InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC Announces Substantial Settlement With Bank Over Apparent Sanctions Violations
On July 24, the OFAC released a settlement agreement with a large bank to resolve apparent violations of narcotics sanctions regulations. The settlement agreement states that during separate periods from September 2005 through March 2009, the bank allowed transactions to be processed for certain individuals designated under the narcotics sanctions regulations, and failed to timely file blocked property reports regarding accounts owned by other designated individuals. The bank did not admit to any allegation made or implied by the apparent violations, but agreed to pay approximately $16.5 million to resolve the matter. The agreement explains that most of the apparent violations were disclosed by the bank to OFAC as a result of remedial action designed to correct a screening deficiency giving rise to the apparent violations, but that such disclosures do not qualify as voluntarily self-disclosed to OFAC within the meaning of OFAC's Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines because they were substantially similar to apparent violations of which OFAC already was aware.
CFPB Sues Debt Collection Law Firm
On July 14, the CFPB sued a Georgia-based law firm and its three principal partners for allegedly using high-volume litigation tactics to collect millions of dollars from consumers who may not actually have owed the debts or may not have owed the debts in the amounts claimed. The suit relates to the firm’s attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer credit-card debts on behalf of both credit-card issuers and debt buyers that purchase portfolios of defaulted credit-card debts. The CFPB alleges the defendants violated the FDCPA and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by: (i) serving consumers with deceptive court filings generated by automated processes and the work of non-attorney staff, without any meaningful involvement of attorneys; and (ii) introducing faulty or unsubstantiated evidence through sworn statements even though some signers could not have known the details they were attesting to. The CFPB is seeking to permanently enjoin the firm from engaging in the alleged activity, restitution to borrowers, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and damages and other monetary relief.
Mortgage Company Resolves HAMP-Related Criminal Allegations
On July 3, the DOJ announced the resolution of a multi-agency criminal investigation into the way a large mortgage company administered the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). According to a Restitution and Remediation Agreement released by the company’s parent bank, the company agreed to pay up to $320 million to resolve allegations that it made misrepresentations and omissions about (i) how long it would take to make HAMP qualification decisions; (ii) the duration of HAMP trial periods; and (iii) how borrowers would be treated during those trial periods. In exchange for the monetary payments and other corrective actions by the company, the government agreed not to prosecute the company for crimes related to the alleged conduct. The investigation was conducted by the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia, as well as the FHFA Inspector General—which has authority to oversee Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s HAMP programs—and the Special Inspector General for TARP—which has responsibility for the Treasury Department HAMP program and jurisdiction over financial institutions that received TARP funds. This criminal action comes in the wake of a DOJ Inspector General report that was critical of the Justice Department’s mortgage fraud enforcement efforts, and which numerous members of Congress used to push DOJ to more vigorously pursue alleged mortgage-related violations. In announcing the action, the U.S. Attorney acknowledged that other HAMP-related investigations are under way, and that more cases may be coming.
Federal Reserve Takes Action Against Bank For Vendor's Allegedly Deceptive Practices
On July 1, the Federal Reserve Board announced a joint enforcement action with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation against a state bank that allegedly failed to properly oversee a nonbank third-party provider of financial aid refund disbursement services. The consent order states that from May 2012 to August 2013, the bank opened over 430,000 deposit accounts in connection with the vendor’s debit card product for disbursement of financial aid to students. The agencies claim that during that time, the vendor misled students about the product, including by (i) omitting material information about how students could get their financial aid refund without having to open an account; (ii) omitting material information about the fees, features, and limitations of the product; (iii) omitting material information about the locations of ATMs where students could access their account without cost and the hours of availability of those ATMs; and (iv) prominently displaying the school logo, which may have erroneously implied that the school endorsed the product. The regulators ordered the bank to pay a total of $4.1 million in civil money penalties. In addition, the Federal Reserve is seeking restitution from the vendor, and, pursuant to the order against the bank, may require the bank to pay any amounts the vendor cannot pay in restitution to eligible students up to the lesser of $30 million or the total amount of restitution based on fees the vendor collected from May 2012 through June 2014. The consent order also requires the bank to submit for Federal Reserve approval a compliance risk management program in advance of entering into an agreement with a third party to solicit, market, or service a consumer deposit product on behalf of the bank.
