InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC reaches settlement with Puerto Rican bank to resolve Venezuela sanctions violations
On May 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $225,937 settlement with a Puerto Rican bank for allegedly violating the Venezuela Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, the bank allegedly processed 337 transactions totaling $853,126 on behalf of two low level employees of the Government of Venezuela (GoV). The apparent violations allegedly resulted from the bank’s maintenance of four personal accounts operated by these two employees that should have been blocked by Executive Order (E.O.) 13884 (which blocks property and interests in property of the GoV, including “‘any person owned or controlled, directly or indirectly,’ by the GoV, and ‘any person who has acted or purported to act directly or indirectly for or on behalf of’ any such entity”). OFAC stated that the two GoV individuals also did not meet the criteria for authorized transaction exemptions under General License 34A and found that the bank failed to identify the customers for 14 months following the issuance of E.O. 13884.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that (i) the bank maintained documentation showing that the two individuals were low-level GoV employees but delayed identifying them; and (ii) the bank has more than $61 billion in assets. OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank (i) took remedial action to ensure compliance with OFAC sanctions; (ii) created more robust sanctions-related procedures; (iii) developed additional resources and guidance in connection to sanctions alert review and disposition; (iv) added staff to oversee OFAC sanctions matters; (v) reviewed policies and procedures for identifying, reviewing, and reporting transactions that violate OFAC’s regulations; and (vi) enhanced its sanctions screening trainings. The bank also voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations to OFAC and cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
Providing context for the settlement, OFAC stated that this action “demonstrates the importance of financial institutions conducting timely due diligence…following the issuance of new sanctions prohibitions.”
OFAC sanctions North Koreans and issues Venezuela general license
On May 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13382 against one individual, two banks, and a trading company connected to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs and to the U.S.-designated DPRK national airline. According to OFAC, the U.S. is “committed to seeking dialogue and diplomacy with the DPRK but will continue to address the threat posed by the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs to the United States and the international community.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC noted that its regulations generally prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated person, including transactions transiting the U.S. OFAC’s announcement further warned that any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates significant transactions or provides significant financial services for any of the designated individuals or entities may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions.
The same day, OFAC issued Venezuela- related General License 8J, which authorizes certain transactions involving Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA) that were previously prohibited under prior Executive Orders to the extent such transactions and activities are “necessary for the limited maintenance of essential operations in Venezuela or the wind down of operations in Venezuela for certain entities,” among other things.
NAAG establishes cyber training center to help states understand emerging and evolving technologies
Recently, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) established a new center dedicated to the development of programs and resources for supporting states’ understanding of emerging and evolving technologies. The Center on Cyber and Technology will also assist with cybercrime investigations and prosecutions and “serve as an information clearinghouse for the attorney general community on trending technology issues.” Faisal Sheikh will serve as the Center’s first director, and “will be responsible for developing programming on cybersecurity, cybercrime, and new and emerging technologies, as well as forming strategic partnerships with other government agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and private sector entities that focus on these issues.” According to NAAG Executive Director Chris Toth, “digital evolution has highlighted the need for a sustained approach to addressing cyber and technology issues.”
California Supreme Court: FTC Holder Rule does not limit attorney’s fees
On May 26, the California Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s ruling that the FTC’s Holder Rule does not limit liability for attorney’s fees. According to the opinion, the plaintiff bought a used vehicle from the dealership (defendant) pursuant to an installment sales contract, which was subsequently assigned to a bank that became the “holder” of the contract. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant and the bank, alleging misconduct by the dealership in the sale of the car regarding advertised features she needed due to a disability. A jury found for the plaintiff on one of her causes of action — breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and awarded her $21,957.25 in damages. The plaintiff filed a posttrial motion seeking attorney’s fees in the amount of $169,602 under the Song-Beverly Act. The bank argued that it could not be liable for attorney’s fees based on the provision of the Holder Rule limiting recovery to the “amount[] paid by the debtor.” The trial court disagreed and granted the plaintiff’s motion.
