InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal and state financial regulatory agencies issue joint statement on the effects of Hurricane Idalia on supervisory practices
On September 1, the FDIC, Fed, NCUA, OCC and CSBS issued a joint statement recognizing the serious impact of Hurricane Idalia on the customers and operations of many financial institutions in the effected area.
The guidance discusses the following aspects of financial institution operations:
- Lending: The agencies encourage financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers in affected communities, including prudent efforts to adjust existing loan terms, and declares that the agencies will not subject such efforts to examiner criticism. “The agencies recognize that efforts to work with borrowers in communities under stress can be consistent with safe-and-sound practices as well as in the public interest.”
- Temporary Facilities: The agencies understand that many financial institutions face staffing, power, telecommunications, and other challenges in re-opening facilities and will expedite, as appropriate, any request to operate in temporary facilities.
- Publishing Requirements: The agencies understand that the damage that the hurricane caused may affect compliance with publishing and other requirements for branch closings, relocations, and temporary facilities. Impacted institutions should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator.
- Regulatory Reporting Requirements: Impacted institutions that expect to encounter difficulty meeting the agencies' reporting requirements should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator to discuss their situation.
- Community Reinvestment Act: Financial institutions may receive CRA consideration for community development loans, investments or services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas.
- Investments: The agencies encourage financial institutions to monitor municipal securities and loans affected by the hurricane, including those related to local government projects.
CFPB posts guidance on RESPA
On September 1, the CFPB posted guidance to its website that affirms guidance on the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that the Department of Housing and Urban Development previously issued. In 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act transferred responsibility for RESPA from HUD to the CFPB. At the time, the Bureau stated that it would apply “the official commentary, guidance, and policy statements” that HUD had issued on RESPA “pending further CFPB action” and would give “due consideration” to other (i.e., informal) guidance and interpretations. Although the Bureau has issued certain consent orders and other statements that may cast doubt on whether it interprets RESPA in the same manner that HUD did, in the most recent posting, the Bureau confirms that the list of documents posted by the Bureau generally “continue to be applied today by the CFPB.”
FDIC’s CRA evaluation rates fintech bank “needs to improve” for alleged FTC Act violations
On September 5, the FDIC released the list of nonmember banks examined for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which is intended to “encourage insured banks and thrifts to meet local credit needs.” Included in the list was a fintech bank that the FDIC rated as “Needs to Improve” for reasons involving its overall record of helping meet the credit needs of underserved communities. According to the FDIC’s CRA performance evaluation of the Utah-based bank, the FDIC adjusted the CRA rating from “Satisfactory” to “Needs to Improve” due to illegal credit practices that resulted in violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices that were present during the time of the evaluation period. The FDIC found that the bank’s actions impacted a significant number of customers across the bank’s fuel card programs, and that the practices were sustained for multiple years. The FDIC also noted that, after the bank was notified of the violations, it implemented corrective measures, including customer restitution.
CFPB reaches $2.6 billion settlement with credit repair telemarketers
On August 28, the CFPB announced a proposed settlement with Utah-based credit repair telemarketers and various affiliates (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by collecting illegal advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in its initial lawsuit the CFPB alleged the defendants requested and received payment of “prohibited” upfront fees for telemarketed credit repair services when they signed up. In June, a district court ruling put a hold on the Bureau’s initial attempt to impose the settlement because of “outstanding issues of fact” which precluded it from entering the agency’s requested relief at that time (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau and defendants have now agreed to a new settlement which will, among other things, (i) impose over $2.7 billion in redress (understanding that the principal corporate defendant is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings); (ii) impose over $64 million in civil money penalties; (iii) ban defendants from telemarketing and from doing business with certain marketing affiliates for ten years; and (iv) require defendants to send a notice of the settlement to “any remaining enrolled customers who were previously signed up through telemarketing.”
The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the court.
Bank enters into settlement agreement with SEC for charging advisory fees
On August 25, the SEC entered into a settlement agreement with a national bank that requires the bank to pay a $35 million civil penalty for overcharging more than 10,900 investment advisory accounts over $26.8 million in advisory fees. According to the order, the bank and its predecessors agreed to reduce standard advisory fee rates for certain clients when clients agreed to open accounts at the bank via handwritten or typed notes and changes on the clients’ standard investment advisory agreements; however, these reduced rates were not entered into the bank’s billing systems when setting up client accounts. As a result, the clients were overcharged advisory fees for years, because the bank also failed to adopt policies and procedures to prevent overbilling.
The agreement “underscores the need for firms growing their businesses through acquisition to ensure that their growth does not come at the expense of client protection,” said the Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, Gurbir S. Grewel. He further noted that “[i]nvestment advisers must adopt and implement policies and procedures to ensure that they honor their agreements with all of their clients, including legacy clients of predecessor firms.”
In addition to the $35 million civil penalty, the bank also paid affected accountholders approximately $40 million to reimburse clients for the overcharging. The bank did not admit or deny the SEC’s charges set forth in the agreement.
D.C. Circuit overturns SEC rejection of an investment company’s Bitcoin ETF
On August 29, the D.C. Circuit overturned the SEC’s denial of a company’s application to convert its bitcoin trust into an exchange-traded fund (ETF). In October 2021, the company applied to convert its bitcoin trust to an ETF pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, a proposed rule change to list and trade shares. In June 2022, the SEC denied the company’s application on the basis that the burden under the Exchange Act and the SEC’s Rules of Practice, which requires among other things, that the rules of national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” and “to protect investors and the public interest.”
