InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC proposes signage amendments, issues revised guide on supervisory appeals process
On December 13, the FDIC held a meeting, during which board members approved a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modernize and amend the rules “governing the use of the official FDIC sign and insured depository institutions’ (IDIs) advertising statements to reflect how depositors do business with IDIs today, including through digital and mobile channels.” According to the FDIC’s announcement, the NPRM would amend part 328 of its regulations by updating the requirements for when the FDIC’s official sign can be displayed. Institutions would also be required to use signs that differentiate insured deposits from non-deposit products across banking channels and provide disclosures to consumers alerting them to when certain financial products are not insured by the FDIC, are not considered deposits, and may lose value.
Acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg noted that there have not been major changes to these rules since 2006. FDIC board member and CFPB Director Rohit Chopra issued a statement in support of the NPRM, noting that the financial sector has evolved significantly since 2006, and “[b]anks increasingly offer uninsured products, physical branches look different, more than 65% of banked households primarily bank online or through their mobile phone, and convoluted bank-nonbank partnerships have proliferated.” He specifically highlighted several of the proposed changes, including: (i) requiring banks to physically segregate the parts of the branch used for accepting insured deposits from other areas where uninsured products are offered; (ii) requiring banks to display digital FDIC signs on their websites and mobile apps, including clear notifications on relevant pages where uninsured products are offered; (iii) requiring disclosures that deposit insurance does not protect against the failure of nonbanks and, if relevant, that pass-through deposit insurance coverage is not automatic or certain; and (iv) clarifying that crypto assets are uninsured, non-deposit products. Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On the same day, the FDIC adopted proposed changes to the Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations. The board solicited public comments in October on the proposed changes (covered by InfoBytes here). The revised Guidelines add the agency’s ombudsman to the Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) as a non-voting member (the ombudsman will be responsible for monitoring the supervision process after a financial institution submits an appeal and must periodically report to the board on these matters). Materials under consideration by the SARC will have to be shared with both parties to the appeal (subject to applicable legal limitations on disclosure), while financial institutions will be allowed to request a stay of material supervisory determination during a pending appeal. Additionally, the division director is given the discretion to grant a stay or grant a stay subject to certain conditions, and institutions will be provided decisions in writing regarding a stay. The revised Guidelines take effect immediately.
9th Circuit affirms ruling for CFPB in deceptive solicitations case
On December 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the CFPB against a California-based student financial aid operation and its owner (collectively, “defendants”), which were sued for allegedly mailing deceptive solicitations to individuals that advertised help in applying for scholarships. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive practices when they, among other things, represented that by paying a fee and sending in an application, consumers were applying for financial aid or the defendants would apply for aid on behalf the students. But, according to the Bureau, the consumers did not receive the promised services in exchange for their payment. The case was stayed in 2016 while the owner defendant faced a pending criminal investigation, until the court lifted the stay in 2019 after finding the possibility of the civil proceedings affecting the owner defendant’s ability to defend himself in the criminal proceeding “speculative and unripe.” In 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part the CFPB’s motion for partial summary judgment and granting the agency’s motion for default judgment (covered by InfoBytes here). The order required the defendants to pay a $10 million civil money penalty and more than $4.7 million in restitution. Additionally, default judgment was entered against the defendants on the merits of the Bureau’s claims, which included allegations that the defendants failed to provide privacy notices to consumers as required by Regulation P. The defendants appealed.
On appeal, the defendant-appellant argued that he was not subject to the Bureau’s authority because he provided nonfinancial advice on “free” scholarships and that the solicitations were not deceptive. The appellate court noted that the CFPA lists ten different categories of covered persons, one of which is “providing financial advisory services … to consumers on individual financial matters or relating to proprietary financial products or services ….” Because the solicitations dealt with the topic of financial aid and scholarships for college tuition, the 9th Circuit concluded that “[a]dvising students to exhaust scholarship opportunities before taking on debt is no less ‘financial’ than advising students to leverage their unique access to federally subsidized loans.” The appellate court noted that the defendant’s “advice covered the entire gamut of financial aid and was undoubtedly financial in nature.” The appellate court further noted that the defendant “is incorrect that scholarships are not financial in nature merely because they do not have to be repaid,” and that “the ordinary meaning of financial is broad and encompasses both cash financing and debt financing. Indeed, the definition of ‘finance’ specifically contemplates raising funds, regardless of their origin, for college tuition.”
