InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed enters into written agreement with Ohio bank
On December 19, the Federal Reserve Board announced a written agreement with an Ohio state-chartered bank and its holding company to address certain deficiencies identified during a recent examination of the bank. Under the agreement, the bank and its holding company agreed to: (i) use the bank’s resources as a “source of strength”; (ii) submit a written plan to enhance board oversight and management; (iii) conduct a third-party assessment of the bank’s staff; (iv) submit an enhanced written investment policy that includes “periodic analysis of the investment portfolio, including, but not limited to the assessment of market risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity risk of the underlying investments”; (v) improve the bank’s investment portfolio management and interest rate risk management practices; (vi) implement an enhanced liquidity risk management program; and (vii) submit a written plan regarding sufficient capital (among other corrective actions).
OCC issues cease-and-desist order to NY bank
On December 14, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals that are or were affiliated with such entities. Included is a cease-and-desist order against an upstate New York bank for allegedly engaging in unsafe or unsound practices, including on the bank’s corporate governance, capital planning, interest rate risk management, liquidity risk management, and reports of condition.
Under the order, the bank must appoint a compliance committee to take corrective action, submit a three-year strategic plan to establish objectives for the bank’s risk profile, earnings performance, growth, and balance sheet mix, among other areas, and maintain a capital ratio of at least 15 percent, a common equity tier 1 capital of at least equal to 14 percent, and a leverage ratio of at least ten percent. The order also requires the bank to create an interest rate risk program and a third-party risk management program.
CFPB fines and shuts down debt collector for alleged FDCPA, FCRA violations
On December 15, the CFPB announced a consent order against a Pennsylvania-based nonbank medical debt collection company for alleged violations of the FCRA and FDCPA. According to the order, the company failed to (i) establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; (ii) conduct reasonable investigations into direct and indirect consumer disputes about furnished information; (iii) report direct dispute investigation results to consumers; and (iv) indicate disputed items when furnishing information to reporting agencies. The company also allegedly lacked a reasonable basis for debt-related representations made to consumers and engaged in collection activities after receiving a written dispute within 30 days of the consumer’s receipt of a debt validation notice but before obtaining and mailing a verification of the debt.
The consent order permanently bans the company from involvement or aid in debt collection, purchasing or selling of any debts, or any consumer reporting activities. The company must also request credit reporting agencies to delete all collection accounts previously reported by the company. Additionally, the company is obligated to pay a $95,000 civil money penalty and must display on its website information that informs consumers about the option to file a complaint with the CFPB.
District Court grants motion to dismiss in FDCPA case regarding an undated Model Validation Notice
On December 5, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a debt collection agency (the defendant) a motion to dismiss an individual’s (plaintiff’s) complaint. The case considers whether an undated Model Validation Notice (MVN) is a material detail that provides standing to sue under the FDCPA. An MVN is a form provided by the CFPB in Appendix B of the Debt Collection Rule to assist debt collection agencies in complying with FDCPA notice and disclosure requirements. However, the CFPB provides an undated MVN, so many debt collectors who use this template fail to provide a date when sending a debt collection letter to individuals, leading to a recipient’s confusion when the debt collector writes “today” or “now.”
In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the undated collection letter suggests the defendant “withheld a material term from [p]laintiff which made it confusing for him to understand the nature of the subject debt.” The plaintiff did not pay the debt, and instead, he alleged that he suffered damages from the defendant’s “suspicious, misleading, deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable actions.”
Before addressing the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, the court applied Article III standing to determine if the plaintiff had a basis to sue. The court considered whether the plaintiff had suffered a “concrete, particularized injury” in receiving an undated letter from the defendant and concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer harm as a result of this act under Article III because “[t]ime and money spent due to concern and confusion are not concrete harms.” The court held the plaintiff had no standing to bring this action and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The court, however, gave the plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
NY enacts the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act
On December 13, the New York governor signed into law S4907A, or the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act (the “Act”), a medical debt credit reporting bill that will bar credit reporting agencies from directly or indirectly incorporating medical debt into consumer credit reports. The Act specifically prohibits hospitals, health care professionals, and ambulances from reporting medical debt to credit agencies. The Act defines medical debt as any amount owed or claimed by a consumer “related to the receipt of health care services, products, or devices provided to a person” by a hospital, health care professional, or ambulance service. Notably, obligations charged to a credit card are excluded from medical debts unless the card is specifically designated for health care expenses under an open-ended or closed-end plan.