The company promptly appealed, alleging that the SEC “acted arbitrarily and capriciously by denying the listing of [the company]’s proposed bitcoin ET[F] and approving the listing of materially similar bitcoin futures ET[F]s”. The three-judge panel held that the SEC “failed to provide the necessary “reasonable and coherent explanation” for its inconsistent treatment of similar products” and “in the absence of a coherent explanation, this unlike regulatory treatment of like products is unlawful.”
This decision does not mean that the SEC must approve the company’s application. However, the SEC must review the application again.
SEC files brief in its Supreme Court appeal to reverse 5th Circuit ruling against use of adjudication powers and ALJs
On August 28, the SEC filed a brief in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 2022 ruling that the commission’s in-house adjudication is unconstitutional. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 5th Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of a petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and relied on unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. The brief argues that securities laws are “distinct from common law because they authorize the government to seek civil penalties even if no private person has yet suffered harm from the defendant’s violation (and therefore no person could obtain damages).” Moreover, the SEC argues that the Court has continually upheld the right of an agency to decide whether to enter an enforcement action through the civil or criminal process. The SEC referenced the 1985 Heckler v. Chaney case, which set the precedent that there is no constitutional difference between the power to decide whether to pursue an enforcement action and where to pursue an enforcement action, as they are both executive powers, supporting the claim that there is “a long and unbroken line of decisions that have relied on the public-rights doctrine in upholding such statutory schemes against Article III and Seventh Amendment challenges.” The SEC also reminded the Court that when it enforces securities laws through an administrative enforcement proceeding with a result that is not in favor of the respondent, the respondent may obtain a judicial review through the court of appeals. Finally, the commission contends that the 5th Circuit erred when it held that statutory removal restrictions for ALJs are unconstitutional, and that Congress has “acted permissibly in requiring agencies to establish cause for their removal of ALJs.”
DOJ announces international malware action, recovers $8.6 million in illicit profits
On August 29, the DOJ announced a multinational operation involving the U.S., France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Romania, and Latvia to “disrupt” a malware’s infrastructure called Qakbot. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland stated that, “[t]ogether with our international partners, the Justice Department has hacked Qakbot’s infrastructure, launched an aggressive campaign to uninstall the malware from victim computers in the United States and around the world, and seized $8.6 million in extorted funds. ” The main method by which the Qakbot malware spreads to target computers is via spam emails that contain harmful attachments or links. Upon successfully infecting a target computer, the DOJ mentioned that Qakbot gains the capability to introduce other types of malware, such as ransomware. Over the past few years, many ransomware collectives have used Qakbot as an initial avenue for initiating infections and has caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The DOJ highlighted that “[t]he action represents the largest U.S.-led financial and technical disruption of a botnet infrastructure leveraged by cybercriminals to commit ransomware, financial fraud, and other cyber-enabled criminal activity.”
SEC conducts its first-ever NFT enforcement again
On August 28, the SEC entered an order against a Los Angeles-based media and entertainment company charging them with conducting an unregistered offering of crypto asset securities in the form of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). According to the order, the company offered and sold different tiers of NFTs to hundreds of investors between October and December of 2021, and ultimately raised approximately $30 million from the sales. The SEC alleged that the company encouraged potential investors to purchase the unregistered NFTs in return for an investment in the business, promising “tremendous value” to the purchasers if the company was successful in its attempts to “build the next Disney” and launch other creative projects. The order found that the NFTs were ultimately investment contracts and therefore securities, and that the company subsequently violated federal securities laws by offering and selling crypto assets in an unregistered securities offering that was not otherwise exempt from registration requirements.
The SEC noted that all securities, in whatever form, are required to be registered and that when companies fail to register securities, “investors of all types are deprived of the protections afforded them by the robust disclosures and other safeguards long provided by our securities laws.” The company did not admit or deny the findings set forth in the order but agreed to cease-and-desist from violating registration provisions of the 1933 Act and pay a combined penalty of over $6.1 million in fees. The order also establishes a “Fair Fund” to return money to investors who paid to purchase NFTs.
On the same day, the SEC released a statement from Republican commissioners, Hester M. Peirce and Mark T. Uyeda, underscoring the significance of the commission’s first NFT enforcement action. “People are experimenting with a lot of different uses of NFTs,” said the commissioners in their partial dissents. “Consequently, any attempt to use this enforcement action as precedent is fraught with difficulty.” The commissioners further criticized the SEC’s failure to provide guidance on NFTs when they first started proliferating and raised several questions.
SEC awards whistleblower more than $18 million
On August 25, the SEC announced a whistleblower award of $18 million to a whistleblower who provided new information and assistance that led to a successful SEC enforcement action. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower provided additional helpful information and substantial, continuing assistance that helped the SEC staff saved f time and resources during the investigation. In the same order, the Commission affirmed the denial of a second claimant’s award claims after claimant 2 argued that they were the source of the original information that led to the opening of the investigation. The SEC determined that they had insufficient evidence to support their claims and that the Commission’s staff used claimant 1’s information, not claimant 2’s. Moreover, the claimant 2 did not satisfy “Rule 21F-4(c)(3), as Claimant 2 did not submit information to the Commission within 120 days of reporting it to the Company. Claimant 2 submitted information to the Commission after the Covered Action was filed and settled.”