InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC issues 2022 Supervisory Insights
On August 3, the FDIC released its summer 2022 issue of Supervisory Insights, which contains an article discussing financial performance and examination observations about commercial real estate (CRE) lending risk management practices and an article describing the application of capital, investment, and financial reporting requirements for the issuance of and investment in subordinated debt. The article, Commercial Real Estate: An Update on Bank Lending Amid the Evolving Pandemic Backdrop, discusses the financial performance of banks concentrated in CRE lending as well as examination observations about CRE lending risk management practices. The article also describes the FDIC’s forward-looking supervisory focus for banks with significant exposure in this sector. The FDIC noted that inflation, rising interest rates, and supply chain challenges are possible determinants of increased risk. The article, Subordinated Debt: Issuance and Investment Considerations, “is intended to help financial institutions better understand the applicable capital, investment, and financial reporting requirements for the issuance of and investment in subordinated debt.” According to the FDIC, a key takeaway of Subordinated Debt Investments is that “[i]nstitutions may generally only purchase investment grade subordinated debt securities that are permissible investments for national banks.”
FDIC, OCC announce disaster relief
On August 3, the FDIC issued FIL-38-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Kentucky affected by severe storms, flooding, landslides and mudslides that began July 26 and is ongoing. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” The FDIC noted that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The agency will also consider relief from certain reporting and publishing requirements.
The same week the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by flooding in Kentucky “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directed 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 2012 Bulletin, 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.
Trade groups petition CFPB to supervise data aggregators
On August 2, several bank and credit union trade groups petitioned the CFPB asking the Bureau to create regulations that would allow the agency to conduct routine exams and supervise data aggregators and their customers. While the Bureau is currently considering rulemaking under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to consumer access to financial records and has “affirmed its commitment to ‘monitoring the aggregation services market and ensuring consumer protection and safety,’” the petition argued that there is a “supervisory imbalance” between banks and nonbanks in terms of data oversight. “[A]mong the participants in the market for aggregation services, typically, data holders, such as banks and credit unions, are regularly supervised and examined by the CFPB, whereas nondepository institutions such as data aggregators and data users are not examined by the CFPB,” the petition stated, adding that this “creates both an unsustainable model as the aggregation services market grows and the risk that the laws applicable to the activities of those larger participants in this market will be enforced inconsistently.” As a result, the petition warned that potential consumer harm attributed to data aggregator and data user activity may not be identified and remedied in a timely manner. The trade groups called for the Bureau to create a rule that would add a definition for “larger participants of a market” for aggregation services, as well as define the term “aggregation services” to mean a “financial product or service” under Title X of Dodd-Frank. Doing so would ensure that “all providers of comparable financial products and services” are subject to similar levels of accountability, the petition said.
OFAC sanctions Russian companies and other entities
On August 1, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced several new sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The new sanctions, issued pursuant to Executive Order 14024, target elites, a major multinational company, a sanctions evasion operation, and a yacht used by a sanctioned individual. The action was taken together with the U.S. Department of State, which imposed additional sanctions on entities and individuals, as well as visa restrictions. 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, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by the targeted persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, 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.
The following day, OFAC issued several new Russia-related General Licenses (GLs). OFAC also published three frequently asked questions regarding “Russian Harmful Foreign Sanctions.”
Hsu discusses cybersecurity risks to financial sector
On August 2, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu delivered remarks before the Joint Meeting of the Financial and Banking Information Infrastructure Committee and the Financial Services Sector Coordinating Council focusing on cybersecurity risks to the financial services sector. Hsu called for collaboration among public and private sector stakeholders to safeguard the financial services sector. Hsu noted that the financial services sector has done “a good job of building cyber defenses and working with law enforcement and the regulatory community to guard against attacks,” but warned that “we cannot be complacent.” He noted that the OCC has recently observed increases in cyberattack frequency and severity against financial institutions and service providers, and that cyberattacks, such as ransomware, have risks beyond financial loss. Hsu added that “disruption to financial services can significantly impact banks’ abilities to deliver critical services to their customers and has the potential to affect the broader economy.” He also stressed that banks “need to assess both the potential impact cyber incidents may have on their own institution and the impact a cyber disruption may have on the broader financial system.” He also stated that cybersecurity breaches have been caused or intensified by the failure to have effective controls in three areas: (i) authentication; (ii) systems configuration and patch management; and (iii) cyber response and resilience capabilities. Hsu concluded by emphasizing the OCC’s commitment “to working with CISA, our financial sector counterparts, and other sectors to ensure that we have strong partnerships across the government.”
States create Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force
On August 2, the Utah attorney general joined the nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, which investigates and takes legal action against telecommunications companies responsible for bringing the majority of foreign robocalls into the U.S. According to the Utah AG's press release, the Task Force is a bipartisan nationwide effort of 50 attorneys general who have a joint goal of cutting down on illegal robocalls. Twenty civil investigative demands have already been issued by the Task Force to several gateway providers and other entities allegedly responsible for most foreign robocall traffic. According to a press release issued by the Delaware AG, “the Task Force will focus on the bad actors throughout the telecommunications industry to help reduce the number of robocalls that consumers receive and benefit the companies that are following the rules.”
