InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC and CFTC Propose Rules Regarding Detecting Identity Theft
On February 28, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, together with the SEC, the Commissions) jointly issued proposed rules that would require entities subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction to address identity theft in two ways: (i) financial institutions and creditors would be required to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identify theft with either certain existing accounts or opening new accounts, and (ii) credit and debit card issuers subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction would be required to assess the validity of change-of-address notifications under certain circumstances. Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over certain parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act from the Federal Trade Commission to the Commissions for entities they regulate. The Commissions’ proposed rules are substantially similar to rules adopted in 2007 by the FTC and other federal financial regulatory agencies that previously were required to adopt such rules. The proposed rules set out the four elements that regulated entities would be required to include in their identify theft prevention programs: (i) identify relevant red flags, (ii) detect the occurrence of red flags, (iii) respond appropriately to the detected red flags, and (iv) periodically update the program to reflect changes in risks to customers or to the safety and soundness of the financial institution or creditor from identity theft. The Commissions issued jointly proposed guidelines in an appendix to the proposed rules to assist regulated entities in formulating and maintaining a Program that would satisfy the proposed rule requirements. The Commissions are accepting comments on the proposal through May 7, 2012.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Emptive Power of the Federal Arbitration Act
On February 21, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) pre-emptive power over conflicting state laws and vacated a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision in which the West Virginia court found that arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts were unenforceable if adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that resulted in personal injury or wrongful death. Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. __ (2012) (per curiam). The three plaintiffs—family members of patients who had died in nursing homes—sued the homes in state court alleging negligence. The trial court dismissed two of the suits based on agreements to arbitrate that were found in the contracts. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia consolidated all three cases, and held that the arbitration clauses in the contracts were unenforceable “as a matter of public policy.” The U.S. Supreme Court, citing recent decisions in which the FAA pre-emptive power was reinforced, reversed the West Virginia court, stating, “[t]he West Virginia court’s interpretation of the FAA was both incorrect and inconsistent with clear instruction in the precedents of this Court.” The Court explained that whenever a state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the conflicting rule is displaced by the FAA. Because West Virginia’s prohibition against predispute agreements to arbitrate negligence claims in nursing home suits was a categorical rule prohibiting arbitration, the rule was contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA and could not be used to avoid arbitration.
Federal and State Officials Announce Mortgage Servicing Settlement
On February 9, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, and several other state and federal officials jointly announced an approximately $25 billion agreement in principle between the federal government, 49 state attorneys general and the five largest mortgage servicers to settle various mortgage servicing and foreclosure related issues. Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt later announced an "independent mortgage settlement" between Oklahoma and the five servicers. The national-level agreement - with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial (the servicers) - was the culmination of several state and federal investigations and extended negotiations between the parties. The settlement's terms require a commitment of approximately $20 billion in financial relief for homeowners. In addition, the servicers will pay $5 billion in cash to the state and federal governments, including $1.5 billion to establish a Borrower Payment Fund that will provide payments to qualifying borrowers whose homes were sold or foreclosed on between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. The $25 billion agreement includes more than $766.5 million in monetary sanctions assessed by the Federal Reserve Board. An additional $394 million of penalties from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency are held in abeyance provided four of the servicers make payments and take other actions under the settlement with a value equal to at least the penalty amounts assessed for each servicer by the OCC. In addition to the financial compensation offered in the settlement, the servicers will conduct future business under new servicing standards, which include (i) restrictions on the default management process known as "dual tracking", (ii) a requirement for the institutions to provide a single point of contact for borrowers, (iii) specific protections for military service members beyond those provided by the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, (iv) obligations concerning disclosures and practices related to force-placed insurance, and (v) limitations on servicing fees. The standards also require the servicers to establish (i) updated foreclosure and bankruptcy documentation processes, (ii) enhanced servicer oversight of third party vendors, and (iii) adherence to a new set of loan modification timelines. The terms of the agreement will be filed as a consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their fulfillment, over the three-year term of the settlement, will be overseen by an independent monitor, North Carolina Commissioner of Banks Joseph A. Smith. In order to ensure timely dissemination of the settlement's terms to those who may be eligible for financial relief, the parties have established a "National Mortgage Settlement" web site, which provides "Servicing Standards Highlights" and outlines key aspects of the servicing settlement. The materials provided by the federal and state officials in announcing the settlement agreement note that the agreement left numerous issues unresolved and does not preclude (i) criminal claims, (ii) securities claims and claims related to the use of an electronic mortgage registry, (iii) loan origination claims in connection with FHA-insured loans, except those covered specifically by this settlement, and (iv) borrower claims. For additional information concerning some of the state-level recoveries and issues the state attorneys general have reserved for potential future action please see California's announcement here and New York's announcement here. Buckley LLP advises clients regarding mortgage servicing issues and conducted a webinar on servicing developments, including a review of the OCC's April, 2011 Consent Orders and related servicing guidance. If you have any questions about the settlement or servicing issues in general please contact a member of our Mortgage Servicing Team.