S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney Obtains FHA, GSE False Claims Settlement
On July 1, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that a large bank agreed to pay $10 million to resolve allegations that prior to 2011 it violated the False Claims Act and FIRREA by failing to oversee the reasonableness of foreclosure-related charges it submitted to the FHA and Fannie Mae for reimbursement, contrary to program requirements and the bank’s certifications that it had done so. The government intervened in a whistleblower suit claiming that, notwithstanding FHA program requirements and the bank’s annual FHA certifications, prior to 2011, the bank failed to create or maintain an adequate FHA quality control program to review the fees and charges submitted by outside counsel and other third-party providers to the bank, which the bank then submitted to FHA for reimbursement. The government also claimed that the bank failed to create or maintain Fannie Mae audit and control systems sufficient to ensure that the fees and expenses submitted by outside counsel and other third-party providers to the bank, which the bank then submitted to Fannie Mae for reimbursement, were reasonable, customary, or necessary. In addition to the monetary settlement, the bank was required to admit to the allegations and agreed to remain compliant with all rules applicable to servicers of mortgage loans insured by FHA and to servicers of loans held or securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
HUD Announces Two Maternity Leave Fair Housing Agreements
On July 1, HUD announced a conciliation agreement with a California mortgage lender, pursuant to which the lender will pay $48,000 to resolve allegations that it violated the Fair Housing Act when it denied or delayed mortgage loans to women because they were on maternity leave. Under the Fair Housing Act, it is unlawful to discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges associated with the sale of a dwelling on the basis of sex, including denying a mortgage loan or mortgage insurance because a woman is pregnant or on family leave. After a married couple complained to HUD that the lender denied their refinancing application because the wife was on maternity leave, HUD commenced an investigation that revealed the lender also allegedly denied four other applicants who were on maternity leave, or delayed their applications until after the women returned to work. The agreement requires the company to pay $20,000 to the couple that filed the complaint, and $7,000 to each of the other four applicants identified by HUD. The company no longer originates mortgages, but agreed to provide annual fair lending training to employees and management staff should it resume its mortgage operation. In a similar action last month, HUD required a Utah credit union to pay $25,000 to resolve allegations that the credit union discriminated against prospective borrowers on maternity leave. The HUD investigation was initiated after a married couple claimed their mortgage loan application was wrongly denied because the wife was on maternity leave. The credit union asserted that its mortgage insurer’s guidelines for calculating income for women on maternity leave allowed regular pay to be considered only if the women returned to work before the loan closed. Although the complainants previously resolved their claims, the credit union agreed to pay $10,000 to an allegedly affected borrower identified during HUD’s investigation, and $15,000 to a qualified organization to help educate the public about fair lending requirements and obligations, including the rights of borrowers on maternity, paternity, pregnancy, or parental leave at the time of an application for a home mortgage loan. The credit union also agreed to adopt an FHA-compliant policy with regard to calculation and treatment of maternity, paternity, and pregnancy leave income, and to identify when employment income may be used based upon the timing of a scheduled return to work date.
Special Alert: CFPB Issues Guidance On Supervision And Enforcement Of Mini-Correspondent Lenders
This afternoon, the CFPB issued policy guidance on supervision and enforcement considerations relevant to mortgage brokers transitioning to mini-correspondent lenders. The CFPB states that it “has become aware of increased mortgage industry interest in the transition of mortgage brokers from their traditional roles to mini-correspondent lender roles,” and is “concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as mini-correspondent lenders, they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers.”
The guidance describes how the CFPB evaluates mortgage transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders and confirms who must comply with the broker compensation rules, regardless of how they may describe their business structure. In announcing the guidance, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the CFPB is “putting companies on notice that they cannot avoid those rules by calling themselves by a different name.”
The CFPB is not offering an opportunity for the public to comment on the guidance. The CFPB determined that because the guidance is a non-binding policy document articulating considerations relevant to the CFPB’s exercise of existing supervisory and enforcement authority, it is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Background
The CFPB explains that generally, a correspondent lender performs the activities necessary to originate a mortgage loan—it takes and processes applications, provides required disclosures, sometimes underwrites loans and makes the final credit approval decision, closes loans in its name, funds them (often through a warehouse line of credit), and sells them to an investor. The CFPB’s focus here is on mortgage brokers who are attempting to move to the role of a correspondent lender by obtaining a warehouse line of credit and establishing relationships with a few investors. The CFPB believes that some of these transitioning brokers may appear to be the lender or creditor in each transaction, but in actuality have not transitioned to the mini-correspondent lender role and are continuing to serve effectively as mortgage brokers, i.e. they continue to facilitate brokered loan transactions between borrowers and wholesale lenders.