Supreme Court agrees to hear second appeal over student debt relief plan
On December 12, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a student debt relief challenge currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DOJ filed an application on behalf of the Department of Education (DOE) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas concerning whether the agency’s student debt relief plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. In a brief unsigned order, the Supreme Court deferred the DOE’s application for a stay, pending oral argument. The Supreme Court said it will treat the application as a “petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment,” and announced a briefing schedule will be established to allow the case to be argued in the February 2023 argument session to resolve the legality of the program. Oral arguments are scheduled for February 28, 2023.
The Supreme Court said it will consider whether the respondents (individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan, as covered by InfoBytes here) have Article III standing to bring the challenge. The Supreme Court will also consider whether the DOE’s plan is “statutorily authorized” and “adopted in a procedurally proper manner.”
This is the second case concerning the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. On December 1, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Biden administration’s appeal of an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which temporarily prohibits the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the DOE’s student debt relief plan. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
District Court says consumer not provided meaningful opportunity to opt-out of arbitration provision
On December 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a defendant bank’s motion to compel arbitration in an action alleging the bank’s policy on overdraft fees caused customers to pay fees on accounts that were allegedly “never actually overdrawn.” Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant seeking monetary damages from the defendant’s assessment and collection of these fees, and the defendant moved to compel arbitration. The court considered, among other things, whether 2014 and 2021 versions of the bank’s deposit account agreements constituted a request for the plaintiff to enter into a new agreement, in addition to whether “the extent to which a party subject to an agreement containing an arbitration provision with an optout clause . . . has a continuing obligation or opportunity to opt-out of arbitration each time the contract is amended or whether the party is bound by their assent to or rejection of arbitration at the first instance the opt-out procedure is offered.”
The court noted that the plaintiff’s account, which was opened in 2004, was governed by a 2002 version of an agreement that did not contain any dispute resolution provisions, nor did it require mandatory arbitration. However, the agreement did include a change of terms provision that stated customers “could be ‘bound by these changes, with or without notice.’” The agreement was amended in 2008 to include an arbitration provision and contained an opt-out clause allowing customers to reject the arbitration provision within 45 days of opening an account. In 2014, the defendant sent a notice to customers about further modifications made to initial account disclosures. The 2014 notice stated that customers could opt out of the entire amended agreement, which contained the arbitration clause, if they closed their account within 60 days. If they chose not to close the account, customers would be deemed to have accepted the amended agreement. A 2021 amendment agreement also included the arbitration provision. The defendant argued that the plaintiff is subject to the arbitration provision because he could have opted out as early as 2008 but chose not to and continued to use his account after receiving the 2014 notice.
The court disagreed, stating that the plaintiff would still have been obligated to arbitrate disputes under a survival clause in the 2008 contract, which said that the arbitration clause “shall survive the closure of your deposit account.” The court found that the 2014 notice did not provide the plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to opt out of arbitration. Moreover, because the plaintiff was unable to opt out under the 2008 agreement, “no contract to arbitrate was formed, and [the plaintiff] was not required to opt out again when [the defendant] amended the contract in or about January 2014 or thereafter.” “The lack of notice and absolute lack of opportunity for [the plaintiff] to opt out render the 2008 [agreement] unconscionable under New York law, which seeks to ‘ensure that the more powerful party’ — here, [the defendant] — ‘cannot ‘surprise’ the other party with some overly oppressive term,’ like an arbitration provision with an opt-out procedure that could never be exercised,” the court wrote.
