InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal regulators discuss Covid-19 responses during Senate hearing
On May 12, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing entitled “Oversight of the Financial Regulators,” which primarily focused on responses by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), FDIC, OCC, and NCUA to the Covid-19 pandemic. Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) opened the hearing by thanking the regulators for crafting regulatory responses to assist financial institutions in meeting the needs of affected borrowers, and encouraged the regulators to find ways to provide flexibility for financial institutions that lend to households and businesses. Crapo also stressed the importance of making sure the Fed’s Main Street Lending Program (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and the Municipal Liquidity Facility (coved by InfoBytes here) are “up and running quickly,” and expressed continued concerns that the “inclusion of population thresholds for cities and states that were not a part of the CARES Act will still impede access to smaller and rural communities.” Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued, however, that the regulators’ relief measures have not favored consumers.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Randal K. Quarles provided an update on the Fed’s Covid-19 regulatory and supervisory efforts. When asked during the hearing when the Main Street Lending Program would be operational, he declined to give an exact date but emphasized it is the Fed’s “top priority,” and that he did not anticipate it will take months. When questioned about whether the Fed is taking measures to “ensure businesses are getting equitable access to the [lending] facilities,” Quarles stated that the Fed relies on banks to do the underwriting, but will supervise the banks to make sure the underwriting is done “safely and fairly.”
OCC Comptroller Joseph M. Otting also discussed a range of actions taken by the agency in response to the pandemic and outlined additional OCC priorities and objectives, including its proposal to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Senator Menendez (D-NJ) asked whether the OCC should revisit the proposed CRA rewrite, citing the inability of some small businesses—particularly minority-owned businesses—to obtain relief under the Payroll Protection Program (PPP). In response, Otting argued that the rewrite (done in conjunction with the FDIC—see InfoBytes CRA coverage here) should actually be accelerated “because it will drive more dollars into low and moderate income communities” impacted by the pandemic. However, several Democrats on the Committee disagreed and called for a separate hearing to discuss the CRA proposal.
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams also addressed actions undertaken to maintain stability and to provide flexibility to both banks and consumers. Among other things, McWilliams stated that banks should rely on borrowers’ statements certifying that their economic need is legitimate when making PPP loans. “Our instruction to banks has been to make sure these loans are not being traditionally underwritten [and] to take a look at the certification that the borrower is providing,” McWilliams said during the hearing. She also emphasized that all banks must comply with fair lending laws when making PPP loans, whether or not specific guidance has been issued.
NCUA Chairman Rodney E. Hood also outlined agency measures in response to the pandemic. Among other things, Hood noted that the NCUA has issued guidance to support credit union industry participation in the PPP and approved several regulatory changes concerning the classification of PPP loans for regulatory capital and commercial underwriting purposes.
The following day, the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions also held a roundtable with the federal regulators to discuss Covid-19 responses.
FDIC’s proposal addresses deposit insurance assessment effects of PPP, PPPLF, and MMLF participation
On May 12, the FDIC announced a proposed rulemaking that addresses the deposit insurance assessment effects of participating in the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Federal Reserve Board’s Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility (PPPLF) and Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF). The FDIC notes that because PPP loans are fully guaranteed by the SBA, and PPPLF and MMLF transactions are conducted with the Board on a non-recourse basis, the proposed rule ensures that participating banks are not subjected to “significantly higher deposit insurance assessments.”
According to FDIC’s Financial Institution Letter, FIL-56-2020, the proposed rule would remove the effect of participating in the programs (i) on various risk measures used to calculate a bank’s assessment rate; (ii) on certain adjustments to a bank’s assessment rate; (iii) by providing an offset to a bank’s assessment for the increase to its assessment base attributable to participation in the MMLF and PPPLF; and (iv) when classifying banks as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes. The FDIC is proposing an effective date by June 30 with an application date of April 1 to ensure the changes cover assessments starting in the second quarter of 2020.
Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted for seven days after publication in the Federal Register.
