InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
GSEs issue Equitable Housing Finance Plans
On June 8, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) released their Equitable Housing Finance Plans for 2022-2024 (available here and here), affirming their commitment to addressing racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership and wealth. The plans were developed following FHFA’s September 2021 request for public input, which invited comments to help the GSEs prepare their first plans and to aid FHFA in overseeing the plans (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the plans (which will be updated annually) include activities to (i) address future consumer education initiatives for renters and homeowners; (ii) help tenants build credit profiles and enable better access to financial services; (iii) expand counseling services to support housing stability; (iv) launch technology to increase access to sustainable credit and fair home appraisals; and (v) deploy Special Purpose Credit Programs to address barriers to sustainable homeownership, focusing particularly on consumers living in formerly redlined and underserved areas with majority Black populations. FHFA’s press release also announced the establishment of a new pilot transparency framework for the GSEs, which will require Fannie and Freddie to publish and maintain a list of pilot programs and “test-and-learn activities” on their public websites to help FHFA determine whether such activities address disparities identified in the plans.
Earlier in the week, FHFA released its inaugural Mission Report describing housing finance activities taken in 2021 by the GSEs and Federal Home Loan Banks related to targeted economic development and affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing. The report highlighted, among other things, that the gap between mortgage acceptance rates for minority and white borrowers “remains persistent,” with Black and Latino borrowers representing 6.3 percent and 14.2 percent of all mortgages purchased by the GSEs, respectively, in the fourth quarter of 2021. The report also discussed fair lending geographical trends as well as data on multifamily and single-family loan acquisitions.
CFTC requests feedback on climate-related financial risk
On June 8, the CFTC published a request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register seeking public responses on climate-related financial risks related to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets. Among other things, the Commission is seeking input on the types of data that could help the CFTC evaluate climate-related financial risk exposures, scenario analysis and stress testing, risk management, disclosures, product innovation, digital assets, financially vulnerable communities, mechanisms for public-private partnerships/engagement, and coordination with other regulatory bodies. The CFTC emphasized that the responses “will help to inform the Commission’s next steps in furtherance of its purpose to, among other things, promote responsible innovation, ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, and avoid systemic risk.” Additionally, the Commission noted that it “may use this information to inform potential future actions including, but not limited to, issuing new or amended guidance, interpretations, policy statements, regulations or other potential commission action within its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as its participation in any domestic or international fora.”
Comments on the RFI are due August 8.
District Court grants defendant’s summary judgment in TCPA case
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a national bank’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment in a case alleging it violated the TCPA by placing unwanted telephone calls and text messages. According to the order, the plaintiff filed suit in April 2021, alleging the defendant called him 88 times without his consent regarding a debt using an automated dialing system in violation of the TCPA. The court found that the plaintiff had given his consent to be contacted when he signed a signature card for his account that included his number. The court noted that his consent permitted the defendant “to use text messaging, artificial or prerecorded voice messages and automatic dialing technology for informational and account service calls, but not for telemarketing or sales calls.” The court further concluded that “prior express consent permits a creditor to contact a debtor by any telephonic means,” and emphasized that the “TCPA is not intended to stop a bank from calling its customers, but rather to stop telemarketers from making random, sequentially generated ‘robocalls’ to consumers who do not wish to receive them.”
District Court dismisses suit alleging improper inspection fees
On June 6, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a defendant bank’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff’s inspection fee allegations are barred on collateral estoppel grounds. The plaintiff filed a class action suit claiming the defendant’s computer software orders property inspections after borrowers’ loans are in default and then charges borrowers for the improper inspection fees. According to the opinion, the defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2012 against the plaintiff in state court after she missed payments. The parties litigated the matter for several years in state court, and in 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to add class action claims related to the defendant’s inspection fee collection system. The state court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding the proposed claims to be without merit and futile. Final judgment of foreclosure was granted to the bank. Similar proceedings involving the same class action counterclaims occurred after the defendant requested that the judgment be vacated to add an additional lien holder as a defendant. The defendant again applied for entry of final judgment, but withdrew this application allegedly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Ultimately the state court dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The plaintiff filed an instant complaint in federal court.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff “should be collaterally estopped from bringing these claims because the New Jersey Superior Court ruled on the exact issues [plaintiff] raises here in the prior foreclosure action brought by [defendant] against [plaintiff] in state court, ultimately dismissing them with prejudice.” The plaintiff countered “that because the foreclosure action was dismissed without entry of judgment, collateral estoppel does not apply.” In agreeing with the defendant, the court stated that “the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies whenever an action is ‘sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect,” adding that the state court’s orders in the foreclosure action are “sufficiently firm as to warrant conclusive effect.” According to the court, “[t]hese decisions—particularly the second dismissal with prejudice—were clearly intended to be the final adjudication of the precise issues that [plaintiff] is now attempting to relitigate in the instant action.”
