InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies announce hurricanes Fiona and Ian disaster relief guidance
On September 29, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, NCUA, OCC, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors issued a joint interagency statement covering supervisory practices for financial institutions affected by Hurricanes Fiona and Ian. Among other things, the agencies informed institutions facing operational challenges that the regulators will expedite requests for temporary facilities, noting that in most cases, “a telephone notice to the primary federal and/or state regulator will suffice initially to start the approval process, with necessary written notification being submitted shortly thereafter.” The agencies also called on financial institutions to “work constructively” with affected borrowers, noting that “prudent efforts” to adjust or alter loan terms in affected areas “should not be subject to examiner criticism.” Institutions facing difficulties in complying with any publishing and reporting requirements should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator. Additionally, the agencies noted that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, or services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas. Institutions are also encouraged to monitor municipal securities and loans impacted by Hurricanes Fiona and Ian.
HUD also announced disaster assistance for areas in Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Fiona. The disaster assistance follows President Biden’s major disaster declaration on September 21. According to the announcement, effective immediately, HUD is issuing 29 regulatory and administrative waivers intended to provide flexibility and relief to impacted communities. The waivers cover the following HUD programs: The Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, Continuum of Care Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant Program. HUD is also providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties effective September 21, as well as for mortgages to Native American borrowers guaranteed under Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee program and home equity conversion mortgages. HUD is also making various FHA insurance options available to victims whose homes require repairs or were destroyed or severely damaged. HUD’s Section 203(h) program allows borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders to obtain 100 percent financing, including closing costs, for homes in which “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house and the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program also allows homeowners with damaged property to finance the repair of their existing single-family homes. HUD will also share information on housing providers and HUD programs with FEMA and the state, and will provide flexibility to public housing agencies. Similar disaster assistance measures were also announced (see here and here) for areas of Alaska affected by severe storms, flooding, and landslides from September 15-20, and areas in Florida impacted by Hurricane Ian.
The FDIC also issued FIL-42-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Fiona from September 17 and later. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms 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.
Additionally, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Ian in Florida “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directed institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the 2012 Bulletin, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
NYDFS also issued an industry letter advising state-regulated financial institutions to take reasonable and prudent measures to assist consumers and businesses affected by Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico. The guidance recommends that financial institutions (i) waive ATM and overdraft fees; (ii) increase ATM withdrawal limits; (iii) ease restrictions on cashing out-of-state and non-customer checks; (iv) ease credit terms for new loans; (v) increase credit card limits for creditworthy customers; (vi) waive late fees on credit card and other loan balances; (vii) work with customers to defer payments or extend payment due dates on loans to help prevent delinquencies and negative credit reporting caused by disaster-related disruptions; and (viii) work with money transmitters and money services businesses to facilitate and expedite the transmission of funds. The actions are intended to help ease financial burdens for New Yorkers seeking to support individuals located in Puerto Rico, as well as consumers in Puerto Rico who hold New York bank accounts.
DC passes debt collection bill
On September 23, the District of Columbia mayor signed B24-0357, which updates the District’s collection laws by expanding protections to cover most consumer debt, in addition to strengthening existing protections for DC consumers. Among other things, the bill: (i) prohibits deceptive behavior from debt collectors, such as making threats; (ii) clarifies that no one can be jailed for failing to pay a debt; (iii) prohibits debt collectors from communicating any information regarding a person’s debt to employers or family members; and (vi) clarifies that debt buyers are required to follow all laws applicable to debt collectors. The law is currently effective.
Oregon issues remote work guidance to licensed loan originators
On September 21, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services filed permanent administrative order FSR 3-2022 with the Secretary of State to allow licensed loan originators and employees to work from home. Under the order, Oregon licensed mortgage loan originators “may originate loans from a location other than from a licensed branch office if the location is the licensed mortgage loan originator’s home; the licensed mortgage loan originator is an employee of a mortgage banker or mortgage broker; and the mortgage banker or the mortgage broker complies with OAR 441-860- 0040, as applicable.” Mortgage bankers or brokers must have in place appropriate policies and procedures to supervise licensees working from home, including data security measures to protect consumers’ personal data. Additionally, licensees working from home “are prohibited from engaging in person with consumers for loan origination purposes at the home of the loan originator or employee, unless the home is licensed as a branch.” Licensees may, however, “engage with consumers for loan origination purposes at the home of the loan originator or employee by means of conference telephone or similar communications equipment that allows all persons participating in the visitation to hear each other, provided that participation is controlled and limited to those entitled to attend, and the identity of participants is determinable and reasonably verifiable.” Licensees who work from home are also prohibited from keeping any physical business records at any location other than a licensed location, and must also ensure that all origination records are available at a licensed location.
