InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC releases enforcement actions
On November 17, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included is a cease and desist order against a New York-based bank for allegedly engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices related to its board and management oversight and funds management practices, and for violating the bank’s October 2018 Formal Agreement with the OCC. According to the OCC, the bank’s board and management failed to address certain regulatory concerns outlined in the 2018 Formal Agreement. Among other things, the OCC asserted that the bank engaged “in unsafe or unsound practices, including those related to strategic planning and implementation, management and board oversight, audit, risk management, and mortgage banking activities.” The order requires the bank to, among other things, establish a compliance committee, develop a written strategic plan, and establish capital in accordance with 12 C.F.R. Part 3: (a) a total capital ratio at least equal to thirteen percent; and (b) a leverage ratio greater than nine percent.
SEC charges company with ESG policy violations
On November 22, the SEC announced a settlement with a Delaware-based investment adviser (respondent) resolving allegations that the company violated federal laws concerning the investment process that the respondent’s equity group utilized while advising an environmental, social and governance (ESG) separately managed account strategy and two ESG mutual funds. According to the order, from April 2017 until February 2020, the respondent allegedly had several policy and procedure failures involving the ESG research its investment teams used to select and monitor securities. Specifically, from April 2017 to June 2018, the respondent allegedly failed to have any written policies and procedures for ESG research in one product, and when policies and procedures were established, it allegedly failed to abide by them consistently. The SEC found, among other things, that the respondent’s policies and procedures required its personnel to complete a questionnaire for every company it planned to include in each product’s investment portfolio prior to the selection. However, personnel completed many of the ESG questionnaires after securities were already selected for inclusion and relied on previous ESG research, which allegedly was often conducted in a different manner than what was required in its policies and procedures. The SEC alleged that the respondents violated provisions of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the respondent agreed to a censure and to pay a $4 million penalty. The order also provides that the respondent must cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7 promulgated thereunder.
District Court: Defendants cannot use CFPB funding argument to dismiss deceptive marketing lawsuit
On November 18, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the CFPB can proceed in its lawsuit against a credit reporting agency, two of its subsidiaries (collectively, “corporate defendants”), and a former senior executive accused of allegedly violating a 2017 enforcement order in connection with alleged deceptive practices related to their marketing and sale of credit scores, credit reports, and credit-monitoring products to consumers. According to the court, a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found that the Bureau’s funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), is a persuasive basis to have the lawsuit dismissed.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau sued the defendants in April claiming the corporate defendants, under the individual defendant’s direction, allegedly violated the 2017 consent order from the day it went into effect instead of implementing agreed-upon policy changes intended to stop consumers from unknowingly signing up for credit monitoring services that charge monthly payments. The Bureau further claimed that the corporate defendants’ practices continued even after examiners raised concerns several times, and that the individual defendant had both the “authority and obligation” to ensure compliance with the 2017 consent order but did not do so.
The defendants sought to have the lawsuit dismissed for several reasons, including on constitutional grounds. The court disagreed with defendants’ constitutional argument, stating that, other than the 5th Circuit, courts around the country have “uniformly” found that Congress’ choice to provide independent funding for the Bureau conformed with the Constitution. “Courts are ill-equipped to second guess exactly how Congress chooses to structure the funding of financial regulators like the Bureau, so long as the funding remains tethered to a law passed by Congress,” the court wrote. The court also overruled defendants’ other objections to the lawsuit. “[T]his case is only at the pleading stage, and all the Bureau must do is plausibly allege that [the individual defendant] was recklessly indifferent to the wrongfulness of [the corporate defendants’] actions over which he had authority,” the court said, adding that the Bureau “has done so because it alleges that because of financial implications, [the individual defendant] actively ‘created a plan to delay or avoid’ implementing the consent order.”
The Bureau is currently seeking Supreme Court review of the 5th Circuit’s decision during its current term. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
CFPB sets 2023 FCRA asset threshold
On November 22, the CFPB announced the annual adjustment to the maximum amount that consumer reporting agencies are permitted to charge consumers for making a file disclosure to a consumer under the FCRA. According to the rule, the ceiling on allowable charges under Section 612(f) of the FCRA will increase to $14.50, which is a $1.00 increase from the ceiling on allowable charges for 2022. The rule is effective January 1, 2023.
OCC, SEC comment on digital assets
On November 17, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu delivered remarks at the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s public meeting, where he commended the “quiet trustworthiness of banks” amid the recent volatility in the cryptocurrency market. Hsu pointed to the OCC’s “careful and cautious” approach to crypto activities by national banks, and noted that this approach “helped mitigate the risk of contagion from crypto to the banking system.” Reforms stemming from the 2008 financial crisis have strengthened the banking system, Hsu added, which has made it “more resilient, more fair, and more trustworthy” and has “proven valuable with the rapid rise and fall of crypto this past year.”