HUD Issues Final Rule Regarding Sexual Orientation and Gender Equal Access
On January 30, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a final rule designed to ensure equal access to housing, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. The rule, which will take effect thirty days after being published in the Federal Register (which publication is likely to occur the week of February 6), will (i) prohibit owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing or housing for which financing is insured by HUD from seeking information from applicants about sexual orientation and gender identity, and require such owners and operators to make housing available without regard to those factors, (ii) prohibit lenders from determining FHA-insured financing eligibility based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and (iii) clarify that otherwise eligible families will have an opportunity to participate in HUD programs, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The final rule is substantially similar to the proposed rule published in January 2011.
OCC Publishes Proposed Stress Test Rule
On January 24, the OCC published a proposed rule to implement annual capital-adequacy stress tests for national banks and federal savings associations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion. The rule is substantially similar to a recent FDIC stress test proposal for FDIC-insured state nonmember banks and state-chartered savings associations. (See InfoBytes, January 20, 2012). The Dodd-Frank Act requires these stress tests to aid regulators in assessing risk presented by an institution's capitalization and help ensure the institution’s financial stability. Under the proposal, the OCC would annually provide covered institutions with at least three sets of conditions - baseline, adverse, and severely adverse - that must be used in conducting an annual stress test. The tests would include calculations showing, for each quarter-end within a defined planning horizon, (i) estimates of revenues, (ii) potential losses, (iii) loan loss provisions, and (iv) potential impact on regulatory capital levels and ratios. Covered institutions also would be required to establish an oversight and documentation system to ensure that stress testing procedures are effective. Stress test results would have to be submitted to the OCC and the Federal Reserve Board by January 5 of each year, and a summary would have to be released to the public within ninety days thereafter. The OCC would plan to provide covered institutions with the scenarios at least two months before the January 5 deadline. The OCC is accepting public comment on the rule through March 26, 2012.
HUD Publishes Final Rule on FHA Single Family Lender Insurer Process
On January 24, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a final rule to enhance the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Lender Insurance process. Under the final rule, (i) Lender Insurance mortgagees (mortgagees who have authority to insure mortgages on HUD’s behalf) must meet stricter performance standards to gain and maintain their approval status as an entity that can insure mortgages on HUD’s behalf; (ii) HUD may require indemnification for “serious and material” violations of FHA origination requirements and for fraud and misrepresentation; (iii) Lender Insurance mortgagees must demonstrate a two-year seriously delinquent and claim rate at or below 150 percent of the aggregate rate for the states in which they operate; (iv) FHA may monitor lender performance on an ongoing basis, and (v) HUD-approved lenders created through corporate restructuring have a new process for seeking Lender Insurance authority. The final rule follows an October 2010 proposed rule (see InfoBytes, October 15, 2010), and makes certain changes to the proposal including to (i) clarify that HUD reviews of Lender Insurance mortgagee performance will be “ongoing”, as opposed to “continual”; (ii) require indemnification of HUD when the mortgagee “knew or should have known” that fraud or misrepresentation occurred; (iii) clarify that automatic termination of Lender Insurance authority can result only from institutional and not branch activity; and (iv) provide a reinstatement process closely modeled on the existing reinstatement process regarding origination approval agreements or Direct Endorsement authority.
