InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC claims principals misled investors about subprime auto loans
On September 23, the SEC filed a complaint against two former principals of a subprime automobile finance company for allegedly misleading investors about certain subprime auto loans. According to the SEC, the defendants made false and misleading statements and engaged in deceptive conduct concerning the company’s servicing practices in connection with a $100 million offering backed by a pool of subprime auto loans. The SEC alleged that the defendants took measures to artificially inflate the value of the collateral underlying the offering, such as by (i) including poorly-performing and delinquent loans that were disguised to appear to be performing better than they really were; (ii) applying “fake borrower payments” to delinquent loans; and (iii) extending terms on delinquent loans without contacting the borrower to disguise how far behind the borrowers were on payments. Because of these improper practices, the SEC claimed that servicing and performance information provided by the company to investors at the time of the offering and later on was false. The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks permanent injunctions, officer and director bars, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
OFAC reaches multiple settlements with companies that exported goods to Russia and Sudan
On September 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a roughly $1.4 million settlement with a Texas-based supplier of goods and services for the oil and gas industries (a subsidiary of a Netherlands corporation) for allegedly approving contracts that allowed a foreign subsidiary to supply goods to a Russian energy firm blocked under Directive 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13662, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” as implemented by the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, between July 2015 and November 2016, U.S.-senior managers at the company approved five contracts for its foreign subsidiary to supply oil and exploration goods to the blocked energy firm, thus constituting a “prohibited provision of services involving a person determined to be subject to Directive 4 ([the blocked energy firm]), its property, or its interests in property.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that (i) U.S. senior managers knew that their approvals were for contracts to supply goods to a blocked entity; (ii) the company “acted directly contrary to U.S. foreign policy objectives by approving the sale of oil production or exploration equipment to an entity subject to the restrictions of Directive 4”; and (iii) the company should have recognized the risk involved when the contracts were approved.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including, among other things, that the company took meaningful corrective actions upon discovering the alleged violations to ensure sanctions compliance, and cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and entered into tolling agreements.
OFAC separately reached a $160,000 settlement with a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the same Netherlands corporation for its apparent violation of OFAC’s now-repealed Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, three of the subsidiary’s U.S. employees allegedly facilitated the sale and shipment of oilfield equipment intended for delivery to Sudan, which was, at the time of the transaction, an apparent violation.
District Court orders student loan debt-relief defendant to pay $20 million
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a judgment in favor of the CFPB against an individual defendant in an action taken by the Bureau against a lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in 2020 claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products. However, the Bureau alleged that the defendants instead resold or provided the reports to numerous companies, including companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services, and violated both the TSR and CFPA by placing telemarketing sales calls and sending direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, while falsely representing that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and allow borrowers to change their servicer to the Department of Education. Settlements have already been reached with certain defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here).
In August the court granted the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant after determining that undisputed evidence showed that the individual defendant, among other things, “obtained and later used prescreened lists from [a consumer reporting agency] without a permissible purpose” in order to send direct mail solicitations from the businesses that he controlled to consumers on the lists as opposed to firm offers of credit or insurance. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) At the time, the court found that injunctive relief, restitution, and a civil money penalty were appropriate remedies. While the individual defendant objected to the proposed judgment, the court ultimately ordered that the Bureau is entitled to a judgment for monetary relief of over $19 million as redress for fees paid by affected consumers. This restitution is owed jointly and severally with the student loan debt relief company defendants in the amounts imposed in default judgments entered against each of them (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the court determined that the individual defendant “recklessly” violated the CFPA, TSR, and FCRA, warranting a $20 million civil money penalty. The individual defendant is also permanently banned from participating in telemarketing activities or from using or obtaining prescreened consumer reports.
FTC settles with debt collector
On September 27, the FTC announced a settlement with a Georgia-based debt collection company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that they violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things: (i) posing as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, attorneys, mediators, investigators, or process servers when calling consumers to collect debts; (ii) using profane language and threatening consumers with arrest or serious legal consequences if debts were not immediately paid; (iii) threatening to garnish wages, suspend Social Security payments, revoke drivers’ licenses, or lower credit scores; (iv) attempting to collect debts that were either never owed or were no longer owed; (v) unlawfully contacting third parties, such as family members or employers; and (vi) adding unauthorized or impermissible charges or fees to consumers’ debts. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants in September 2020. Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the FTC ordered that the defendants are banned from the debt collection industry, prohibited from misrepresenting that they are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm or whether a consumer owes any kind of debt, and are prohibited from making misleading claims while selling a product or service. The order also requires the defendants to pay more than $266,000 to the Commission. A $3 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.