NY passes law to preserve credit card points and rewards for consumers
On December 10, New York General Business Law § 520-e went into effect according to the Governor’s press release. The new law prevents credit card holders from losing unused earned credit card points and requires credit card issuers to send consumers a notice of any outstanding credit card points or rewards they have accrued in their accounts, even after the account is closed. Specifically, credit card issuers will have 45 days to provide notice of any outstanding credit card rewards or points following the closing of a consumer’s account. From the date of the issuer’s notice, consumers will have a 90-day grace period to redeem their points or rewards.
District Court dismisses FDCPA suit; clarifies debt collector communication on identity theft
On December 5, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey dismissed an FDCPA suit brought against a debt collector. According to the opinion, plaintiff originally filed suit because they received a letter from defendant regarding an outstanding cell phone bill. The letter provided instructions on what to do if the recipient suspected identity theft. Additionally, the letter contained a summary of plaintiff’s account and a QR code that linked to defendant’s website for online payment. Plaintiff contended that the dual approach of offering assistance while simultaneously pursuing collection of a debt was false and misleading. A District Court judge, however, disagreed and dismissed the case, at which point the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that the debt collector breached the FDCPA by using false, deceptive or misleading representations regarding the rights of the plaintiff and the obligations of the debt collector with respect to communications concerning identity theft. Specifically, plaintiff argued defendant was in violation of § 1681m(g) of the FDCPA, which obligates a debt collector to take certain steps upon being notified of identity theft, but the court disagreed, finding that the collector’s specific steps taken were in accordance with the Act.
The court emphasized that plaintiff did not introduce any new factual claims in the amended complaint, and merely clarified how the facts already outlined in the initial complaint breached the FDCPA. The judge ruled that the letter not only allows plaintiff to inform defendant about potential identity theft, but also may serve to bring potential identity theft to plaintiff’s attention. The ruling stated that there is no obligation to extensively explain recommended procedures in the case of an identity theft occurrence, and only an “idiosyncratic reading” of the letter would lead to the conclusion that the letter misrepresents defendant’s obligations.
Basel Committee publishes report on recalibration of shocks for interest rate risk
On December 12, the Basel Committee released a report on the “Recalibration of shocks for interest rate risk in the banking book,” as an adjustment to the Committee’s 2016 commitment to recalibrate the interest rate shock parameters.
The Committee began its calibration of interest rate shocks before the March 2023 banking issues transpired and is now following up on fundamental shortcomings in traditional risk management of banks, including interest rate risks. The report is brief and focuses on specified topics: for the first topic, the current calibration and methodology outlining current interest rate shocks (measured in basis points), the calculation of average interest rates from 2000 to 2015, the application of three tiers for shock parameters, and problems with the methodology; for the second topic, a proposal of a new methodology and calibration using a formula with outlined steps for countries to adopt, a comparison between the existing and new methodology, and a recalibration table; and, the third and final topic emphasizes additional issues and next steps, including caps, non-parallel shocks, and impact assessment.
The Committee noted in its press release that these changes “are needed to address problems with how the current methodology captures interest rate changes during periods when interest rates are close to zero.” Comments can be submitted to the Committee until March 28, 2024.
Crypto platform to pay $22 million to resolve NY AG suit
On December 13, the New York State Supreme Court entered a stipulation and consent order resolving a suit brought in March against a crypto platform for operating as an unregistered broker-dealer, among other things. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the suit was brought by New York State Attorney General Letitia James who noted this was one of the first times a regulator claimed in court that one of the largest cryptocurrencies available in the market qualified as a security.
As a result of the consent order, the platform is obligated to refund over $16.7 million worth of crypto in its control “by allowing users to withdraw those balances and transferring any remaining balances after ninety days to a third-party fund administrator,” to more than 150,000 investors in New York. In addition, the platform must pay an additional $5.3 million to the state. As part of the agreement, the platform is barred from trading securities and commodities in New York or from making its platform available to New York residents.
NY state court granted decision to continue its new check cashing fee methodology
On December 7, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion to dismiss a challenge made to NYDFS’s check cashing regulation and ruled in favor of NYDFS. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the January regulation’s methodology capped the maximum percentage check cashing fee for most check types (social security, unemployment, emergency relief, veterans’ benefits) at 2.2 percent or $1, whichever is greater, and eliminated automatic fee increases based on CPI every year that had been in place since 2005.
Shortly after the rule took effect in June, several plaintiffs sued NYDFS alleging that the amended regulation was arbitrary and capricious, violated the purpose of the banking law, and was an unconstitutional property deprivation. The NY Supreme Court found that the amended regulation had a rational basis and was supported by the administrative record. Because NYDFS neither violated the NY state banking law nor the Administrative Procedures Act, the court further declared that the “amended regulation did not constitute a deprivation of property in the absence of either procedural or substantive due process.” Because the court dismissed the petition entirely in NYDFS’s favor, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as merely “academic.”