RESPA (Regulation X) and TILA (Regulation Z) include certain rules related to broker compensation, including RESPA’s requirement that lender’s compensation to the mortgage broker be disclosed on the Good-Faith Estimate and HUD-1 Settlement Statement, and TILA’s requirements that broker compensation be included in “points and fees” calculations, and its restrictions on broker compensation and prohibition on steering to increase compensation. Those requirements do not apply to exempt bona fide secondary-market transactions, but do apply to table-funded transactions, the difference between which depends on the “real source of funding” and the “real interest of the funding lender.”
The CFPB states that the requirements and restrictions that RESPA and TILA and their implementing regulations impose on compensation paid to mortgage brokers do not depend on the labels that parties use in their transactions. Rather, under Regulation X, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “lender” must be disclosed depends on determinations such as whether that compensation is part of a secondary market transaction, as opposed to a “table-funded” transaction. And under Regulation Z, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “creditor” must be included in the points-and-fees calculation and whether the “creditor” is subject to the compensation restrictions as a mortgage broker depends on determinations such as whether the “creditor” finances the transaction out of its own resources as opposed to relying on table-funding by the “investor.”
CFPB’s Factors For Assessing Mini-Correspondent Lenders
The guidance advises lenders that in exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority under RESPA and TILA in transactions involving mini-correspondents, the CFPB considers the following questions, among others, to assess the true nature of the mortgage transaction:
- Beyond the mortgage transaction at issue, does the mini-correspondent still act as a mortgage broker in some transactions, and, if so, what distinguishes the mini-correspondent’s “mortgage broker” transactions from its “lender” transactions?
- How many “investors” does the mini-correspondent have available to it to purchase loans?
- Is the mini-correspondent using a bona fide warehouse line of credit as the source to fund the loans that it originates?
- Is the warehouse line of credit provided by a third-party warehouse bank?
- How thorough was the process for the mini-correspondent to get approved for the warehouse line of credit?
- Does the mini-correspondent have more than one warehouse line of credit?
- Is the warehouse bank providing the line of credit one of, or affiliated with any of, the mini-correspondent’s investors that purchase loans from the mini-correspondent?
- If the warehouse line of credit is provided by an investor to whom the mini-correspondent will “sell” loans to, is the warehouse line a “captive” line (i.e., the mini-correspondent is required to sell the loans to the investor providing the warehouse line or to affiliates of the investor)?
- What percentage of the mini-correspondent’s total monthly originated volume is sold by the mini-correspondent to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit to the mini-correspondent, or to an investor related to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit?
- Does the mini-correspondent’s total warehouse line of credit capacity bear a reasonable relationship, consistent with correspondent lenders generally, to its size (i.e., its assets or net worth)?
- What changes has the mini-correspondent made to staff, procedures, and infrastructure to support the transition from mortgage broker to mini-correspondent?
- What training or guidance has the mini-correspondent received to understand the additional compliance risk associated with being the lender or creditor on a residential mortgage transaction?
- Which entity (mini-correspondent, warehouse lender, or investor) is performing the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities?
- Which entity underwrites the mortgage loan before consummation and otherwise makes the final credit decision on the loan?
- What percentage of the principal mortgage origination activities, such as the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and pre-consummation underwriting, is being performed by the mini-correspondent, or an independent agent of the mini-correspondent?
- If the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities are being performed by the investor, is there a plan in place to transition these activities to the mini-correspondent, and, if so, what conditions must be met to make this transition (e.g. number of loans, time)?
The CFPB cautions that (i) the inquiries described in the guidance are not exhaustive, and that the CFPB may consider other factors relevant to the exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities; (ii) no single question listed in the guidance is necessarily determinative; and (iii) the facts and circumstances of the particular mortgage transaction being reviewed are relevant.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030, jnaimon@buckleyfirm.com
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901, crockwell@buckleyfirm.com
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040, jkromer@buckleyfirm.com
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020, jkolar@buckleyfirm.com
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010, jbuckley@buckleyfirm.com
CFPB UDAAP Action Targets Payday Lender's Collection Activities
This afternoon, the CFPB announced that a nonbank consumer lender will pay $10 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in certain unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in the collection of payday loans. This action comes exactly one year after the CFPB issued guidance that it would hold supervised creditors accountable for engaging in acts or practices the CFPB considers to be unfair, deceptive, and/or abusive when collecting their own debts, in much the same way third-party debt collectors are held accountable for violations of the FDCPA.
Based on its findings during an examination of the lender, which was coordinated with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit, the CFPB alleged that the lender and its third-party vendors used false claims and threats to coerce delinquent payday loan borrowers into taking out an additional payday loan to cover their debt. The CFPB claimed that the lender trained its staff to “create a sense of urgency” for consumers in default, and that in-house and third-party vendor staff did so by (i) making an excessive number of calls to borrowers; (ii) disclosing the existence of the debt to non-liable third parties; and (iii) continuing to call borrowers at their workplaces after being told such calls were prohibited, or calling borrowers directly after they had obtained counsel.