California updates mortgage licensing requirements
On September 23, the California governor signed SB 1495. The bill, among other things (i) updates requirements that the assurances required as a condition of license renewal would be that the licensee had, during the preceding 2-year period, informed themselves of those developments; (ii) expands the scope of the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program; (iii) refers to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry in the provisions of the Real Estate Law as the “Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry”’; and (iv) for real estate broker license applicants, moves the component on state and federal fair housing laws to the real estate practice course instead of the legal aspects of real estate course, and delays the revision to the real estate practice course until 2024. The bill also updates definitions of “SAFE Act,” and “mortgage loan originator.” The bill is effective January 1, 2023.
3rd Circuit: Debt buyer not required to be licensed under Pennsylvania law
On September 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling in an FDCPA suit, finding that a defendant debt buyer was not required to be licensed under Pennsylvania law when it attempted to collect interest that had accrued at a rate of more than 6 percent under the original credit card agreement. According to the opinion, the plaintiff opened a credit card with a bank, which had an interest rate of 22.9 percent. The plaintiff defaulted on a debt he accrued on the card, and the debt was subsequently charged-off and sold by the bank to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant violated the FDCPA since the interest rate was limited by the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA), which states that an unlicensed firm “in the business of negotiating or making loans or advances of money on credit [less than $25,000]” may not collect interest at an annual interest rate over 6 percent. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the defendant was entitled to collect interest above 6 percent because it held a license under a different state law.
On the appeal, the 3rd Circuit found that the CDCA applies to companies that arrange for or negotiate loans with certain parameters, and that there is nothing in the plaintiff’s amended complaint to suggest that the defendant is in the business of negotiating loans. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s allegations “indicate that [the defendant] purchases debt, such as [plaintiff’s] credit card account that [the bank had] charged off. But even with that allegation as a starting point, it is not reasonable to infer that an entity that purchases charged-off debt would also be in the business of negotiating or bargaining for the initial terms of loans or advances.” The appellate court further noted that “the amended complaint cuts against such an inference: it alleges that [the bank], not [the defendant], set the annual interest rate for [plaintiff’s] use of the credit card for loans and advances at 22.90%. Thus, with the understanding that negotiate means ‘to bargain’ and not ‘to transfer,’ [the plaintiff’s] allegations do not support an inference that [defendant] is in the business of negotiating loans or advances.”
District Court rules beneficiary bank without actual knowledge of wire transfer misdescription is not liable
On September 22, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment to a defendant beneficiary bank in an action concerning a fraudulent wire transfer that was allegedly sent to a hacker instead of the intended recipient. According to the opinion, the originating bank executed a wire transfer on behalf of the commercial plaintiff to a supplier. However, a hacker had inserted false account information into the supplier’s email to the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff’s instruction to the originating bank to indicate the wrong account at the beneficiary bank. As a result, the funds were deposited by the beneficiary bank into an account for which the account number did not match its account name. A large sum of the plaintiff’s money was thereupon withdrawn by a hacker from the account into which the funds had been deposited. The plaintiff sued asserting several claims, including, negligence and gross negligence, violations of the EFTA and the Louisiana’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), and aiding fraud. After all the claims except for the UCC claim were dismissed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not violate the UCC “because it did not have actual knowledge that the wire transfer at issue misdescribed the beneficiary prior to payment of the wire transfer as contemplated by that statute.”
The court ruled that based on the evidence, no reasonable juror could find that the defendant had actual knowledge of the misdescription at the time it made the transfer, explaining that the defendant did not have actual knowledge that a hacker had accessed the plaintiff’s wire transfer order, provided false instructions, and changed the target account number to its own. The court stated that under Louisiana law, a bank’s liability for completing a wire transfer that misidentifies a beneficiary or account number depends on whether it has “actual knowledge prior to payment that there was a misdescription of a beneficiary”—constructive knowledge is not actionable, the court said. The defendant also did not have actual knowledge of the misdescription prior to the payment, but rather acquired actual knowledge of the misdescription roughly two weeks later when the originating bank alerted the defendant of the alleged fraud. The court further contended that under Louisiana law a beneficiary bank that uses a fully automated payment system for wire transfers is allowed “to act on the basis of the number without regard to the name if the bank does not know that the name and number refer to different persons.”
Republican senators and states oppose gun-store MCC
On September 20, twenty-four state attorneys general sent a letter to the CEOs of three credit card companies opposing the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) recommendation to create a merchant category code (MCC) for gun stores to use when processing credit and debit card transactions. According to the AGs, the MCC “will not protect public safety,” and tracking gun purchase information “can only result in its misuse, either unintentional or deliberate.” The AGs also expressed their concern “that financial institutions that place their desired public policy outcomes ahead of the well-being of their investors do so in derogation of their fiduciary obligations.”