CFPB Holds Field Hearing on Payday Lending, Releases Payday Lending Exam Guide
On January 19, the CFPB held a field hearing in Birmingham, Alabama to discuss payday lending products. The hearing, which was the first such hearing held by the CFPB, included three panels featuring CFPB staff, consumer groups, and industry representatives. In conjunction with the event, the CFPB also released its “Short-Term, Small-Dollar Lending Procedures,” which is a field guide for use in examining bank and nonbank payday lenders. These procedures are structured to mirror payday lending activities ranging from initial advertising to collection practices. The CFPB will prioritize its supervision of payday lenders depending on the perceived risk to consumers, taking into account factors such as a lender’s volume of business and the extent of existing state oversight. In remarks at the event, Director Richard Cordray stated that there are some payday lenders and practices that deserve more urgent attention because they present immediate risk to consumers and are “clearly illegal.” The Director identified two examples of such practices, including (i) unauthorized debits on a consumer’s checking account that can occur when the consumer unknowingly “is dealing with several businesses hidden behind a payday loan,” any one of which could be a “fraudster” merely seeking the customer’s private financial information, and (ii) “aggressive debt collection tactics” including “posing as federal authorities, threatening borrowers with criminal prosecution, trying to garnish wages improperly, and harassing the borrower.”
Ninth Circuit Holds That California Law Cannot be Applied to a Nationwide Class
On January 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the certification of a forty-four state class of consumers, finding that California’s consumer protection laws could not be applied to a nationwide class, and that even a California-only class failed the rigorous analysis required for certification recently affirmed in the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 09-55376, 2012 WL 89176 (9th Cir. January 12, 2012).
In Mazza, plaintiffs sued a California vehicle manufacturer for violations of California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws as well as unjust enrichment, alleging that the manufacturer misrepresented and concealed material information in its marketing of vehicles equipped with a collision safety system. The court found that under California’s choice of law rules, each state had an interest in the application of its own laws to the claims of those putative class members who purchased or leased vehicles in those states. Further, material differences among the forty-four states’ laws required that each state’s law must be applied to the transactions that occurred in-state. The court noted that each state has an interest in determining the level of liability faced by companies operating in-state, such that “[m]aximizing consumer and business welfare, and achieving the correct balance for society, does not inexorably favor greater consumer protection; instead, setting a baseline of corporate liability for consumer harm requires balancing the competing interests” in each state. Accordingly, the class could not be maintained under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) because the material variations in the laws of the multiple states “overwhelm common issues and preclude predominance for a single nationwide class.” The court also held that even a California-only class failed the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because class members could not be presumed to have relied on the manufacturer’s “very limited” advertisements of the collision safety system. According to the court, unlike the sort of “extensive and long-term” fraudulent advertising campaign that could justify a presumption of reliance by members of the class, the manufacturer’s campaign was neither temporally expansive nor affirmatively dishonest. Thus, the individual factual issues regarding whether each class member had actually seen the advertising prior to purchasing or leasing the vehicle precluded class certification.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies TILA Delivery Requirements
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that lender compliance with the Truth In Lending Act’s (TILA) delivery obligation requires that the borrower be permitted to keep written copies of the right-to-rescind notice. Balderas v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., No. 10-55064, 2011 WL 6824977 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2011). In this case, the borrowers allege that the lender improperly pressured them into a loan and then refused to grant their request to rescind the loan, which allegedly occurred within the three-day rescission period. The borrowers claim that the lender provided defective copies of the Notice of Right to Cancel, which did not include the closing date or the expiration date for the rescission period. TILA requires that when the rescission notice is provided in writing, as it was in this case, the lender must deliver to the borrower two copies including the rescission expiration date. The district court ruled that a copy of the Notice of Right to Cancel attached to the complaint proved that the rescission notice was delivered to the borrowers, and on that basis dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Notice of Right to Cancel in the record proves only that borrowers signed the document possessed by the lender. To “deliver” the notice in compliance with TILA requires a “permanent physical transfer from one party to another”; momentary delivery does not suffice. While the document in the record provides the lender with a rebuttable presumption of delivery, it does not prove that two copies were delivered to the borrowers as required. The court held that the borrowers should be permitted to attempt to rebut the presumption and prove their allegations of improper delivery to a trier of fact.
OCC Supports Independent Foreclosure Review Program with Public Service Adds
On January 4, the OCC announced that it placed print and radio public service advertisements to inform mortgage borrowers of the Independent Foreclosure Review program launched by the OCC in November 2011. The print feature explains that borrowers foreclosed upon between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 are eligible to have their foreclosures independently reviewed to determine if the borrowers suffered financial injury as a result of any errors by certain large, federally regulated mortgage servicers. The ads will run in Spanish and English in 7,000 small newspapers and on 6,500 small radio stations.