FDIC releases August enforcement actions
On September 24, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in August. During the month, the FDIC issued eight orders consisting of “one Consent Order, three terminations of Consent Orders, two Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Removal/Prohibition Order, and two Section 19 Orders.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Nebraska-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank “[m]ade, 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 notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral.” The bank also allegedly “[f]ailed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $3,000 civil money penalty.
SEC awards $36 million to whistleblower
On September 24, the SEC announced that it awarded a whistleblower approximately $36 million for providing information and assistance leading to a successful SEC enforcement action, as well as actions by another federal agency. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower voluntarily provided information regarding an illegal scheme to staff at both agencies and met with SEC enforcement staff on multiple occasions. According to the SEC, the SEC's whistleblower program allows individuals who provide critical information to other agencies to be eligible for a related action award if they are also eligible for an award in the underlying SEC action.
The SEC has awarded approximately $1.1 billion to 214 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012.
DFPI fines debt collector $375k in first action under the CCFPL
On September 22, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced its first enforcement action against a California-based debt collector and debt buyer for allegedly violating the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) by threatening to sue consumers and furnishing negative information to a credit bureau without first notifying consumers about the alleged debt—a practice commonly known as “debt parking.” According to DFPI, consumers complained that their credit scores dropped significantly as a result. The respondent also, among other things, allegedly left voicemails that did not disclose the caller’s identity, threatened illegal lawsuits and wage garnishment (even though it never actually commenced any legal proceedings), and failed to notify consumers in writing within 30 days of transmitting negative information to the credit bureau. Under the order, the respondent is required to pay a $375,000 fine and must desist and refrain from unlawful acts or practices associated with the FDCPA, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
Massachusetts securities division settles with broker dealer
On September 15, the Massachusetts Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Securities Division (Division) entered into two consent orders with a broker-dealer firm for alleged failure of supervisory and compliance procedures in violation of the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act. According to one consent order, the firm failed to, among other things: (i) ensure that its agents with Massachusetts customers were registered in Massachusetts; (ii) have adequate policies and procedures in place regarding state-based requirements for supervisors; and (iii) supervise its agents in Massachusetts. The terms of the order require the company, among other things, to cease and desist from future violations of Massachusetts General Laws and Regulations, register its employees, enhance policy and procedures, and pay a $750,000 fine. The second consent order alleged that the firm failed to, among other things: (i) have reasonable policies in place to detect and monitor a broker-dealer agent’s social media accounts; (ii) “reasonably monitor internal communications between and among its registered persons”; and (iii) adequately discipline an employee after gaining knowledge of his personal use of social media in violation of state laws. The order requires the firm to permanently cease and desist from future violations of Massachusetts General Laws and Regulations, employ a third-party consultant to supervise the firm’s practices regarding employee trading and social media usage, conduct an annual compliance review, and pay an administrative fine of $4 million.
SEC sues company for misleading investors
On September 21, the SEC filed a complaint against a Puerto-Rico based company and its two managing members (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico alleging that they offered and sold to retail investors the opportunity to share the profits of a purported Colombian gold mining operation. According to the SEC, the offering, which was unregistered with the Commission, was part of a fraudulent scheme that raised approximately $2.7 million. The complaint also alleges that one of the members and the company authorized advertisements that promised “exorbitant returns on the investment, and provided investors with false and misleading [decks] that misrepresented the status of the mining operations,” while the other member allegedly signed contracts with investors when he had knowledge that the company’s statements to investors were misleading. The SEC’s complaint alleges violations of the registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, a permanent ban prohibiting the defendants’ participation in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities in an unregistered offering, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties.
OCC issues cease and desist order against bank
On September 20, the OCC announced a cease and desist order issued against a bank for alleged “unsafe or unsound practices” related to “technology and operational risk management,” in addition to the bank’s noncompliance with the OCC’s Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards contained in Appendix B to 12 CFR Part 30. Without admitting to or denying the claims, the bank is required by the order to improve information technology and operational risk governance, technology risk assessments, internal controls, and staffing deficiencies. Specifically, the bank must develop an acceptable, written action plan outlining the remedial actions necessary to achieve compliance with the order by addressing the alleged unsafe or unsound practices and noncompliance, which must specify, among other things, a description of the corrective actions, reasonable and well-supported timelines, and those responsible for completing the actions. The order provides that the bank must also establish a Compliance Committee to quarterly submit: (i) “a description of the corrective actions needed to achieve compliance with each Article of the order”; (ii) the specific corrective actions undertaken to comply with each Article of the Order”; and (iii) “the results and status of the corrective actions.”