InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Biden nominates Gruenberg for FDIC chair
On November 14, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Martin Gruenberg to serve as chair and member of the FDIC Board of Directors. Following the resignation of the FDIC’s former chair, Jelena McWilliams (covered by InfoBytes here), Gruenberg has been acting chairman. Since joining the FDIC Board of Directors in 2005, Gruenberg has served as vice chairman, chairman, and acting chairman. Prior to joining the FDIC, Gruenberg served on the staff of the Senate Banking Housing and Urban Affairs Committee as Senior Counsel of the full Committee, and as staff director of the Subcommittee on International Finance and Monetary Policy.
CSBS President and CEO James M. Cooper issued a statement following the announcement: “Today’s announcement from the White House means that none of the nominees to the FDIC Board will meet the requirement for state bank supervisory experience. This requirement is not only the law but also a great benefit for consumers and the banking sector when the dual-banking system is fully represented on the FDIC Board. We encourage Senators, in their role in the confirmation process, to ask nominees how they will work with state bank regulators to benefit from their experience sitting closer to citizens and local economies.”
OCC announces Tropical Storm Nicole disaster relief
On November 9, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Tropical Storm Nicole in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the OCC, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
District Court approves payday settlement
On November 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued a final settlement order resolving allegations that a Mississippi-based payday lender violated the CFPA in connection with check cashing services and small dollar loans. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint against two Mississippi-based payday loan and check cashing companies for allegedly violating the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
In March 2018, a district court denied the payday lenders’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting the argument that the Bureau's structure unconstitutional and that the agency’s claims violate due process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal on the constitutionality question, and, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, a divided panel held that the CFPB’s single-director structure is constitutional, finding no constitutional defect with allowing the director of the Bureau to only be fired for cause (covered by InfoBytes here). The order noted that the 5th Circuit voted sua sponte to rehear the case en banc and issued an opinion in which the majority vacated the district court’s opinion as contrary to Seila Law. The majority did not, however, direct the district court to enter judgment against the Bureau because, though the Supreme Court had found that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional, it was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). The majority determined that the “time has arrived for the district court to proceed” and stated it “place[s] no limitation on the matters that that court may consider, including, without limitation, any other constitutional challenges.”
According to the settlement, the owner and president of the company must pay a civil money penalty of $899,350 to the Bureau “by reason of the [UDAAP violations] alleged in the Complaint.” However, the order further noted that the amount is remitted by $889,350 because he paid “that amount in fines to the Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance.” The district court also entered a separate order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.
8th Circuit pauses student debt relief program
On November 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal filed by state attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina to temporarily prohibit the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here). Earlier in October, the 8th Circuit issued an order granting an emergency motion filed by the states, which requested an administrative stay prohibiting the discharge of any student loan debt under the cancellation plan until the appellate court had issued a decision on the states’ motion for an injunction pending an appeal. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The October order followed a ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which dismissed the states’ action for lack of Article III standing after concluding that the states—which attempted “to assert a threat of imminent harm in the form of lost tax revenue in the future”— failed to establish imminent and non-speculative harm sufficient to confer standing.
In granting the emergency motion, the appellate court disagreed with the district court’s assertion that the states lacked standing. The 8th Circuit reviewed whether the state of Missouri could rely on any harm the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) might suffer as a result of the Department of Education’s cancellation plan. The appellate court found that the relationship between MOHELA and the state is relevant to the standing analysis, especially as Missouri law specifically directs MOHELA (which receives revenue from the student loan accounts it services) to distribute $350 million into the state’s treasury. As such, “MOHELA may well be an arm of the State of Missouri” under this reasoning, the appellate court wrote, adding that several district courts have concluded that MOHELA is an arm of the state. However, regardless of whether MOHELA is an arm of the state, the resulting financial impact due to the cancellation plan would, among other things, affect the state’s ability to fund public higher education institutions, the 8th Circuit noted. “Consequently, we conclude Missouri has shown a likely injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and which is actual or imminent, traceable to the challenged action of the Secretary, and redressable by a favorable decision,” the appellate court wrote, adding that since one party likely has standing it does not need to address the standing of the other states. The appellate court also determined that “the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary’s debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose.” The 8th Circuit explained that it considered several criteria, including the fact that the collection of student loan payments and the accrual of interest have both been suspended. The Missouri attorney general released a statement applauding the 8th Circuit’s decision.