District court grants preliminary injunction against PPP Ineligibility Rule
On May 11, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Ineligibility Rule, concluding that the rule—which excludes “banks, political lobbying firms, certain private clubs with restrictive admissions practices, and sexually oriented businesses that present entertainment or sell products of a ‘prurient’ (but not unlawful) nature” from PPP loan eligibility—contravenes the purpose of the PPP. According to the opinion, a group of businesses that “provide lawful ‘clothed, semi-nude, and/or nude performance entertainment’” filed suit against the SBA seeking a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the PPP Ineligibility Rule, after they were prevented from obtaining the loans and/or participating in the PPP because their businesses were deemed to be “of a ‘prurient sexual nature.’” The SBA argued that Congress could not have intended to support businesses that the SBA has historically denied financing, saying it would lead to “absurd results.” The court rejected this argument, stating, “these are no ordinary times, and the PPP is no ordinary legislation.” The court reasoned that because the intent of the CARES Act, which houses the PPP, is to protect workers in need, it is “not absurd to conclude” that in order to support workers from all businesses, Congress would temporarily permit SBA financial assistance to previously excluded business types. Finding that the Rule is in conflict with the Congressional purpose of the PPP, the court granted the preliminary injunction barring the SBA from enforcing the Rule.
SBA, Treasury extend PPP certification safe harbor
During the week ending May 8, the Small Business Administration (SBA) in consultation with the Treasury Department (Treasury) updated the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to, among other things, provide guidance on the PPP safe harbor and counting a small business’s employees for the 500 or fewer employee requirement. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SBA will deem that the borrower certification on a loan application was made in good faith if a recipient of a PPP loan prior to April 24 determines it may have other forms of liquidity and repays the loan by the safe harbor deadline of May 7. SBA extended the safe harbor for repayment from May 7 to May 14. The FAQs also provide that a small business must include foreign affiliate employees when calculating how many people it employs for purposes of determining if the business meets the PPP eligibility requirement of 500 or fewer employees. Additionally, the updated FAQs also explain that a PPP loan recipient that makes a good faith attempt, in writing, to rehire a furloughed employee, will not be penalized by a reduction in loan forgiveness it receives if that employee rejects the offer. New FAQs also cover how to calculate maximum PPP loan amounts for seasonal employers and whether nonprofit hospitals qualify for PPP loans.
24 state attorneys general urge changes to the PPP
On May 6, twenty-four state attorneys general sent congressional leadership a letter urging changes to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to ensure that funds are distributed fairly, equitably and efficiently. The letter asserts that while the PPP has helped many small businesses already by “rapidly inject[ing] the initial $349 billion in funding into our struggling economy,” larger, more “well-connected” companies were better able to take advantage of the process and the program “has suffered from a notable lack of transparency, technical savvy, and functionality.” Specifically, the letter argues that due to insufficient guidance to lenders, the first round of funding “left far too many small businesses empty handed.” In order to ensure any additional funding allocated to the program effectively supports small businesses, the letter requests certain issues be addressed by Congress, including, among other things, (i) prohibiting applications from publicly traded companies with access to alternative funding sources; (ii) ensuring lenders do not favor existing, larger, and more lucrative customers over other applicants; (iii) allocating a portion of future funding exclusively for minority-owned small businesses; (iv) improving communication and technical support; (v) adding flexibility to the loan forgiveness requirements to account for the variety of circumstances facing small businesses; and (vi) providing more direct guidance to lenders.
California small business sues nonbank lender over PPP prioritization
On May 6, a small California business filed a proposed class action against a nonbank lender, accusing the lender of a “scheme to enrich itself at the expense of small businesses in connection with the federal government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP),” in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges she submitted an application for less than $25,000 to the lender on March 28 and received an email response that same day acknowledging receipt of her application. On March 29, the plaintiff received another email from the lender, which asked her to gather documentation and stated that she would receive an invitation to a secure portal in the next “48 business hours.” According to the complaint, however, by April 13, the plaintiff had not yet received a link to the portal, but the lender had sent an email acknowledging the delay. The complaint states that the plaintiff “informed and believes, and on that basis alleges” that the lender “chose to prioritize higher loans that would yield higher fees,” and did not disclose to the public that “it was prioritizing loans not on a first come, first served basis, but on criteria relating to the value of the loan.” The plaintiff alleges she would have chosen a different lender had she known the lender was going to prioritize larger loans. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
Fed, OCC, FDIC respond to Crapo’s PPP support letter
In April, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, received replies to an April 8 letter he sent to the Federal Reserve (Fed), OCC, NCUA, and FDIC, which urged the regulators to “strengthen the Paycheck Protection Program” (PPP) and requested that they provide recommendations to assist the market as well as lenders and borrowers affected by Covid-19.
