InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC reports on licensing activities
On September 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced its Quarterly Reports of Licensing Activities pursuant to Section 906(b) of the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 (TSRA), covering activities undertaken by OFAC under Section 906(a)(1) of the TSRA from April 2019 through September 2021. According to OFAC, as required by TSRA-related regulations, OFAC processes license applications requesting authorization to export agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to Iran and Sudan under the specific licensing regime set forth in Section 906 of the TSRA.
OFAC sanctions state prosecutor in Bosnia and Herzegovina
On September 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14033 against a state prosecutor in Bosnia and Herzegovina. According to OFAC, the individual has played a central role in enabling corruption and has been designated for being “responsible for or complicit in, or having directly or indirectly engaged in, actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the Western Balkans.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individual subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons unless authorized by an OFAC general or specific license. U.S. persons who violate these prohibitions may face civil or criminal penalties.
OFAC settles with banks for multiple sanctions violations
On September 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $720,258 settlement with an indirect subsidiary of a Switzerland-based bank for allegedly processing transactions in violation of the Cuba, Ukraine-related, Iran, Sudan, and Syria sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, from April 2013 to April 2016, the bank processed 273 transactions totaling approximately $3,076,180 on behalf of individuals residing in Cuba, Crimea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Specifically, OFAC noted that customers in sanctioned jurisdictions were able to continue to purchase and sell securities through the U.S. financial system and to receive related dividend and interest payments until the bank took further steps to prevent such payments.
In arriving at the settlement amount of $720,258, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that bank personnel “had reason to know they were processing transactions through the U.S. financial system for individual customers located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions based on the underlying [know-your-customer (KYC)] data obtained by [the bank], which included address information indicating the customers’ location,” and “conferred approximately $3,076,180 in economic benefit to persons in Cuba, Crimea, Iran, Sudan, and Syria,” which caused harm to multiple sanctions programs' integrity. OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank cooperated with OFAC throughout the investigation, and has undertaken remedial measures intended to minimize the risk of recurrence of similar conduct.
Separately, the same day OFAC announced a $401,039 settlement with a different indirect subsidiary of the Switzerland-based bank for allegedly processing transactions in violation of the Cuba, Ukraine-related, Iran, Sudan, and Syria sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s web notice, from December 2011 until July 2016, the bank processed 426 transactions totaling approximately $1,233,967 on behalf of individuals ordinarily resident in Cuba, Iran, and Syria.
In arriving at the settlement amount of $401,039, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that bank personnel “had reason to know they were processing transactions through the U.S. financial system for individual customers located in comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions based on the underlying KYC data [the bank had] obtained,” and the bank “conferred approximately $1,233,967 in economic benefit to persons in Cuba, Iran, and Syria,” which caused harm to multiple sanctions programs' integrity. OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the bank cooperated with OFAC throughout the investigation, and has undertaken remedial measures intended to minimize the risk of recurrence of similar conduct.
DC passes debt collection bill
On September 23, the District of Columbia mayor signed B24-0357, which updates the District’s collection laws by expanding protections to cover most consumer debt, in addition to strengthening existing protections for DC consumers. Among other things, the bill: (i) prohibits deceptive behavior from debt collectors, such as making threats; (ii) clarifies that no one can be jailed for failing to pay a debt; (iii) prohibits debt collectors from communicating any information regarding a person’s debt to employers or family members; and (vi) clarifies that debt buyers are required to follow all laws applicable to debt collectors. The law is currently effective.
District Court rules in favor of FHFA on shareholders’ net worth sweep claims
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partially granted FHFA’s motion for summary judgment resolving claims brought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) shareholders in a lawsuit alleging the government exceeded its authority when it adjusted its Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (PSPAs) to allow net worth sweeps. The plaintiff shareholders claimed that FHFA acted outside its statutory authority when it adopted a third amendment to the PSPAs, which replaced a fixed-rate dividend formula with a variable one calculated on a quarterly basis (known as the “net worth sweep”). These sweeps, the plaintiffs contended, harmed their future dividend prospects. FHFA disagreed, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court had already held in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here) that “the Third Amendment [to the PSPAs] was both authorized and a reasonable exercise of FHFA’s broad statutory power” and that “it is time to end this case.” With respect to the plaintiffs’ “remaining claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising under Delaware and Virginia law,” the agency contended that the “Supreme Court unanimously held in Collins that FHFA—exercising its ‘expansive authority in its role as a conservator’—‘reasonably viewed [the Third Amendment] as more certain to ensure market stability’ than ‘the shareholders’ suggested strategy.’ … This holding alone forecloses Plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim.”
