InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Virginia enacts qualified education loan servicer legislation
On April 11, the Virginia governor signed SB 496, which amends provisions related to financial institutions and qualified education loan servicers. The bill, among other things provides that a “qualified education loan servicer” is an individual that meets all of the following criteria: (i) “receives any scheduled periodic payments from a qualified education loan borrower or notification of such payments or applies payments to the qualified education loan borrower's account pursuant to the terms of the qualified education loan or the contract governing the servicing”; (ii) “during a period when no payment is required on a qualified education loan, maintains account records for the qualified education loan and communicates with the qualified education loan borrower regarding the qualified education loan, on behalf of the qualified education loan's holder”; and (iii) “interacts with a qualified education loan borrower, which includes conducting activities to help prevent default on obligations arising from qualified education loans or to facilitate certain activities.” The bill is effective July 1.
Kentucky enacts mortgage loan industry regulation bill
On April 8, the Kentucky governor signed HB 643, which relates to regulating mortgage lenders. Among other things, the bill: (i) permits employees of a licensee to engage in the mortgage lending process from an alternate location if certain conditions are met; (ii) requires supervision and control of employees acting as mortgage loan originators; (iii) establishes requirements for licensees that allow employees to engage in the mortgage lending process from alternate work locations; (iv) prohibits records from being maintained at an alternate work location; and (v) permits mortgage loan companies and mortgage loan brokers to utilize third-party secure storage facilities if certain conditions are met.
Kansas amends mortgage licensing provisions
On April 7, the Kansas governor signed HB 2568, which updates the Kansas Mortgage Business Act by amending certain mortgage licensing provisions. Among other things, the bill: (i) authorizes certain mortgage business to be conducted at remote locations; (ii) establishes procedures and requirements for license and registration renewal or reinstatement; (iii) adjusts surety bond requirements; (iv) provides for evidence of solvency and net worth; and (v) requires notice to the Commissioner when adding or closing any branch office. Additionally, the bill replaces the current requirements for licenses and renewal applications and also sets the expiration date for licenses and registration on December 31 of each year. A license or registration will be renewed without assessment of a late fee by filing a complete renewal application and nonrefundable renewal fee with the Commissioner by December 1 of each year. The bill is effective July 1.
OFAC sanctions actors throughout the Western Balkans
On April 11, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14033 against seven individuals and one entity across four countries in the Western Balkans, which “is the second action OFAC has taken under E.O. 14033 targeting persons who threaten the stability of the region through corruption, criminal activity, and other destabilizing behavior.” OFAC also noted that the Department of State is designating individuals from North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina under Section 7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022, instituting what is commonly known as a visa ban. As a result of the sanctions, all assets belonging to the designated 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 dealings involving any property or interests in property of the blocked or designated persons.
OFAC sanctions Ireland-based criminal organization and members
On April 11, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13581 against an Ireland-based crime group, which OFAC considers “a murderous organization involved in the international trafficking of drugs and firearms,” seven of its key members, and three companies controlled or owned by key members of the organization. According to OFAC, the sanctions were the result of a collaborated effort between OFAC, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ireland’s national police force (An Garda Síochána), the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency, and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation. As a result of the sanctions, all assets belonging to the designated persons that are in the U.S. 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 dealings involving any property or interests in property of the blocked or designated persons.
10th Circuit: Extended overdraft fees do not qualify as interest under the NBA
On April 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit concluded that extended overdraft fees do not legally qualify as interest under the National Bank Act (NBA). According to the opinion, after the plaintiff overdrew funds from his checking account, the bank covered the cost of the item and charged an initial overdraft fee. The bank later began imposing an extended overdraft fee each business day following the initial overdraft, ultimately assessing 36 separate overdraft fees. The plaintiff filed a putative class action, contending that the bank’s extended overdraft fees qualify as interest under the NBA, and that the amount charged (which he claimed translated to an effective annualized interest rate between 501 and 2,462 percent) violated the NBA’s anti-usury provisions because it exceeded Oklahoma’s maximum annualized interest rate of 6 percent. While the plaintiff recognized that the initial overdraft fee qualifies as a “deposit account service,” he argued that the extended overdraft fee “‘is an interest charge levied by [the bank] for the continued extension of credit made in covering a customer’s overdraft’ and therefore cannot be considered connected to the same banking services that [the bank] provides to its depositors.” The district court disagreed and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim after determining that the bank’s extended overdraft fees were fees for “deposit account services” and were not “interest” under the NBA.
In affirming the district court’s dismissal, the appellate majority (an issue of first impression in the 10th Circuit) agreed that the fees qualify as non-interest account fees rather than interest charges under the NBA. The majority deferred to the OCC’s 2007 Interpretive Letter, which addressed the legality of a similar overdraft program fee structure. The letter “represents OCC’s reasonable interpretation of genuinely ambiguous regulations, and OCC’s determination that fees like [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are ‘non-interest charges’ is neither plainly erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulations it interprets,” the majority wrote. “As ‘non-interest charges’ under § 7.4002, [the bank’s] extended overdraft fees are not subject to the NBA’s usury limits, and [plaintiff] fails to state a claim,” the majority added.