The Fed highlighted how it has strengthened the PPP, stating it: (i) eased “leverage requirements for community banks”; (ii) “published rules delaying the impact on regulatory capital of new loan-loss accounting standards”; (iii) created a new lending facility for the PPP; (iv) jointly with the FDIC, and OCC, “issued an interim final rule to clarify that a zero percent risk weight applies to PPP loans and to neutralize the regulatory capital effects of participating in the new PPP lending facility, helping preserve the flow of credit to small businesses”; (v) “encouraged institutions to use their capital buffers for their primary purpose: to support safe and sound lending throughout the credit cycle”; and (vi) provided suggestions for “congressional action to improve regulatory flexibility.”
The OCC’s replied that it has taken the following actions, among others, to support the PPP: (i) “encouraged banks to work with customers affected by” the pandemic; (ii) “encouraged banks to use the [Fed’s] discount window”; (iii) encouraged use of capital and liquidity buffers by banks; (iv) issued a joint statement with five regulatory agencies promoting “responsible small-dollar loans to consumers and small businesses”; (v) jointly issued interim final rules regarding regulatory capital and deferral of real estate appraisals; and (vi) coordinated listening sessions on the PPP.
The FDIC stated it is working to provide “necessary flexibility to both banks and their customers.” The agency’s response also enumerated several other actions it has taken to promote the PPP, including that it: (i) created a PPP information page on their website; (ii) shared bank questions and concerns with the Small Business Administration (SBA); (iii) created bank frequently asked questions; (iv) issued a financial institution letter referencing resources from the SBA and the Treasury; (v) continues to “provid[e]…resources to our examination teams so they” can better answer questions from regulated institutions; and (vi) jointly with other regulatory agencies, issued guidance on current expected credit losses methodology and community bank leverage ratio. The FDIC also reported possible supplementary and tier 1 leverage ratio changes.
Idaho establishes Idaho Rebound cash grants for small businesses
On May 5, the Idaho governor issued an executive order establishing Idaho Rebound cash grants for Idaho-domiciled small businesses. Among other things, businesses eligible for the grants must have had between 1 and 50 employees as of February 15, 2020; have suffered a qualified business interruption; and not have received a Paycheck Protection Program loan or an Economic Injury Disaster Loan Emergency Advance, or received less than $10,000 in such funds.
Regulators modify liquidity coverage rule for MMM and PPP participants
On May 5, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC announced an interim final rule that modifies the agencies’ Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) rule to support participation in the Federal Reserve's Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility and the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here). The LCR rule requires large banks to hold a certain amount of “high-quality liquid assets” in order to meet their short-term liquidity needs. The interim final rule modifies the agencies’ capital rules to neutralize the effects of participation. The rule is effective immediately and comments will be accepted within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Lawsuit claims Treasury, SBA PPP loan eligibility guidance is contrary to CARES Act
On May 4, a group of businesses filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the U.S. Department of Treasury (defendants) challenging guidance issued by the defendants in April that they claim “directly contradicts and changes the CARES Act.” The guidance, issued in the form of FAQs #31 and 37 (covered by InfoBytes here and here), addresses whether businesses owned by large companies or private companies with adequate sources of liquidity are eligible for a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan. Among other things, the guidance instructs borrowers to consider other sources of liquidity other than PPP funds, and states that while lenders may rely on the borrower certification of need, a borrower must still certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary.
The plaintiffs argue that the guidance is contrary to the CARES Act because it imposes a requirement that borrowers must be unable to get credit elsewhere before they can qualify, and suggests that businesses may be ineligible for PPP loans if they qualify for “other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.” The consequences of the guidance, they argue, is that they may now be required to repay PPP funds with money they either do not have or must borrow since they could have obtained “credit elsewhere,” thus damaging their financial stability. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from enforcing the guidance, as well as a declaration that the guidance is contrary to law and must be withdrawn.