NYDFS's Harris to serve as the state banking representative on the FSOC
On December 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris will serve as the state banking representative on the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). According to the announcement, in 2013, Superintendent Harris joined the Obama Administration as a Senior Advisor in the U.S. Department of Treasury prior to being appointed as the Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In this role, she managed the financial services portfolio, focusing on the implementation of Dodd-Frank, and developed strategies for financial reform, consumer protections, cybersecurity and housing finance reform. According to James M. Cooper, president and CEO of CSBS, Harris’s “background and experience at both the federal and state level will be an asset for the council as it manages emerging risk during a time of economic uncertainty.”
OFAC designates over 150 vessels
On December 9, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against two individuals and the networks of entities they control, along with eight other affiliated entities. Additionally, this action identifies 157 People’s Republic of China flagged fishing vessels in which these entities have an interest. According to OFAC, the designations “demonstrates the U.S. government’s ongoing effort to impose tangible and significant consequences on those engaged in serious human rights abuse, including on those vessels engaged in illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.” OFAC also noted that this is the first time Treasury has designated an entity listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. 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.
SEC issues $20 million whistleblower award
On December 12, the SEC announced an award totaling nearly $20 million to a whistleblower whose new information and assistance led to a successful SEC enforcement action. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower provided new information, met with SEC staff multiple times, and cooperated in the investigation, which allowed SEC staff to more quickly and efficiently investigate complex issues.
Collection firm to pay $100,000 for operating without a license
On December 1, the Connecticut Department of Banking (Department) fined a collection law firm $100,000 and ordered it to cease and desist from collection activity for operating without a valid license. According to the order, in August, the Department issued a temporary order to cease and desist, a notice of intent to issue order to cease and desist, a notice of intent to impose a civil penalty, and a notice of a right to a hearing, which provided the firm 14 days to respond to request a hearing. Furthermore, the firm was warned that if a request for hearing was not made, a cease and desist order would likely be forthcoming. During its investigation, the state discovered that in 2019, the firm was conducting unlicensed collection agency activity for about 10,000 Connecticut accounts with a total balance of about $1.4 million. The firm allegedly collected approximately $81,000 of that amount. In late 2019, the state sent the firm a certified letter regarding its collection activity and asked for a response, which was never provided. In the August order, the firm was asked to supply the state with a list of all the creditors with whom the firm has entered into agreements for consumer collection services since July 2018, including copies of all the agreements with those creditors, and an itemized list of each Connecticut debtor account that the firm had attempted collections on for the same time period.
DFPI issues reminder to debt collection licensing applicants
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a reminder that starting January 1, 2023, the agency will begin approving applications under the Debt Collection Licensing Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the California governor signed AB 156 in September to allow any debt collector that submits an application to the DFPI commissioner by January 1, 2023, to operate pending the approval or denial of the application. DFPI reminded applicants that background checks will be performed at a later date. The period for individuals to provide fingerprints upon request from DFPI is extended from 60 to 90 days. Written notification will be sent to applicants through the Nationwide Multi-State Licensing System 90 days prior to fingerprinting being due. Additionally, DFPI stated that due to the delay in the application process, final approvals may be delayed. Further announcements will be issued in the coming weeks concerning conditional approvals, DFPI said, noting that it will provide at least 30 days' notice before implementing any changes to existing processes.
SEC accuses defendants of engaging in $6 million fraudulent offering scheme
On December 7, the SEC filed a complaint against a venture capital firm and its co-founder and CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly making fraudulent offers and sales of purported shares of sought-after pre-IPO companies. According to the SEC, the defendants did not own the shares at the time of the solicitations and never acquired them. Instead of purchasing the securities, the SEC alleged that the CEO used the investor funds for personal use and created fraudulent documentation and statements to deceive investors. The SEC also alleged that the CEO’s other co-founder “performed important tasks with respect to the company including opening business bank accounts, completing paperwork necessary to form the business, and other administrative tasks,” and encountered, but failed, to act upon sufficient red flags regarding the company’s operations. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and is seeking permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against the defendants.