Following several years of litigation, the court granted FHFA’s motion for summary judgment “insofar as no genuine dispute remains on the fact of harm on the theory that plaintiffs were denied dividends that they otherwise were reasonably certain to receive, and insofar as plaintiffs’ proposed alternative remedy of rescission and restitution is barred as a matter of law.” However the court denied the motion “insofar as a genuine dispute of material fact remains on the fact of harm on the theory that plaintiffs’ shares lost much of their value, and in all other respects.” A memorandum opinion was filed under seal as it referenced documents filed under seal by the parties.
District Court criticizes CFPB’s cost-benefit analysis in HMDA change
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted partial summary judgment to a group of consumer fair housing associations (collectively, “plaintiffs”) that challenged changes made in 2020 that permanently raised coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under HMDA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2020 Rule, which amended Regulation C, permanently increased the reporting threshold from the origination of at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to 100, and permanently increased the threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from the origination of 100 lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to 200. The plaintiffs sued the CFPB in 2020, arguing, among other things, that the final rule “exempts about 40 percent of depository institutions that were previously required to report” and undermines HMDA’s purpose by allowing potential violations of fair lending laws to go undetected. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The plaintiffs also claimed that the agency’s cost-benefit analysis underlying the 2020 Rule was “flawed because the Bureau exaggerated the ‘benefits’ of increasing the loan-volume reporting thresholds by failing to adequately account for comments suggesting that the savings would be much smaller than estimated, and by relying on overinflated estimates of cost savings to newly-exempted lending institutions with smaller loan volumes.” The plaintiffs asked that the 2020 Rule be vacated and set aside on the grounds that the Bureau acted outside of its statutory authority in issuing the 2020 Rule and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Bureau countered that issuing the 2020 Rule was within its scope of authority because HMDA’s text “does not unambiguously foreclose” the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
The court first determined that promulgation of the 2020 Rule did not exceed the Bureau’s statutory authority because “HMDA grants broad discretion ‘in the judgment of the’ agency to create ‘exceptions’ to the statutory reporting requirements…” “[E]ven a regulation relieving roughly forty percent of institutions from data collection and reporting requirements is an exception to the ‘rule’ of disclosure, which continues to apply to the majority of institutions,” the court wrote, adding that the 2020 Rule preserves the reporting requirements, “as compared to the 2015 Rule, for most institutions, the vast majority of loans, and the vast majority of communities.”
However, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that the cost-benefit analysis for the 2020 Rule’s increased reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans was arbitrary and capricious. The court expressed criticism of the cost-benefit analysis used by the Bureau to justify setting the minimum number of closed-end loans in each of the two preceding calendar years at 100, and found that the Bureau failed to adequately explain or support its rationales for revising and adopting the closed-end reporting thresholds under the 2020 Rule. The Bureau “conceded the new rule would cause identifiable harms to the public, but effectively threw up its proverbial hands, citing an inability to incorporate these harms into its analysis as quantifiable ‘costs,’ and moved on to the next topic of discussion,” the court said.
The Bureau “exaggerated the savings to ‘covered persons’ under the new rule, and did not engage appropriately with the nonquantifiable ‘harms’ of the 2020 Rule, and the disparate impact of those harms on the traditionally underserved populations HMDA is intended to protect, even as it conceded the revised threshold would certainly result in some harm to consumers,” the court said, questioning the Bureau’s analysis of disparate impacts on rural and low-to-moderate-income communities. The court determined that the plaintiffs identified several flaws in the Bureau’s cost-benefit analysis supporting the increased closed-end mortgage loan threshold, thus rendering this aspect of the 2020 Rule “arbitrary, capricious and requiring vacatur.” The court asked the Bureau for a “more reasoned explanation as to whether and how the cost-benefit analysis accounted for the ongoing need to collect data on home mortgages pursuant to other statutory requirements and underwriting purposes, and why, when a lender must collect and report multiple data points for each mortgage and loan application, the marginal cost of collecting the additional, HMDA-specific data points is so significant that the increased reporting threshold of the 2020 Rule renders unique cost savings.”
