social security numbers to provide at least 18 months of free credit monitoring for affected individuals.
New York enacts law covering collection of family member debts
On December 28, the New York governor signed S3491A, which amends the state’s general business law to add a section prohibiting principal creditors and/or debt collection agencies from making any representations that a person is required to pay the debt of a family member in a way that contravenes the FDCPA or that misrepresent the person’s obligation to pay such debts. The amendment defines “debt collection agency” as “a person, firm or corporation engaged in business, the principal purpose of which is to regularly collect or attempt to collect debts: (a) owed or due or asserted to be owed or due to another; or (b) obtained by, or assigned to, such person, firm or corporation, that are in default when obtained or acquired by such person, firm or corporation.” The law is effective 90 days after enactment.
Colorado UCCC administrator issues guidance on alternative loan changes
On January 4, the administrator of the Colorado Uniform Consumer Credit Code issued a memo providing introductory guidance on alternative charge loans in response to Proposition 111, which amends the state’s Deferred Deposit Loan Act (DDLA) and takes effect February 1. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) Among other things, Proposition 111 reduces the maximum annual percentage rate that may be charged on deferred deposits or payday loans to 36 percent, eliminates an alternative APR formula based on loan amount, prohibits lenders from charging origination and monthly maintenance fees, and amends the definition of an unfair or deceptive practice.
The memo—issued in response to creditors currently offering loans under the DDLA who have expressed an interest in offering loans imposing the alternative charges allowed by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-2-214—explains that such alternative charges may only be charged if (i) the financed amount is $1000 or less; (ii) the minimum loan term is at least 90 days but no more than 12 months; (iii) installment payments are scheduled in substantially equal periodic intervals; (iv) Truth-In-Lending disclosures show the loan is unsecured; (v) a creditor has not taken any collateral as security for the loan, including a post-dated check or certain ACH authorization; (vi) an ACH agreement reached with a consumer is voluntary and not required by the loan; and (vii) the loan has not been refinanced more than three times in one year.
Retailer settles multistate data breach investigation for $1.5 million
On January 8, a national retailer reached a $1.5 million multistate settlement with 43 states and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation following a 2013 data breach of customer payment card information. According to the Illinois Attorney General’s announcement, the retailer will implement provisions to prevent future breaches, such as (i) complying with Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard requirements; (ii) maintaining a system to collect and monitor network activity; (iii) updating software that maintains and safeguards personal information; and (iv) devaluing payment card information through the use of encryption and tokenization technology to obfuscate payment card data. The retailer must also retain a third-party professional responsible for conducting an information security assessment and report, as well as outlining corrective measures.
Fifteen states urge the 4th Circuit against allowing non-tribal payday lenders to receive tribal immunity
On December 27, 2018, fifteen state Attorneys General filed an amici brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit opposing the use of structures in which non-tribal payday lenders affiliate with tribal lenders to benefit from their tribal immunity and avoid state usury caps. The brief was filed in an appeal from a district court ruling, which held that a Michigan-based payday lender could not claim tribal immunity in a consumer class action because it could not prove it was an actual tribal entity. The Attorneys General argue that granting tribal immunity to non-tribal lenders would “bar enforcement of state consumer protection laws as well as, potentially, investigations into their activities.” The brief rejects the payday lender’s arguments that the plaintiff should bear the burden of negating “arm-of-the-tribe immunity” and instead urges the court to place the burden on the entity seeking the immunity. Allowing a non-tribal entity to benefit from sovereign immunity without “rigorous demonstration”, the Attorneys General argue, “may well undermine the purpose for tribal immunity” and “would have serious consequences for States’ ability to protect consumers.”
The brief was filed by the District of Columbia and the States of Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Virginia.
Ohio mortgage servicers now required to register
On December 19, 2018, the Ohio Governor signed Substitute House Bill 489 (HB 489), which amends the Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (RMLA) to, among other things, require a person acting as mortgage servicer to obtain a Residential Mortgage Lending Act Certificate of Registration in the state, unless exempt from the RMLA. The amendments define a “mortgage servicer” as an entity that holds mortgage servicing rights, records mortgage payments on its books, or carries out other responsibilities under the mortgage agreement.
HB 489 also revises the laws governing financial institution regulations and consumer protections. Specifically, it includes amendments which (i) provide some regulatory relief to state banks and credit unions concerning the frequency of examinations that meet certain conditions; (ii) enable requests for data analytics to be conducted on publicly available information regarding regulated state banks, credit unions, and consumer finance companies; and (iii) require that a specified notice be given to a debtor for certain collections related to defaulted debt secured by junior liens on residential properties.
The amendments take effect 91 days after the bill is filed with the Ohio Secretary of State.