InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court blocks student loan forgiveness program
On November 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Biden administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness program under the HEROES Act of 2003 is “an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the three-part debt relief plan was announced in August to provide, among other things, up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education (DOE) and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year or less than $250,000 for married couples. Plaintiffs, whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the program, sued the DOE and the DOE secretary claiming the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and arbitrarily decided the program’s eligibility criteria. Plaintiffs further contended that the DOE secretary does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to implement the program. Defendants countered that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (rather than granting preliminary injunctive relief as requested) after determining it was appropriate to proceed to the merits of the case. Concerning defendants’ assertion regarding lack of standing to challenge the DOE’s program because it is conferring a benefit and therefore “nobody is harmed by the existence of that benefit,” (as the court characterized defendants’ argument), the court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court has actually “recognized that a plaintiff has standing to challenge a government benefit in many cases.” The court next reviewed whether plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury based on the denial of their procedural rights under the APA by not being afforded the opportunity to provide meaningful input to protect their concrete interests. While the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, the court stressed that the HEROES Act “does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program,” and, moreover, does not mention loan forgiveness. “If Congress provided clear congressional authorization for $400 billion in student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act, it would have mentioned loan forgiveness,” the court wrote. Shortly after the ruling was issued, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the DOE with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona released a statement following the ruling expressing disappointment in the decision.
OFAC issues GL and FAQ regarding Russian transactions
On November 10, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the issuance of Russia-related General License (GL) 53 and related FAQ. GL 53 authorizes transactions for diplomatic missions of the Russian Federation prohibited by Directive 4 under Executive Order 14024, under certain circumstances. FAQ 1096 clarifies GL 53, noting that the authorizations in GL 53 apply to transactions related to Russian missions located in or outside the U.S. The FAQ also explains that “GL 53 does not authorize any transactions involving blocked persons, including blocked Russian financial institutions; nor does it authorize debits to the accounts on the books of U.S. financial institutions of entities subject to Directive 4.”
OFAC sanctions individuals and networks supporting Russia’s invasion
On November 14, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14024 against a total of 14 individuals and 28 entities, including a transnational network that procures technology in support of Russia’s military-industrial complex, and “a global network of financial facilitators, enablers, and others associated with two key Kremlin-linked elites whose fortunes are intertwined with the West.” OFAC also identified eight aircrafts as blocked property. “The United States will continue to expose and disrupt the Kremlin’s military supply chains and deny Russia the equipment and technology it needs to wage its illegal war against Ukraine,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said in the announcement. “Together with our broad coalition of partners, we will continue to use our sanctions and export controls to weaken Russia’s military on the battlefield and cut into the revenue Putin is using to fund his brutal invasion.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Further, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific OFAC license.
In conjunction with the sanctions, OFAC issued Russia-related General License (GL) 40C related to civil aviation safety. GL 40C authorizes certain transactions normally prohibited by E.O. 14024 that are “ordinarily incident and necessary to the provision, exportation, or reexportation of goods, technology, or services to ensure the safety of civil aviation involving one or more of the blocked entities” provided the “aircraft is registered in a jurisdiction solely outside of the Russian Federation.”
Pennsylvania amends remote work definition
On November 3, the Pennsylvania governor signed HB 2667, which amends the definition of “remote location” in the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. In order for a mortgage loan originator sponsored by a licensee to be permitted to work from a “remote location,” the location must meet certain criteria. The amended definition includes a prohibition against “in-person consumer interaction” that is limited to “in-person consumer interaction” at a mortgage loan originator’s personal residence. It also removes a requirement for a “remote location” to maintain “physical records regarding the licensee’s mortgage loan business . . . at the location.” The bill is effective immediately.
Debt collection company issued a CDO for operating without a license
On November 3, the Massachusetts Division of Banks issued a cease directive to a formerly-licensed debt collector company for allegedly operating for more than six years without a license. According to the order, the debt collecting company was a foreign company conducting business in Massachusetts with a main address in Florida. According to records maintained on file with the Division and the NMLS, the Commissioner initially issued a debt collector license to the company to engage in the business of debt collection in Massachusetts on or about January 14, 2010. In December 2012, the debt collector license expired due to the company's failure to respond to license items placed on the NMLS account of the company. In May 2013, the debt collector license was placed into a status of “Terminated – Expired.” During an examination of a separate debt collector licensee, the Division became aware that the company continued to engage in now unlicensed debt collection activity in Massachusetts on behalf of the licensee being examined. As a result, the Division directed the company to immediately cease collecting debts on any accounts in Massachusetts until it obtained the proper license to do so. The company was also been directed to provide a complete record of all funds collected from Massachusetts consumers from January 2019 through November 3, 2022, as well as a detailed record of the Massachusetts accounts it is holding for collection. The company can request a hearing to contest the Division’s allegations and has 30 days from November 3 to request such hearing. If it does not do so or fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, it will have been deemed to have consented to the issuance of the cease directive.
Delaware enacts licensing legislation
On November 2, the Delaware governor signed SB 296, which increases the threshold for licensed property appraisers so that they may appraise complex one to four residential units valued up to $400,000. Among other things, the bill also amends the requirements for licensure and registration, such as that property appraisers must renew their licenses every other year instead of yearly, whereas appraisal management companies are now required to reregister and certify annually, rather than biennially. The bill is effective immediately.