Senators express support for ILC in letter to FDIC
On September 15, five Republican Senators and four Democrats sent a letter to FDIC acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg expressing their support for the industrial loan company (ILC) charter. The Senators also expressed their opposition to regulatory actions that could “target the ILC charter in a manner not consistent with the laws Congress has passed.” The Senators noted that “the safety and soundness of the ILC charter has been broadly successful when historically compared to the rest of the banking industry,” and further explained that the ILC charter will allow “new and expanded opportunities in the regulated banking sector.” The Senators stated that they support more competition in financial services and encourage regulators “to ensure that new competition is kept under the confines of the regulated banking system, which ultimately protects consumers and our constituents.”
FCC proposes rulemaking to combat unlawful text messages
On September 27, the FCC announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to target and eliminate unlawful text messages. According to the FCC, the number of consumer complaints received related to unwanted text messages has increased by 146 percent between 2019 and 2020, and continues to grow in 2022. The Commission warns that these text messages present harms beyond that of unwanted phone calls, as text messages can include phishing and malware links. More than $86 million was stolen in 2020 through spam texting fraud schemes, the FCC reports. The NPRM seeks feedback on several topics, including whether providers should follow the STIR/SHAKEN authentication protocols for text messages as they do for phone calls, whether providers should block texts from invalid phone numbers, and how it can ensure that emergency text messages or other appropriate texts are not erroneously blocked. The NPRM also proposes requiring providers to block texts that appear to originate from phone numbers that are invalid, unallocated, or unused as well as numbers on the “Do-Not-Originate” list.
The Commission is also seeking input on the extent to which spoofing is a problem in texting, and if caller ID authentication standards should be applied to texting. Spoofing is when a sender deliberately disguises their number to trick a recipient into thinking the message is trustworthy. A working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force is currently considering a draft standard that would apply parts of the STIR/SHAKEN framework to text messages, the FCC stated, adding that it is asking stakeholders for suggestions on an ideal timeline and feedback on whether the current framework’s governance system would be able to accommodate authentication for text messages or if the framework would require more comprehensive technology network upgrades.
Comments on the NPRM are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB rescinds no-action letter and sandbox policies
On September 27, the CFPB issued a statement in the Federal Register rescinding its No-Action Letter Policy and its Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the CFPB issued three final innovation policies: the No-Action Letter (NAL) Policy, Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) Policy, and Trial Disclosure Program (TDP) Policy. The NAL policy provided a NAL recipient assurance that the Bureau will not bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the company for providing a product or service under the covered facts and circumstances. The CAS policy evaluated a product or service for compliance with relevant laws and offered approved applicants a “safe harbor” from liability for certain covered conduct during the testing period under TILA, ECOA, or the EFTA. Following the rescission, the statement noted that the Bureau will no longer accept NAL or CAS applications by September 30, but will continue to accept and process requests under the TDP. Entities that have made submissions under the NAL or CAS policies will be notified if the Bureau intends to take additional steps on their submissions. According to the statement, the Bureau “determined that the Policies do not advance their stated objective of facilitating consumer-beneficial innovation” and “that the existing Policies failed to meet appropriate standards for transparency and stakeholder participation.”
FHA will consider first-time homebuyer’s positive rental history in mortgage eligibility
On September 27, HUD announced that FHA will consider a first-time homebuyer’s positive rental payment history as an additional factor in determining eligibility for an FHA-insured mortgage. HUD emphasized that adding a positive rental history indicator to FHA’s Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage Scorecard enables the credit evaluation to be more comprehensive and equitable. “If you’re regularly paying your rent on time, that’s a good indication you will also pay your mortgage on time,” FHA Commissioner Julia Gordon said. “We hope that adding this positive factor to all of the characteristics currently considered in an FHA credit evaluation will increase access to affordable FHA-insured mortgages for first-time homebuyers.” According to FHA’s Mortgagee Letter 2022-17, “positive rental payment history refers to the on time payment by a borrower of all rental payments in the previous 12 months.” Lenders may begin indicating a borrower’s positive rental payment history in the TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard for scoring events on or after October 30, and for case numbers assigned on or after September 20, 2021.