InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Virginia announces consent judgment against investment firm
On August 24, the Virginia attorney general announced a consent judgment entered on August 16 against a Virginia-based investment company and its managing member (collectively, "defendants") to resolve allegations that they violated Virginia’s consumer finance statutes. The consent judgment settled a lawsuit in which the AG alleged that defendants “made loans to distressed homeowners and charged interest or other compensation greatly exceeding an effective annual interest rate of 12 percent, without being licensed as a consumer finance company or coming within another exemption to Virginia’s usury laws.” According to the AG, the complaint alleged that a representative of the defendant investment company approached a Virginia Beach homeowner facing foreclosure and presented her with an agreement in which the defendants would provide the amount needed to stop the foreclosure in exchange for permission to list and sell the homeowner’s separate Virginia Beach property at an above-market commission rate or, if the sale did not occur, to purchase that property at a significantly below market price. Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendants, among other things are: (i) permanently enjoined from violating specific consumer finance statutes, including by “making any loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase to Virginia consumers”; (ii) required to pay $11,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (iii) required to provide certain restitution and/or forbearance relief to consumers identified by the defendants pursuant to the consent judgment as well as “to any Virginia consumer who comes forward within two (2) years after entry of the Consent Judgment with evidence establishing that he or she received a loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase from [defendants]” during the period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
District Court denies request to set aside $120.2 million judgment in Belizean real estate scheme
On August 24, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a request to set aside a more than $120.2 million judgment against several defaulted defendants involved in an international real estate investment development scheme. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC initiated the action in 2018 against several individuals and corporate entities, along with a Belizean bank, asserting that the defendants violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by advertising and selling parcels of land that were part of a luxury development in Belize through the use of deceptive tactics and claims. In 2019, a settlement was reached with the Belizean bank requiring payment of $23 million in equitable relief, and in 2020, the district court ordered the defaulted defendants to pay over $120.2 million in redress and granted the FTC’s request for permanent injunctions (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
In their motion, the defaulted defendants argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC (which unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement”—covered by InfoBytes here) nullified the judgment. The district court disagreed, stating that the AMG Capital decision does not render his judgments in the case void and that “[i]n its Opinion rendered before the Supreme Court reached its decision, the Court considered the effect that a decision in AMG Capital adverse to the FTC might have, reasoning that: ‘this Court’s findings of fact and determinations as to liability—including contempt of court and violations of the Telemarketing Services Rule []—would not be affected by a decision in AMG.’” Moreover, the court pointed out that immediate denial of the motion is also warranted because the defaulted defendants failed to comply with a local rule requiring submission of a memorandum of law in support of their motion. The court asked, “In failing to do so, they have skirted among other fundamental questions: What authority do they, as defaulted defendants, involved as part of a common enterprise with virtually all other [d]efendants, have to upset a final and valid judgment against them after willfully defaulting?”
SEC settles with company over data breach
On August 16, the SEC announced charges against a London-based educational publishing company for its role in allegedly misleading investors regarding a cyber breach that involved millions of student records and had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures in place. According to the SEC’s order, the company made material misstatements and omissions about a 2018 cyber intrusion that affected millions of rows of data across 13,000 school, district, and university customer accounts in the U.S. According to a 2019 report furnished to the Commission, the company’s risk factor disclosure implied that the company faced the hypothetical risk that a “data privacy incident” “could result in a major data privacy or confidentiality breach” but did not disclose that a data breach involving the company had previously taken place. In response to an inquiry by a media outlet, the company sent a breach notification to its affected customers and issued a previously prepared statement that included misstatements regarding the breach and data involved. The order found that the company failed “to maintain disclosure controls and procedures designed to analyze or assess such incidents for potential disclosure in the company’s filings.” The SEC charged the company with violating, among other things, Rule 13a-15(a) of the Securities Act, which requires every issuer to maintain disclosure controls and procedures, and Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act which requires “every foreign issuer of a security registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act to furnish the Commission with periodic reports containing information that is accurate and not misleading.” The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a civil money penalty of $1 million and provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
SEC takes emergency action against investor fraud scheme
On August 13, the SEC announced it obtained a temporary restraining order through an emergency action filed against an individual and his two entities, which allegedly induced dozens of consumers to invest by falsely claiming that their funds would be used to acquire real estate and to make commercial loans. According to the SEC, the individual misappropriated the vast majority of the investors' funds to pay for his residences, cover credit cards bills, and make student loan payments. The complaint also alleges that the individual hid the fraud from investors by providing investors with false valuations, among other things. The SEC’s complaint alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants enjoining them from future violations, disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, and civil penalties, among other things.