The CFPB further alleged that some in-house staff also misrepresented the actions that third-party collectors would take after a loan was transferred for additional collection efforts, even though those actions were prohibited or limited by the lender’s own corporate policies and contracts with outside collectors. The in-house staff also allegedly falsely advised borrowers that they could not prevent the transfer of the delinquent debt to a third-party collector. In-house and third-party staff also allegedly falsely threatened delinquent borrowers with litigation or criminal prosecution, when the lender did not, as a matter of policy, pursue litigation or criminal prosecution for non-payment or permit its third-party collectors to do so.
The CFPB characterized certain of the acts as either unfair or deceptive, and stated that the lender’s efforts to create and leverage an artificial sense of urgency to induce delinquent borrowers with demonstrated inability to repay their existing loans to take out new loans with accompanying fees “took unreasonable advantage of the inability of consumers to protect their own interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service” and thereby qualify as abusive acts or practices.
The lender, in its own press release, pointed out that the CFPB’s allegations related only to collection practices prior to March 2012, and that a third-party review revealed that more than 96 percent of the lender’s calls during the review period met relevant collections standards. The lender added that it has policies that prevent delinquent borrowers from taking out new loans, and that an analysis of those policies revealed that 99.5 percent of customers with a loan in collections for more than 90 days did not take out a new loan with the lender within two days of paying off their existing loan, and 99.1 percent of customers did not take out a new loan within 14 days of paying off their existing loan. This data suggests that the CFPB’s exception tolerance for in-house collection operations is exceedingly thin.
The order requires the lender to pay $5 million in redress to eligible borrowers and a $5 million civil money penalty. The lender stressed that it cooperated fully with the CFPB, implementing recommended compliance changes and enhancements and responding to requests for documents and information. It committed to completing those corrective actions and agreed to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The action is at least the second public action taken by the CFPB against a payday lender. In November 2013 the CFPB entered a consent order to resolve so-called “robosigning” allegations against another lender. That action, which was resolved with a $5 million penalty and $14 million in restitution, also included allegations that the lender violated the Military Lending Act and engaged in certain unlawful examination conduct.
Federal, State Authorities Announce Substantial Mortgage Settlement
On June 17 the DOJ, the CFPB, HUD, and 49 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia’s attorney general announced a $968 million consent judgment with a large mortgage company to resolve numerous federal and state investigations regarding alleged improper mortgage origination, servicing, and foreclosure practices. The company agreed to pay $418 million to resolve potential liability under the federal False Claims Act for allegedly originating and underwriting FHA-insured mortgages that did not meet FHA requirements, failing to adhere to an effective quality control program to identify non-compliant loans, and failing to self-report to HUD the defective loans it did identify. The company also agreed to measures similar to those in the National Mortgage Settlement (NMS) reached in February 2012. In particular, the company will (i) provide at least $500 million in borrower relief in the next three years, including by reducing the principal on mortgages for borrowers who are at risk of default, reducing mortgage interest rates for current but underwater borrowers, and other relief; (ii) pay $50 million to redress its alleged servicing violations; and (iii) implement certain changes in its servicing and foreclosure activities to meet new servicing standards. The agreement is subject to court approval, after which compliance with its terms, including the servicing standards, will be overseen by the NMS Monitor, Joseph A. Smith Jr.
FDIC Restricts Bank's Card Businesses Pending BSA Compliance Enhancements
On June 5, the FDIC and a Delaware bank entered a consent order that prohibits the bank from entering into any new relationships with third-party prepaid card processors or prepaid card program managers until the FDIC approves a written report from the bank that details the steps taken by the bank to (i) implement new BSA compliance policies and procedures; (ii) improve staff training; (iii) implement controls sufficient to mitigate BSA and safety and soundness risk associated with prepaid card, credit card merchant acquiring, and ACH activities; and (iv) perform a BSA risk assessment. The order similarly restricts the bank’s activities related to credit card merchant acquiring and ACH merchant payment processing. The order does not prohibit the bank from issuing prepaid cards through existing distribution channels under existing contracts with third-parties, but does restrict certain activities related to existing credit card and ACH processing activities. In addition, the bank must (i) retain and designate BSA and OFAC officers; (ii) conduct a suspicious activity reporting look-back review; and (iii) submit periodic progress reports. Finally, the order requires increased board supervision of the bank’s BSA compliance program and mandates the creation of a board-level BSA committee.