California DFPI concludes MTA licensure not required for crypto exchange
On November 3, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to a cryptocurrency exchange’s transactions. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring company’s proposed business activities—which “will offer the purchase, sale, and trading of various cryptocurrencies using a platform provided by its affiliate and in conjunction with another affiliate that is a . . . registered broker-dealer”—are exempt from the MTA. Transactions on the company’s platform will involve the use of the company’s tokenized version of the U.S. dollar. Customers will deposit U.S. dollar funds into a company account where an equivalent amount of tokens will be created and used to facilitate a trade for cryptocurrency. The tokens can also be exchanged for U.S. dollars, or customers can hold the tokens in their wallet. According to the letter, the company says it “does not take custody of its client’s currencies or offer digital wallets,” but rather a “client’s digital wallet is directly linked to the platform and transacts on a peer-to-peer basis with other clients.” In addition to trading cryptocurrencies, the company also plans to allow customers to “trade in cryptographic representations of publicly listed securities,” thereby permitting customers to purchase, sell, or trade the securities tokens on the platform. The company will also be able to transfer customers’ shares of securities tokens from the platform to a customer’s traditional brokerage account. The company explained that these transactions of securities tokens will be covered by the company’s affiliate’s broker-dealer license.
DFPI concluded that because the Department has not yet “determined whether the issuance of tokenized versions of the U.S. Dollar or securities, or their use to trade cryptocurrencies, is money transmission,” it will not require the company to obtain an MTA license in order to perform the aforementioned services or to issue tokenized version of the U.S. dollar or securities. DFPI noted, however, that its conclusions are subject to change, and emphasized that its letter does not address whether the proposed activities are subject to licensure or registration under other laws, including the Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
CFPB analyzes crypto complaints
On November 10, the CFPB released a consumer complaint bulletin analyzing consumer complaints related to crypto-assets that the Bureau received from October 2018 to September 2022. According to the report, the Bureau received more than 8,300 complaints, with the greatest number of complaints coming from California. Among the complaints, the most common issue consumers identified was fraud and scams, followed by transaction issues. Additionally, analysis suggests that complaints related to crypto-assets may increase when the price of Bitcoin and other crypto-assets increase. The report noted that consumers had issues with accessing funds in their accounts due to identity verification issues, security holds, or because of technical issues with platforms. The Bureau also reported that customer service issues also were a common theme across crypto-related complaints. Other highlights of the report included, among other things, that: (i) crypto-assets are often targeted in romance scams, where scammers play on a victim’s emotions to extract money; (ii) crypto-assets are a common target for hacking; (iii) older consumers report a higher rate of crypto-asset related frauds and scams compared to complaints overall; and (iv) crypto-asset complaints and fraud reports have also been increasing at the FTC and SEC. The Bureau also provided steps for consumers to take to protect themselves, such as watching for signs of a scam, reporting suspicious FDIC insurance claims, and submitting a complaint to the CFPB.
FTC looks to Section 5 in enforcing “unfair” competition
On November 10, the FTC issued a policy statement announcing that it would “rigorously enforc[e] the federal ban on unfair methods of competition.” According to the announcement, the FTC intends to make wider use of the FTC Act to police companies that use unfair tactics to try to gain a competitive advantage. “When Congress created the FTC, it clearly commanded us to crack down on unfair methods of competition,” FTC Chair Lina M. Khan said. “Enforcers have to use discretion, but that doesn’t give us the right to ignore a central part of our mandate. Today’s policy statement reactivates Section 5 and puts us on track to faithfully enforce the law as Congress designed.” In enacting Section 5, Congress purposely introduced the phrase “unfair methods of competition” in the statute to distinguish the FTC’s authority from the definition of “unfair competition” at common law, the policy explained, adding that Section 5 was designed to extend beyond the reach of antitrust laws. However, recognizing that a static definition would become outdated, Congress afforded the FTC flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. The policy statement lays out the FTC’s approach for policing unfair methods of competition, and will allow the Commission to, among other things, sue companies under its mandate to protect consumers from fraudulent practices, price discrimination, exclusive deals and loyalty rebates, and misleading business practices such as commercial bribery and false or deceptive advertising.
Chopra discusses SIFI risks
On November 9, CFPB Director and FDIC Board Member Rohit Chopra delivered remarks before the FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee to discuss challenges facing systemically important financial institutions. Chopra began by raising concerns related to domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs) and the potentially disruptive impact facing consumers and small businesses should one of these bank fail. Chopra explained that, because DSIBs are heavily involved in retail banking with large consumer businesses and carry relatively high levels of uninsured deposits, “DSIB resolutions could pose serious technical challenges for the FDIC” that would necessitate serious consideration. Chopra also pointed out concerns raised by many experts that a large number of nonbank systemically important financial institutions (which have not yet been formally designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council) pose systemic risk to the financial system. “Absent a designation, these institutions are not required to file a resolution plan,” Chopra said, noting that “[r]esolving these institutions without a plan would be an enormous challenge.” He also emphasized the importance of finding ways to eliminate bailout risks for global systemically important banks.