NYDFS releases stablecoin guidance
On June 8, NYDFS released new regulatory guidance on the issuance of U.S. dollar-backed stablecoins, establishing criteria for regulated virtual currency companies seeking to issue stablecoins in the state. The guidance outlines baseline criteria for USD-backed stablecoins, including that: (i) a “stablecoin must be fully backed by a Reserve of assets,” such that the Reserve’s market value “is at least equal to the nominal value of all outstanding units of the stablecoin as of the end of each business day”; (ii) stablecoin issuers “must adopt clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by [NYDFS] in writing, that confer on any lawful holder of the stablecoin a right to redeem units of the stablecoin from the Issuer in a timely fashion at par for the U.S. dollar”; (iii) Reserve assets must be segregated from an issuer’s proprietary assets and “held in custody with U.S. state or federally chartered depository institutions and/or asset custodians”; (iv) a Reserve must consist of specific assets subject to NYDFS-approved overcollateralization requirements and restrictions; and (v) a Reserve must undergo an examination of its management’s assertions at least once a month by a licensed certified public accountant.
NYDFS emphasized that these criteria are not the only requirements it may impose when issuing stablecoins, and informed regulated entities that it will also consider a range of potential risks prior to granting a regulated entity authorization to issue stablecoins. This includes risk related to “cybersecurity and information technology; network design and maintenance and related technology and operational considerations; Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money-laundering [] and sanctions compliance; consumer protection; safety and soundness of the issuing entity; and the stability/integrity of the payment system, as applicable.” Additional requirements may be imposed on regulated entities to address any of these risks.
NYDFS noted that the regulatory guidance is not applicable to USD-backed stablecoins listed, but not issued, by regulated entities, and stated it “does expect regulated entities that list USD-backed stablecoins to consider this guidance when submitting a request for coin issuance or seeking approval for a coin self-certification policy.”
District Court granted final approval of a $63 million data breach settlement
On June 7, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval of a class action settlement resolving claims that a government agency and its contractor (collectively, defendants) did not detect hackers because they failed to establish reasonable safeguards that led to a data breach. According to the memorandum of law in support of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval, a data breach occurred in June 2015 that compromised financial records, Social Security numbers, and other personal information of anyone who underwent a background check at the agency since 2000. The agency allegedly controlled numerous electronic systems without valid authorizations, failed to implement multi-factor authentication for accessing systems, failed to patch, segment, and continuously monitor systems, and failed to implement centralized data security protocols. According to the plaintiff’s motion, the settlement (if granted final approval) would require the U.S. government to pay $60 million of the settlement fund and the contractor to pay $3 million. The settlement agreement provides that “[e]ach valid claim will be paid at $700, except that if the actual amount of documented loss exceeds $700, the claim will be paid in that amount, up to $10,000.”
Senate Banking Committee sends letter to Yellen on consumer data activities
On June 7, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Sherrod Brown sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen requesting that the Financial Stability Oversight Council conduct a review on the effect of the collection and sale of consumer data by financial institutions to determine whether such activities pose a systemic threat to U.S. financial stability and security. The letter raised concerns that such data could be used for nefarious purposes including "glean[ing] consumers’ tolerance for price hikes, or using certain people’s spending patterns to target them for blackmail or ransomware.”
OFAC amends Cuban Assets Control Regulations
On June 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a final rule amending the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, and further implementing portions of President Biden’s foreign policy to increase support for Cuban people. Specifically, the final rule “authorizes group people-to-people educational travel to Cuba and removes certain restrictions on authorized academic educational activities, authorizes travel to attend or organize professional meetings or conferences in Cuba, removes the $1,000 quarterly limit on family remittances, and authorizes donative remittances to Cuba.” The final rule is effective June 9.
In conjunction with the announcement, OFAC published a number of new and updated Cuba-related frequently asked questions addressing, among other things, remittance transactions, travel activities, and authorized imports.
OFAC sanctions actors throughout the Western Balkans
On June 6, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against two prominent officials in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the third action taken under E.O. 14033. According to the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the designated individuals “have each sought to pursue ethnonationalist and political agendas at the expense of the democratic institutions and citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina.” 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.
District Court: Company must face data breach claims
On June 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that a health care company must face a proposed class action related to claims that its failure to implement cybersecurity safeguards led to a data breach that compromised individuals’ personal health information. In granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court declined to dismiss several of the plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, ruling that the second amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant employed inadequate data security and that plaintiffs suffered an actual injury as a result of the data breach because the monitoring services offered by the defendant were insufficient and offered for too short of time causing certain plaintiffs to purchase additional identity protection products and/or services. However, other negligence claims were dismissed after the court determined that some of the plaintiffs failed to allege any actual damages or out-of-pocket expenses. Additionally, while the court allowed several state law claims to proceed, it dismissed claims brought under the California Consumer Protection Act due to the plaintiff’s failure to provide the requisite pre-suit notice within the 30-day time period as required by law, finding the failure could not be cured by the passage of time. Other state law claims, involving violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, were also dismissed due to a failure to articulate cognizable losses.