The same week, in a separate letter, twelve Republican U.S. Senators sent a letter to the CEOs also requesting the reversal of their decision to comply with the ISO standard to create a separate MCC for the sale of firearms in the U.S. According to the letter, the CEOs “are choosing the side of gun control advocates over the privacy and Second Amendment rights of millions of law abiding Americans,” and consider the decision to comply with the MCC “the first step towards backdoor gun control on law abiding Americans.” The Senators asked the CEOs to respond to a series of ISO-related questions.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, on September 2, the California and New York AGs sent a letter to the CEOs asking for the establishment of a unique MCC for gun store purchases, writing that a specially-designated MCC would help companies flag suspicious activity. The letter followed recent requests sent by several congressional Democrats to the same companies urging them to establish an MCC code for guns.
FTC, DFPI shut down operation offering mortgage relief
On September 19, the FTC and the California Department of Financial Protection (DFPI) announced a lawsuit against several companies and owners for allegedly operating an illegal mortgage relief operation. (See also DFPI’s announcement here.) The filing marks the agencies’ first joint action, which alleges the defendants’ conduct violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, the FTC Act, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (the MARS Rule or Regulation O), the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act. The agencies claimed that the defendants preyed on distressed consumers with false promises of mortgage assistance relief. According to the complaint, the defendants made misleading claims during telemarketing calls to consumers, including those with numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as through text messages and in online ads. In certain cases, defendants represented they were affiliated with government agencies or were part of a Covid-19 pandemic assistance program. Among other things, defendants falsely claimed they were able to lower consumers’ interest rates or payments, and instructed consumers not to pay their mortgages, leading to late fees and significantly lower credit score. Defendants also allegedly told consumers not to communicate directly with their lenders, which caused consumers to miss default notices and face foreclosure. Additionally, defendants charged consumers illegal up-front fees ranging from $500 to $2,900 a month, and told consumers they were negotiating loan modifications that in most cases never happened.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a restraining order temporarily shutting down the defendants’ operations. In freezing the defendants’ assets and ordering them to submit financial statements, the court noted that the agencies established a likelihood of success in showing that the defendants “have falsely, deceptively, and illegally marketed, advertised, and sold mortgage relief assistance services.”
California passes UDAAP legislation
On September 15, the California governor signed AB 1904, which amends Section 1770 of the Civil Code relating to financial institutions and addresses certain provisions under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Among other things, the bill prohibits a covered person or a service provider from engaging in unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regarding consumer financial products or services, such as, among other things: (i) misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification; (ii) using deceptive representations of geographic origin; (iii) representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered; (iv) advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and (v) making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions. The bill authorizes the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to bring a civil action for a violation of the law. The bill would also make unlawful the failure to include certain information, including a prescribed disclosure, in a solicitation by a covered person, or an entity acting on behalf of a covered person, to a consumer for a consumer financial product or service.
New NYDFS proposal to implement Commercial Finance Disclosure Law
On September 14, NYDFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under New York’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) related to disclosure requirements for certain providers of commercial financing transactions in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFDL was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February to expand coverage and delay the effective date. (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. Last December, NYDFS announced that providers’ compliance obligations under the CFDL will not take effect until the necessary implementing regulations are issued and effective (covered by InfoBytes here).
The newest proposed regulations (see Assessment of Public Comments for the Revised Proposed New Part 600 to 23 NYCRR) introduce several revisions and clarifications following the consideration of comments received on proposed regulations published last October (covered by InfoBytes here). Updates include:
- A new section stating that a “transaction is subject to the CFDL if one of the parties is principally directed or managed from New York, or the provider negotiated the commercial financing from a location in New York.”
- A new section requiring notice be sent to a recipient if a change is made to the servicing of a commercial financing agreement.
- An revised definition of “recipient” to now “include entities subject to common control if all such recipients receive the single offer of commercial financing simultaneously.”
- Clarifying language stating that the “requirements pertaining to the statement of a rate of finance charge or a financing amount, as that term appears in Section 810 of the CFDL, shall be in effect only upon the quotation of a specific commercial financing offer.”
- Provisions allowing providers to perform calculations based upon either a 30-day month/360-day year or a 365-day year, with the acknowledgment that different methods of computation may lead to slightly different results.
- An amendment stating that “a ‘provider is not required to provide the disclosures required by the CFDL when the finance charge of an existing financing is effectively increased due to the incurrence, by the recipient, of avoidable fees and charges.’”
- An acknowledgement of comments asking that 23 NYCRR Part 600 be identical to California’s disclosure requirements (covered by InfoBytes here) “or as consistent as possible.” In response, NYDFS said that while it generally agrees, and has consulted with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), the regulations cannot be identical because the CFDL differs from the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the Department cannot anticipate any future revisions DFPI may make to its proposed regulations.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due October 31.