The California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split among the appellate courts on whether ‘“recovery’ under the Holder Rule includes attorney’s fees and limits the amount of fees plaintiffs can recover from holders to amounts paid under the contract.” The opinion noted the divide among the state’s appellate courts on this issue, citing on the one hand Pulliam v. HNL Automotive Inc. (holding that the Holder Rule does not limit the attorney’s fees a plaintiff may recover), and on the other hand, Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (stating that a debtor cannot recover damages and attorney fees for a Holder Rule claim that collectively exceed the amount paid by the debtor under the contract) and Spikener v. Ally Financial, Inc., (finding that the Holder Rule preempts California Civil Code section 1459.5, which authorizes a plaintiff to recover attorney fees on a Holder Rule claim even if it results in a total recovery that exceeds the amount the plaintiff paid under the contract, covered by InfoBytes here).
On appeal, the California Supreme Court unanimously concluded that “the Holder Rule does not limit the award of attorney’s fees where, as here, a buyer seeks fees from a holder under a state prevailing party statute,” as opposed to seeking fees under the Holder Rule itself. Specifically, “[t]he Holder Rule’s limitation extends only to ‘recovery hereunder.’” The California Supreme Court continued that “[t]his caps fees only where a debtor asserts a claim for fees against a seller and the claim is extended to lie against a holder by virtue of the Holder Rule. Where state law provides for recovery of fees from a holder, the [Holder] Rule’s history and purpose as well as the Federal Trade Commission’s repeated commentary make clear that nothing in the Rule limits the application of that law.”
District Court preliminarily approves $2 million debt collection settlement over garnishment issuance fees
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon preliminarily approved a class action settlement resolving claims concerning a debt collection agency’s $45 garnishment “issuance fee.” According to the plaintiffs, the defendant issued garnishments to debtors’ employers and banks through its in-house attorneys to collect revenue for outstanding debts. While Oregon law allows debt collectors to charge fees as a means of compensating for the expense of hiring attorneys who issue such garnishments, the plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s “$45 fee is an abuse of the cost recovery statute because using in-house attorneys relieves defendant from ever incurring such an expense.” The plaintiffs alleged violations of the FDCPA, Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act. While the defendant denied any wrongdoing as part of the preliminarily approved settlement, it has agreed to pay $2 million to settle the claims. Class members, defined as more than 10,000 Oregonians allegedly injured by the $45 issuance fees between January 2018 and September 2019, will each receive “an amount three times greater than the actual damages caused originally by Defendant’s issuance fees.”
FDIC releases April enforcement actions
On May 27, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. During the month, the FDIC made public eight orders consisting of “three consent orders, one order of prohibition, one order to pay civil money penalty, one section 19 order, and two orders terminating consent orders.” The FDIC also released one notice seeking "an order of prohibition and an order to pay civil money penalty.” An order to pay a civil money penalty was imposed against a Missouri-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; and (ii) “made, increased, extended, or renewed a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral.” The order requires the payment of a $2,250 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order to a Louisiana-based bank, which alleged that the bank had “unsafe or unsound banking practices or violations of law or regulation relating to deficiencies in management and Board oversight, earnings performance, capital support, interest rate risk management, and asset quality.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, “maintain its Total Risk-Based Capital ratio equal to or greater than 12.00 percent.”
FHFA announces new public disclosure requirements for GSEs
On May 26, FHFA announced a final rule that amends the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework by introducing new public disclosure requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). The final rule adds new quarterly quantitative and annual qualitative disclosures related to risk management, corporate governance, capital structure and capital requirements and buffers under the standardized approach. The final rule also aligns the GSEs’ disclosure requirements with many of the public disclosure requirements for large banking organizations under the regulatory capital framework adopted by banking regulators, and is intended to ensure the GSEs operate in a safe and sound manner “in particular during periods of financial stress.” “By allowing market participants to assess key information about the [GSEs] risk profiles and associated levels of capital, this final rule will promote transparency and encourage sound risk management practices at the [GSEs],” acting Director Sandra L. Thompson said.