CFPB ombudsman releases mid-year update
The CFPB Ombudsman’s Office issued its midyear update for 2022, which “provides an independent, impartial, and confidential resource to informally assist individuals, companies, consumer and trade groups, and others in resolving issues with the CFPB.” The Ombudsman received 1,108 individual inquiries—the most it has received in a six-month period for the past ten years. The Ombudsman noted that the CFPB had processed certain incoming consumer correspondence as inquiries rather than as consumer complaints, and as a result, they were not forwarded for company response. Based on the feedback, the Bureau added FAQs to the “Submit a complaint” webpage. In addition, later this year the Ombudsman plans to provide a summary of the feedback and recommendations from its post-examination survey of supervised entities, along with a further summary of the findings in its annual report. The update also discussed suggestions on draft CFPB materials, noting that “some of our feedback centered around clarity for the public as well as consideration of the public’s expectations in engaging with the CFPB.” Finally, the update noted that the Ombudsman’s Office intends to host a virtual Ombudsman Forum with organizations assisting consumers in the Midwest region. Feedback will be summarized in its annual report.
FTC fines company $62 million for FTC Act violations
On August 1, the FTC announced a consent order against an online home buying firm for allegedly making misleading claims. According to the complaint, the company allegedly advertised to potential sellers using misleading and deceptive information. The complaint also alleged that the company violated provisions of the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting: (i) market value prices when making offers to buy homes by including downward adjustments to such values; (ii) the manner in which it made money on transactions; (iii) that consumers likely would have paid the same amount in repair costs whether they sold their home through the company or in traditional sale; and (iv) that consumers paid less in costs. The firm issued a statement regarding the FTC settlement stating that, among other things, it “strongly disagree[s] with the FTC’s allegations,” and that the FTC’s allegations “are related to activity that occurred between 2017 and 2019 and target marketing messages the company modified years ago.” The statement also noted that the settlement will allow the firm to “focus on helping consumers buy, sell and move with simplicity, certainty and speed.”
According to the consent order, the company is required to pay the FTC $62 million, which is expected to be used for consumer redress. The company is also prohibited from making deceptive, false, and unsubstantiated claims to consumers about how much money they will receive or the costs they will have to pay to use its service. Additionally, the company is required to have “competent and reliable evidence” to support any representations made about the costs, savings, or financial benefits associated with using its service, and any claims about the costs associated with traditional home sales.
Agencies seek comment on CRE loan statement
On August 2, the FDIC, OCC, and NCUA (collectively, “the agencies”) issued a notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on an updated policy statement regarding accommodations and workouts for commercial real estate (CRE) loans whose borrowers are experiencing financial difficulty. In 2009, the Policy Statement on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts was issued by the FFIEC, which the agencies view “as being useful for both agency staff and financial institutions in understanding risk management and accounting practices for [] CRE loan workouts.” Among other things, the statement would include (i) a new section on short-term loan accommodations; (ii) information about changes in accounting principles since 2009; and (iii) revisions and additions to examples of CRE loan workouts. The new updated statement would also “address relevant accounting changes on estimating loan losses and provide updated examples of how to classify and account for loans modified or affected by loan accommodations or loan workout activity.” Specifically, the agencies seek input on how the document reflects sound practices in CRE loan accommodation and what additional information can be included to optimize the guidance of managing CRE loan portfolios.
CFPB gets $29.2 million judgment in mortgage relief suit
On August 1, the U.S District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted over $29.2 million to the CFPB, revising a $59 million judgment that was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July 2021, the 7th Circuit vacated a 2019 restitution award in an action brought by the CFPB against two former mortgage-assistance relief companies and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) for violations of Regulation O. In 2014, the CFPB, FTC, and 15 state authorities took action against several foreclosure relief companies and associated individuals, including the defendants, alleging they made misrepresentations about their services, failed to make mandatory disclosures, and collected unlawful advance fees (covered by InfoBytes here). The district court’s 2019 order (covered by InfoBytes here) held one company and its principals jointly and severally liable for over $18 million in restitution, while another company and its principals were held jointly and severally liable for nearly $3 million in restitution. Additionally, the court ordered civil penalties totaling over $37 million against company two and four principals.
According to the recent opinion and order, the district court concluded that it would be “appropriate” to characterize the redress as legal restitution because the “plaintiff’s claim is against defendants generally and not one, identifiable fund or asset,” calling it “valid and necessary” for consumers to be compensated for the advance fees they paid. Instead of ordering “complete restitution,” the district court noted it would require the defendants to “refund 50% of the moneys paid, which plaintiff shall return directly to the injured parties to the extent practical,” because the 7th Circuit “found that defendants' conduct was not the product of reckless disregard of the CFPA, but rather a failure to fit themselves under an exception for the delivery of legal services.”