InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA proposes new GSE multifamily housing goals
On August 16, FHFA announced a proposed rule regarding benchmark levels for the 2023 and 2024 multifamily housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). According to the proposed rule, the GSEs will switch from using the number of units in multifamily properties financed annually by each institution to a new methodology of using the percentage of units financed. Instead of measuring the multifamily housing goals based on a number of units, the proposed rule would use the percentage of each of the GSE’s annual multifamily loan acquisitions that are affordable to each income category. FHFA acknowledged that the existing methodology does not incentivize the GSEs to continue to acquire mortgages backed by goal-qualifying units after the institutions have purchased enough mortgages to meet the minimum numeric benchmark levels. According to FHFA Director Sandra Thompson, the proposal “would ensure that each [of the GSE’s] focus remains on affordable segments of the multifamily market and reaffirms FHFA’s commitments to its statutory duty to promote affordability nationwide.”
Ed. Dept. discharges additional $3.9 billion
On August 16, the Department of Education announced that 208,000 borrowers who attended a large for-profit post-secondary education institution will receive full student loan discharges totaling $3.9 billion. The announcement builds on previous actions taken by the Department that have resulted in the approval of $1.9 billion in discharges for another 130,000 borrowers, including borrower defense findings that the institution “engaged in widespread and pervasive misrepresentations related to the ability of students to get a job or transfer credits” and lied about certain program accreditation. State attorneys general around the country, the CFPB, and Veterans Education Success also provided significant assistance in the Department’s findings. The Department referred in its announcement to a 2014 CFPB action, which alleged that the institution pressured students into taking out high-cost private loans even though it allegedly knew that most students would ultimately default. The Bureau ultimately announced a judgment barring the institution from offering or providing student loans, and obtained judgments against several entities accused of providing substantial assistance to the institution (covered by InfoBytes here). “While today’s action affects federal loans, and while past CFPB actions have addressed many of the private loans peddled by [the institution],” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in remarks following the announcement, he stressed that the Bureau “will continue our work with the Department of Education and other regulators to open up the books on in-house institutional lending programs—these are private loans pushed directly by schools—to ensure that they are not strongarming their students with illegal practices.”
The Department also announced that it has notified another for-profit institution that it is required to pay millions of dollars for approved borrower defense to repayment discharges. The institution can present arguments as to why it should not be required to pay or request a hearing before the Department’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Department said.
2nd Circuit affirms acquittal of former transportation and energy industry executive
On August 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to partially acquit a former executive of a French multinational transportation and energy company after a federal jury found him guilty of seven counts related to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and four counts of money laundering. The former executive, a British national, was employed by the company’s U.K. subsidiary and involved in a bribery scheme to secure public contracts in Indonesia for the company’s U.S. subsidiary. The 2nd Circuit agreed that the government failed to prove that the former executive was covered by the FCPA as an agent of a domestic concern, but left the money laundering convictions intact.
In 2019, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut found the defendant guilty of one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, six counts of substantive FCPA violations, and four counts of money laundering, for his involvement in a scheme to bribe Indonesian officials in exchange for granting his company’s U.S. subsidiary, a power generation equipment manufacturer, a power plant construction contract. After the guilty verdict, he filed a Rule 29(a) motion for a judgment of acquittal, arguing as to the FCPA counts that the government “failed to prove that he was an agent of [the subsidiary], the relevant domestic concern.” The 2nd Circuit had previously held that accomplice and co-conspirator liability was not available in the case, leaving agency liability. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020, the district court agreed that the evidence at trial did not establish that the subsidiary exercised “control over [the former executive’s] actions sufficient to demonstrate agency” and acquitted him of the FCPA-related counts after determining that the government failed to prove at trial that the defendant was an “agent” of a domestic concern.