FTC takes action against telemarketing operation
On May 25, the FTC announced an action resolving allegations against a subscription scam operation and its officers (collectively, “defendants”) that allegedly deceptively used telemarketing schemes on consumers. According to the complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the defendants allegedly violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by calling consumers to claim that they were conducting a survey and offering “free” or low-cost magazine subscriptions. After the survey, the defendants allegedly sent consumers a bill falsely stating that they agreed to pay several hundred dollars for the magazine subscriptions. According to the FTC, there was a “no-cancellation policy,” and the defendants allegedly harassed consumers when they refused to pay the exorbitant bills, including by threatening to initiate collection actions or threatening to submit derogatory information about them to the major credit bureaus. The proposed order follows a 2010 permanent injunction that was entered against the same defendants, which prohibited them from committing future violations. The recent order requires the defendants to pay a suspended judgment of $14.4 million and requires them to give up all claims to money already paid to the FTC. Additionally, the defendants are required to monitor their compliance with the proposed order “and may face significant contempt remedies if they violate its terms.” The FTC noted that the original monetary relief was vacated after the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC, which limited the FTC’s ability to obtain monetary relief in federal court (covered by InfoBytes here). The FTC pointed out that the “settlement of this matter for a suspended judgment of $14.47 million, after originally having been awarded $24 million at trial, demonstrates the challenges since the Supreme Court’s AMG decision.”
Brainard discusses central bank digital currency at House hearing
On May 25, Fed Governor Lael Brainard spoke before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in a virtual hearing titled “Digital Assets and the Future of Finance: Examining the Benefits and Risks of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.” According to the Committee’s memorandum regarding the hearing, the Fed defines a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as a “digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public,” and though definitions vary, “understanding what distinguishes cryptocurrency from fiat government-issued currency is fundamental.” The memorandum also discussed the Fed’s publication of a discussion paper in January, Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation, which calls for public comments on questions related to the possibility of a U.S. CBDC (covered by InfoBytes here). In Brainard’s prepared statement, she noted that the “rapid ongoing evolution” of digital assets “should lead us to frame the question not as to whether there is a need for a central bank-issued digital dollar today, but rather whether there may be conditions in the future that may give rise to such a need.” Brainard also stated that “there are risks of not acting, just as there are risks of acting.” While there has not been a decision on creating a U.S. CBDC, Brainard stated that “it is important to undertake the necessary work to inform any such decision and to be ready to move forward should the need arise.” Additionally, Brainard pointed to recent pressure on two widely used stablecoins and resulting market turmoil that “underscore the need for clear regulatory guardrails to provide consumer and investor protection, protect financial stability, and ensure a level playing field for competition and innovation across the financial system.” Brainard further stated that a U.S. CBDC could be a potential “way to ensure that people around the world who use the dollar can continue to rely on the strength and safety of the U.S. currency to transact and conduct business in the digital financial system.”
HUD announces Kansas disaster relief
On May 26, HUD announced disaster assistance for certain areas in Kansas impacted by severe winter storms and straight-line winds from March 17 to March 22. The disaster assistance follows President Biden’s major disaster declarations on May 25. According to the announcement, HUD is providing immediate foreclosure relief, making various FHA mortgage insurance available to disaster victims, and providing information on housing providers as well as HUD-approved housing counseling agencies, among other measures. Specifically, HUD is providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties effective May 25. It is also making various FHA insurance options available to victims whose homes require repairs or were destroyed or severely damaged. HUD’s Section 203(h) program allows borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders to obtain 100 percent financing, including closing costs, for homes in which “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program enables individuals to finance the repair of their existing homes or to include repair costs in the finance of a home purchase or a refinance of a home. HUD is also allowing administrative flexibilities to community planning and development grantees, as well as to public housing agencies and Tribes.