Georgia settles with debt collection company
On August 12, the Georgia Attorney General announced that it entered an assurance of voluntary compliance with a debt collection company resolving allegations that the company committed multiple violations of the FDCPA and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. According to the AG, the company deceived consumers by, among other things: (i) threatening consumers with jailtime if a debt was not paid; (ii) failing to disclose that they were debt collectors; and (iii) failing to provide consumers, within five days after the initial communication, a written notice containing certain information required by law. Under the settlement, the company must cease collections on all Georgia consumer accounts it owns and turn those accounts over to the AG, which represents over $19.8 million in purported consumer debt. In addition, the company must pay $41,500 in penalties and fees, and fully comply with the FDCPA and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act. Finally, if the company violates any provisions of the settlement during a three-year monitoring period, it must immediately pay an additional $41,500 payment to the state.
CFPB takes action against Maryland debt collectors
On August 16, the CFPB entered into a preliminary settlement with a debt collection entity, its subsidiaries, and their owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the FCRA, FDCPA, and the CFPA, resolving a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FCRA and its implementing Regulation V by, among other things, failing to (i) establish or implement reasonable written policies and procedures to ensure accurate reporting to consumer-reporting agencies; (ii) incorporate appropriate guidelines for the handling of indirect disputes in its policies and procedures; (iii) conduct reasonable investigations and review relevant information when handling indirect disputes; and (iv) furnish information about accounts after receiving identity theft reports about such accounts without conducting an investigation into the accuracy of the information. The Bureau separately alleges that the violations of the FCRA and Regulation V constitute violations of the CFPA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts without a reasonable basis to believe that consumers owed those debts. Under the terms of the proposed stipulated final judgment and order, the defendants are required to, among other things: (i) establish, modify, update, and implement policies and procedures on the accuracy of information furnished to consumer reporting agencies; (ii) establish internal controls to identify activities that may compromise the accuracy or integrity of information; (iii) establish an identity theft report review program; and (iv) retain an independent consultant to review the defendant’s furnishing of consumer information and debt collection activities in addition to provide recommendations. The proposed order also imposes a civil money penalty of $850,000.
Fed announces flood insurance violations
On August 12, the Federal Reserve Board announced enforcement actions against two state banks. In the first consent order issued against a Massachusetts-based bank, the Fed alleged that the bank violated the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The order assesses a $71,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations.
In the second consent order issued against a New York-based bank, the Fed alleged that the bank violated the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The order assesses a $11,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations.
SEC says digital asset trading company violated the Exchange Act
On August 9, the SEC announced charges against a digital asset trading company for operating an unregistered online digital asset exchange in connection with its operation of a trading platform that facilitated buying and selling of digital asset securities. According to the SEC’s order, the company operated a web-based trading platform that facilitated buying and selling digital assets, which included digital assets that were investment contracts and therefore securities. The order finds that, “[n]otwithstanding its operation of the [Company] Trading Platform, [the company] did not register as a national securities exchange nor did it operate pursuant to an exemption from registration at any time, and its failure to do so was a violation of Section 5 of the Exchange Act,” despite operating as a Rule 3b-16(a) system under the Exchange Act. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a disgorgement fee of $8,484,313, a prejudgment interest fee of $403,995, and a civil penalty of $1.5 million, for a total of $10,388,309. The order also provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Exchange Act and establishes a fair fund for the benefit of victims.
FTC sues company for violating FTC Act
On August 11, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against a Georgia-based technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly charging small business customers hundreds of millions of dollars in mystery fees associated with fuel cards. The FTC’s administrative complaint alleges that the defendants violated the FTC Act by falsely promising companies that they would save money, be protected from unauthorized charges, and have no set-up, transaction, or membership fees with the fuel cards. However, according to the defendant’s records, companies generally have not achieved the advertised fuel savings through utilization of the cards. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things: (i) falsely represented that the company’s fuel cards contained fraud controls to prevent unauthorized purchases; (ii) “billed consumers for fees, interest, and finance charges, and programs for which consumers have not provided express, informed consent”; and (iii) charged fees for set-up, transactions, or membership after claiming that they did not.
In December 2019, the FTC filed suit in federal court against the defendants, alleging that they charged hundreds of millions of dollars in hidden and undisclosed fees to customers after falsely claiming customers would save on fuel costs. However, in April, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement” (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC, “[i]n an effort to ensure that the agency’s case against the fuel card marketer is still able to recover money lost by consumers, the FTC has filed a new administrative complaint which alleges that [the defendants] violated section 5 of the FTC Act.”
District Court grants summary judgment against student loan debt-relief defendant
On August 10, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment against an individual defendant in an action by the CFPB 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).
Responding to the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant, the court, among other things, held that undisputed evidence showed that the individual defendant “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. The court also found that the individual defendant violated the TSR by mispresenting material aspects of the debt relief services and violated the CFPA by making false statements to induce consumers to pay advance fees for these services. Furthermore, the court rejected the individual defendant’s arguments involving boilerplate evidentiary objections and Fifth Amendment and statute of limitation claims. Because the individual defendant “was heavily involved in and controlled much of the [student loan debt relief businesses’] activities,” the court found that he acted recklessly and granted the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, finding that injunctive relief, restitution, and a civil money penalty are appropriate remedies.