Earlier in the week, SEC Commissioner Jaime Lizárraga spoke before the Brooklyn Law School where he issued a reminder that it does not fall on the SEC to provide legal advice or analysis to digital asset market participants, but rather the responsibility lays with the issuer or the intermediary and their attorneys “to determine whether their products, business practices, or assets require compliance with the federal securities laws.” Lizárraga refuted arguments that the SEC engages in “regulation by enforcement,” stating that the “laws are well-established, and the cases brought to date have clear applications, as has been apparent in court rulings on these issues.” He also challenged assertions that the SEC has not provided guidance to the industry on whether digital assets qualify as securities. “The reality is that there’s an abundance of guidance, from the DAO Report, to the SEC FinHub Framework for ‘Investment Contract’ Analysis of Digital Assets, and multiple no-action letters issued by the staff of the Division of Corporation Finance,” Lizárraga said, explaining that it is not so much “a lack of guidance but more that the existing guidance may not be what many market participants want to hear.” He warned anyone considering purchasing or investing in digital assets to be as informed as possible about potential risks.
Senators urge FTC to investigate social media company’s privacy compliance
On November 17, seven Democratic senators sent a letter to FTC Chair Lina Khan requesting that the Commission investigate whether recent changes made to a global social media company will impact the company’s compliance with privacy and security regulations. The senators also encouraged Khan to investigate any breach of the company’s 2011 consent order, which prohibits misrepresentation and requires the company to maintain a comprehensive information security program. The FTC was already alerted to allegations made by a former security employee concerning the company’s supposedly inadequate security practices even prior to the company’s recent acquisition, the senators said, adding that the company also previously agreed to pay a $150 million penalty to the FTC and DOJ to settle allegations that it violated the FTC Act and the 2011 consent order related to misleading claims about its privacy and security practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The senators urged the FTC “to vigorously oversee its consent decree with [the company] and to bring enforcement actions against any breaches or business practices that are unfair or deceptive, including bringing civil penalties and imposing liability on individual [company] executives where appropriate.”
Separately, Senator Charles E. Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to the company’s CEO expressing concerns with its security practices. Citing an unanswered request for information sent to the former head of security related to alleged security failures, Grassley asked the current CEO to perform a threat assessment of the company’s security protocol to ensure user data and privacy is protected and requested that findings be submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
DOJ, FTC, Wisconsin AG sue timeshare scammers
On November 22, the DOJ, FTC, and the Wisconsin attorney general announced a civil enforcement action against 16 defendants for allegedly using deceptive sales practices to sell timeshare “exit services” to consumers, mostly involving senior citizens. The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleged that the defendants failed to assist consumers in exiting their timeshare contracts while collecting large fees for the incomplete service. The complaint also alleged that the defendants deceived consumers into registering for timeshare exit services by, among other things, falsely claiming that consumers could not exit timeshare contracts on their own, and that the defendants were affiliated with legitimate companies. The complaint further alleged that the defendants failed to notify consumers of their rights under federal and state law to cancel their contracts with defendants within three business days. The complaint noted that the defendants allegedly deceived consumers into paying over $90 million to the defendant companies for services that were not delivered. The complaint also stated that the defendants’ actions violated the FTC Act, the FTC’s rule concerning the cooling-off period for sales made at home or other locations, and certain Wisconsin state laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentations and direct marketing. The complaint seeks monetary relief, civil penalties, and injunctive relief. According to the DOJ, the defendants’ timeshare exit services are also the subject of lawsuits filed by the Alaska and Missouri attorneys general in June 2022.
OFAC sanctions Iranian companies for petrochemicals and petroleum sales
On November 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions, pursuant to Executive Order 13846, against 13 companies in multiple jurisdictions for their involvement in the sale of Iranian petrochemicals and petroleum products to buyers in East Asia on behalf of sanctioned Iranian petrochemical brokers. According to OFAC, the designations are the fifth round of designations targeting Iran’s illicit petroleum and petrochemical trade since June 2022. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “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 also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons. Persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals or entities designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions or subject to enforcement. Additionally, OFAC warned that “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the individuals designated today could be subject to U.S. sanctions.”
OFAC issues Russia-related general licenses
On November 21, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the issuance of Russia-related General License (GL) 13C, which authorizes certain administrative transactions normally prohibited by Directive 4 under Executive Order 14024, Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. According to GL 13C, authorized transactions must be “ordinarily incident and necessary to the day-to-day operations in the Russian Federation of such U.S. persons or entities.” GL 13C also provides a list of transactions that are not authorized.
Earlier, OFAC issued GL 54, which authorizes certain transactions “ordinarily incident and necessary to the purchase or receipt of any debt or equity securities” of the identified company that would normally be prohibited by Executive Order 14071, provided the debt or equity securities were issued before June 6, 2022.
Counter ISIS Finance Group wants group isolated from international financial system
On November 18, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the release of a joint statement by the Counter ISIS Finance Group (CIFG) of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, which coordinates efforts to isolate the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) from the international financial system and eliminate revenue sources. CIFG held its seventeenth meeting on November 8-9 to discuss ongoing efforts to combat ISIS financing worldwide. During the meeting, attendees discussed ISIS financing in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and South and Southeast Asia, as well as “key systemic vulnerabilities in the global anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime.” CIFG noted that ISIS facilitators prefer informal funds transfer methods, and to a lesser degree, virtual asset service providers most likely “because they offer anonymity, lack oversight across many jurisdictions, charge relatively low service fees, and often conduct quicker transactions than banks and registered money services businesses.” Attendees also exchanged case studies of recent investigations and prosecutions, and discussed other efforts to implement AML/CFT reforms to disrupt ISIS fundraising and financial facilitation networks. With a focus on international cooperation, CIFG members said they will continue to closely work with counterterrorism partners to disrupt ISIS funding sources and methods.