On appeal, a divided three-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that “[t]here was no explicit or implied agency or employee relationship between [the defendant and the company’s U.S. subsidiary] such that the elements of an agency relationship were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” The majority held that lack of control held by the subsidiary over the defendant was fundamental in determining whether he was acting as an agent of the subsidiary. A principal’s accountability for the actions of an agent depends on its ability to select and control the agent and terminate the agency relationship, as well as an agent’s agreement to act on the principal’s behalf, the majority wrote. “[T]he fact that [the defendant] collaborated with and supported [the subsidiary and a co-defendant] does not mean he was under their control within the meaning of the FCPA,” the majority explained.
District Court dismisses EFTA claims over prepaid debit card fraud
On August 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the EFTA and state privacy and consumer protection laws brought against a national bank on behalf of consumers who were issued prepaid debit cards providing pandemic unemployment benefits. The named plaintiff—a self-employed individual who did not qualify for state unemployment insurance but who was eligible to receive temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits—alleged that he lost nearly $15,000 when an unauthorized user fraudulently used a prepaid debit card containing PUA funds that were intended for him. The court dismissed the class claims with respect to the EFTA and Regulation E, finding that the Covid-19 pandemic was a “qualified disaster” under applicable law and regulations (i.e. PUA payments were “qualified disaster relief payments”), and that as such, the payments satisfied the CFPB’s official interpretation of Regulation E and were excluded from the definition of a “prepaid account.” The court further explained that while relevant CFPB regulations define an “account” to include a prepaid account, Regulation E excludes “any ‘account that is directly or indirectly established through a third party and loaded only with qualified disaster relief payments.’” Because the prepaid debit card in question was established through a third party and was loaded only with PUA funds, it did not meet the definition of a “prepaid account” and therefore fell outside the EFTA’s definition of a covered account. The court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s contention that PUA payments were authorized by Congress in the CARES Act due to the public health emergency rather than a disaster.
OCC updates bank accounting guidance
On August 15, the OCC released an annual update to its Bank Accounting Advisory Series (BAAS). (See also OCC Bulletin 2022-20.) Intended to address a variety of accounting topics relevant to national banks and federal savings associations and to promote consistent application of accounting standards and regulatory reporting among OCC-supervised banks, the BAAS reflects updates that clarify accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to, among other things, (i) “the amortization of premiums on debt securities with a call option over a preset period”; and (ii) “lessors’ classification of certain leases with variable lease payments.” The 2022 edition also includes answers to frequently asked questions from industry and bank examiners. The OCC notes that the BAAS does not represent OCC rules or regulations but rather “represents the Office of the Chief Accountant’s interpretations of generally accepted accounting principles and regulatory guidance based on the facts and circumstances presented.”
5th Circuit overturns decision in FDCPA suit
On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned a district court’s grant of class certification in an FDCPA case, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing. According to the opinion, the plaintiff incurred a debt after failing to pay her utility bills. The city hired a law firm who tried to collect the debt by sending the plaintiff a form letter demanding payment. Her debt had become delinquent four years and one day before the defendant sent its letter, which, under Texas law is “unenforceable.” The plaintiff filed suit against the law firm alleging that it had violated the FDCPA by making a misrepresentation in connection with an attempt to collect her debt. The plaintiff also sought to represent a class of Texas consumers who received the same form letter from the defendant regarding their time-barred debts. The district court rejected the defendant’s claim that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit, holding “that the violation of the plaintiff’s statutory rights under the FDCPA constituted a concrete injury-in-fact because those rights were substantive, not procedural.” The district court also “maintained that [the plaintiff’s] confusion qualified as a concrete injury-in-fact.”
On the appeal, the 5th Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing. The court held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez (covered by InfoBytes here) foreclosed the plaintiff’s theories that a violation of statutory rights under the FDCPA or accidentally paying a time-barred debt are concrete injuries. The appellate court noted that consulting with an attorney and not making a payment is not a concrete injury under Article III, stating that it is “not aware of any tort that makes a person liable for wasting another’s time.”