The 8th Circuit’s decision follows a recent ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found that the student loan forgiveness program is “an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
CFPB finalizes nonbank supervisory rule
On November 10, the CFPB announced a final rule finalizing changes to a nonbank supervision procedural rule issued in April. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau announced earlier this year that it was invoking a “dormant authority” under the Dodd-Frank Act to conduct supervisory examinations of fintech firms and other nonbank financial services providers based upon a determination of risk. Specifically, the Bureau said it intends to use a provision under Section 1024 of Dodd-Frank that allows it to examine nonbank financial entities, upon notice and an opportunity to respond, if it has “reasonable cause” to determine that consumer harm is possible. Concurrently, the Bureau issued a request for public comment on an updated version of a procedural rule that implements its statutory authority to supervise nonbanks “whose activities the CFPB has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers,” including potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Provisions outlined in the procedural rule would exempt final decisions and orders by the Bureau director from being considered confidential supervisory information, thus allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on its website. Subject companies would be given an opportunity seven days after a final decision is issued to provide input on what information, if any, should be publicly released, the Bureau said.
After reviewing public comments received on the procedural rule, the Bureau incorporated certain changes to clarify the standard that the agency will apply when deciding what information is appropriate for public release, in whole or in part. The Bureau explained that information falling within Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 4 and 6 (which protect confidential commercial information and personal privacy) will not be published. Additionally, the Bureau said it may also choose to withhold information if the director determines there is other good cause to do so. The final rule also extends the deadline from seven to ten business days for nonbanks to submit input about what information should be released. The final rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
Notably, the Bureau emphasized that the “amended procedures only relate to the initial decision to extend supervision to a nonbank entity” and “do not affect the confidentiality of any ensuing supervisory examination or any other aspect of the supervisory process.”
Fed releases Supervision and Regulation Report
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board released its Supervision and Regulation Report, which summarizes banking system conditions and the Fed’s supervisory and regulatory activities. The current report noted that even though the “vast majority of firms maintained capital above regulatory minimums,” and loan delinquencies were historically low with liquidity levels generally remaining high, increasing economic uncertainty “may create new risks for firms to manage.” In response, firms increased credit loss provisions during the first half of 2022 and started taking measures to prepare for weaker economic conditions. The report also revealed that while the financial condition of large banks generally remains sound, firms should take steps to ensure their stress analyses, liquidity, and capital positions are able to adjust to developing market conditions. The report also highlighted recent regulatory actions, including supervisory guidance issued in August for banks seeking to engage in crypto-asset-related activities (covered by InfoBytes here). The Fed commented that it will continue to work with the OCC and FDIC on crypto-asset-related policy initiatives. The report also discussed operational risks related to the transition from LIBOR to an alternative interest rate benchmark and measures to address climate change implications for banks.
California appellate court affirms arbitration denial
On November 8, the Sixth Appellate District Court in the Court of Appeal in California affirmed a lower court’s decision denying a defendant collection agency’s motion to compel arbitration in a California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) suit. According to the order, the defendant was hired to collect unpaid credit card debt from the plaintiff on behalf of a creditor. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant “engaged in a routine practice of sending initial communications that failed to provide notice as required by Civil Code section 1788.14, subdivision (d)(2), which governs attempts to collect ‘time-barred’ debts—those that are ‘past the date of obsolescence set forth in Section 605(a) of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.’” The defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, submitting two cardholder agreements produced by the original creditor that did not reference the plaintiff’s name, account number, or the plaintiff’s signature. The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendant failed to link the plaintiff to the “generic documents” and denied ever seeing or receiving the agreements before. The trial court ruled the documents were not admissible because there was no evidence that they were ever sent to the plaintiff. The trial court concluded that failing to show evidence of mutual assent, the defendant “could not show that the card agreements were enforceable binding arbitration agreements, and thus it denied the motion to compel arbitration.” The defendant appealed.
The appellate court noted that while the custodian of records for the original creditor declared that the agreements submitted by the defendant were linked to the plaintiff’s account, the custodian did not declare how or if the agreements were provided to the plaintiff for his review and acceptance. The appellate court further found that since the plaintiff declared that he never received the agreements, the burden to prove the existence of a valid arbitration agreement shifted back to the defendant.
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.”