The dissenting judge countered that extended overdraft fees are interest, and that the OCC’s interpretation did not deserve deference because these fees “unambiguously” meet the definition of interest under 12 C.F.R. § 7.4001(a). According to the dissenting judge, this regulation provides that “‘interest’ ... includes any payment compensating a creditor ... for an extension of credit,” and that as such, the “definition maps onto extended overdraft fees like [the bank’s]” and thus the plaintiff had stated a claim.
OCC says bank partnerships crucial in community reinvestment and resilience
On April 7, the OCC highlighted measures that banks can take to collaborate with community development financial institutions (CDFIs), minority depository institutions (MDIs), and other community-based groups to assist communities recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters. In the agency’s latest edition of its Community Developments Investments newsletter, “Partners in Recovery: Community Reinvestment and Resilience,” the OCC discussed ways banks have partnered with CDFIs and MDIs to originate small business loans, and highlighted federal emergency programs created to provide resources to low- and moderate-income and minority communities and businesses recovering from the disproportionate effects of the pandemic. The newsletter also provided examples of bank-community partnerships and addressed the role that these partnerships play in both rebuilding communities following disasters and the pandemic and preparing for future crises through climate resilience planning and investment.
Biden orders agency action on medical debt
On April 11, the Biden administration released a Fact Sheet regarding an initiative to decrease “malicious” and “predatory” billing and collection practices related to medical debts, including holding medical providers and debt collectors “accountable for harmful practices.” According to the Fact Sheet, the administration has ordered several agencies to take actions intended to “lessen the burden of medical debt and increase consumer protection.” The Fact Sheet provides “guidance to all agencies to eliminate medical debt as a factor for underwriting in credit programs,” and states, among other things, that the: (i) FHFA is reviewing the credit models that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac use; (ii) USDA is discontinuing “the inclusion of any recurring medical debts into borrower repayment calculations”; and (iii) VA is reviewing its underwriting guidelines to ensure it minimizes or eliminates medical debt reporting as a proxy for creditworthiness. Additionally, the Fact Sheet noted that the Department of Health and Human Services is requesting data from over 2,000 providers on medical bill collection practices, lawsuits against patients, financial assistance, financial product offerings, and third party contracting or debt buying practices. The Fact Sheet also noted that the CFPB “will investigate credit reporting companies and debt collectors” in regard to “patients’ and families’ rights,” which includes targeting “coercive credit reporting” and determining whether medical debts should be included in consumer credit reports.
Chopra offers warning on core service providers
On April 7, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressed concerns that “contracts written by the major core services providers are making it harder for local financial institutions to switch providers or use add-ons from outside technology providers.” In remarks to the CFPB’s Community Bank and Credit Union Advisory Councils, Chopra discussed downstream effects created by the heavily consolidated core services provider market on relationship banking and consumers. Chopra explained that these contracts “come with costly and unnecessary extra non-core banking services, longer contract periods, and stiff penalties and fees for ending contracts early or making other contract changes,” discourage smaller financial institutions from quickly adapting their own products and services to fit within the ever-evolving banking tech landscape, and overall make it more difficult for smaller financial institutions to compete with larger companies. Chopra announced that Bureau staff will work with core service providers and other federal agencies to examine the concentrated core platform marketplace’s impact on consumers and banks, and respond to questions related to banks’ collective bargaining on core services’ contracts. The Bureau also plans to collaborate with other agencies to examine third-party service providers and the potential referral of complaints.
OFAC sanctions Russian diamond mining and shipbuilding companies, and issues general licenses
On April 7, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions, pursuant to Executive Order 14024, against a Russian state-owned enterprise (SOE) and the world’s largest diamond mining company, which is also responsible for 90 percent of Russia’s diamond mining capacity. Additionally, the Department of State redesignated a Russian SOE open joint stock company, as well as its subsidiaries and board members. According to OFAC, the company develops and constructs most of the Russian military’s warships, likely including those used in Ukraine. OFAC further noted that it is “cutting off additional sources of support and revenue for the Government of the Russian Federation (GoR) to wage its unprovoked war against Ukraine.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned entities in the U.S. are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” OFAC noted that U.S. persons are prohibited from participating in transactions with the sanctioned persons, which includes “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.”
On the same day, OFAC issued several Russia-related general licenses: (i) General License 9C authorizes “transactions related to dealings in certain debt or equity”; (ii) General License 10C authorizes “certain transactions related to derivative contracts”; (iii) General License 21A authorizes “the wind down of Sberbank CIB USA, Inc. and Alrosa USA, Inc.”; (vi) General License 24 authorizes “the wind down of transactions involving public joint stock company Alrosa”; and (v) General License 25 authorizes “transactions related to telecommunications and certain internet-based communications.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.