States stress importance of CRA modernization
On August 5, a coalition of 15 state attorneys general submitted a comment letter in support of the joint notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) issued by the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve Board (collectively, “agencies”) regarding modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NPRM, among other things, would update how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. According to the letter, the NPRM is “a marked improvement over prior proposals that some of the agencies set out in the last several years.” The AGs noted that the final rule “must ensure that all members of our communities are fully served by financial institutions” and urged the agencies to continue to strengthen it. The AGs further encouraged the agencies to focus on: (i) ensuring the NPRM “vindicates CRA’s core purpose to address racial inequalities”; (ii) increasing the regulatory bar so “that banks are taking meaningful action to meet low- and moderate income (LMI) community needs; and (iii) “[l]everaging incentives to encourage affordable housing development for LMI communities without displacement.” Additionally, the AGs suggested that the NPRM “should be modified to ensure that this once-in-a-generation modernization effort gives the regulators the tools they need to carry out CRA’s imperative—that financial institutions be required to address the needs of our most vulnerable communities—in our States and across the Nation.” The AGs also noted that some states “expressed concern that the widening racial wealth gap stemming from historical redlining would be exacerbated by an uneven pandemic recovery.” Specifically, the letter stated that “two-and-a-half years into the COVID-19 crisis, the States face an affordable and accessible housing crisis, increased homelessness and housing insecurity, and historic levels of inflation that disproportionally threaten low-income communities and communities of color.” The AGs stated that CRA regulatory reform “can be a key element of addressing these problems.”
OFAC sanctions Liberian officials
On August 15, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against two Liberian government officials under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. According to OFAC, the sanctioned individuals are involved in ongoing public corruption in Liberia, and the sanctions are intended “to target[] perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world.” As a result, all property, and interests in property of the designated individuals and entities, “and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with the designated persons. OFAC further warned that engaging in certain transactions with the designated individuals entails risk of sanctions.
SEC files charges in brokerage hacking case
On August 15, the SEC filed a complaint against 18 individuals and entities (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for allegedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme in which online retail brokerage accounts were hacked and improperly used to purchase microcap stocks. According to the SEC, the defendants collectively acquired substantial shares of the common stock of two public microcap companies. After obtaining the shares, some defendants conspired with other unknown parties to subject various retail brokerage accounts, held by third-party investors, to online account takeover attacks. The hacked accounts then were forced to make large purchases of the companies’ common stock, thereby artificially inflating the trading price and volume of the stocks. The defendants then sold the shares they had acquired at the inflated prices, generating approximately $1.3 million in proceeds and creating substantial profits for the defendants. The complaint also noted that throughout the scheme, some defendants repeatedly took steps to conceal their beneficial ownership of the company’s shares by, among other things, failing to file with the Commission certain beneficial ownership reports required by law. The SEC’s complaint alleges violations of anti-fraud and beneficial ownership reporting provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, plus interest, penalties, bars, and other equitable relief. According to the SEC Director of Division of Enforcement, the case “illustrates the critical importance of cybersecurity and of our ongoing efforts to protect retail investors from cyber fraud.”
CFTC alleges crypto promoter’s digital asset trading scheme violates CEA
On August 12, the CFTC filed charges against an individual and his two Ohio-based cryptocurrency promotion companies for allegedly violating the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission regulations by soliciting more than $1 million in a digital asset trading scheme. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in their solicitations to customers, including profit guarantees and claims concerning the individual defendant’s supposed success as a digital asset trader. According to the complaint, customers were guaranteed that they would not lose their initial investment and would be able to withdraw their initial investment and alleged profits at any time; however, defendants allegedly refused to allow existing customers to withdraw these funds, stopped communicating with customers, and manufactured excuses as to why funds were not returned. The complaint also contended, among other things, that the defendants omitted material facts, including that the defendants “misappropriated customer funds to pay purported profits to other customers in a manner akin to a Ponzi scheme,” misappropriated customer funds to pay for the individual defendant’s lifestyle, and commingled customer funds with personal bank and digital asset trading accounts. The CFTC seeks: (i) restitution for defrauded investors; (ii) disgorgement; (iii) civil monetary penalties; (iv) permanent registration and trading bans; and (v) a permanent injunction from future violations.