Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On December 11, the CFPB released its fall 2020 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information details the regulatory matters that the Bureau “expect[s] to focus on” between November 2020 and November 2021. The announcement notes that the Bureau will also continue to monitor the need for further actions related to the ongoing Covid-19 emergency. In addition to the rulemaking activities already completed by the Bureau this fall, the agenda highlights other regulatory activities planned, including:
- Debt Collection. The Bureau notes that it expects to issue a final rule in December 2020 addressing, among other things, disclosures related to validation notices and time-barred debt (proposal covered by a Buckley Special Alert here).
- LIBOR Transition. The Bureau notes that it anticipates publishing the final rulemaking (proposal covered by InfoBytes here) on the LIBOR transition later than the original January 2021 target identified in the Unified Agenda, due to the November 30 announcement by UK regulatory authorities that they are considering extending the availability of US$ LIBOR for legacy loan contracts until June 2023, instead of the end of 2021.
- FIRREA. The Bureau notes that, together with the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA, it will continue to develop a proposed rule to implement the automated valuation model (AVM) amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning appraisals.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau notes that it intends to issue an NPRM in spring 2021 to consider amendments to the Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules to address actions required of servicers working with borrowers affected by natural disasters or other emergencies. The Bureau notes that comments to the interim final rule issued in June 2020, amending aspects of the mortgage servicing rules to address the exigencies of Covid-19 (covered by InfoBytes here), suggest that the rules may need additional updates to address natural disasters or other emergencies.
- HMDA. The Bureau states that two rulemakings are planned, including (i) a proposed rule that follows up on a May 2019 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, which sought information on the costs and benefits of reporting certain data points under HMDA and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans (covered by InfoBytes here); and (ii) a proposed rule addressing the public disclosure of HMDA data.
On February 21, the DOJ and SEC announced that one of the nation’s largest banks agreed to a settlement including a $3 billion monetary penalty to resolve investigations regarding their incentive compensation sales program. (See the DOJ’s Statement of Facts here). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC also recently issued charges against five of the bank’s former executives, and announced settlements with the former CEO and operating committee members for allegedly failing to adequately ensure that the bank’s sales incentive compensation plans operated according to policy.
The SEC alleged in its Cease and Desist order that the bank violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC’s press release states that in addition to agreeing to cease and desist from committing any future violations of the antifraud provisions, the bank agreed to a civil penalty of $500 million, which the SEC will return to harmed investors.
The bank also settled the DOJ’s civil claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. According to the settlement, the bank accepted responsibility, cooperated in the resulting investigations, and has taken “extensive remedial measures.” In addition, the DOJ’s press release states that it entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the bank regarding the bank’s sales incentive compensation practices.
On December 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a TILA case brought by a consumer against his mortgage lender, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the provisions of FIRREA that require claims involving a bank that is in receivership to be presented to the FDIC before the borrower files suit. In 2009 the consumer filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against his lender for rescission of his mortgage loan under TILA. The consumer claimed that the lender’s notice of right to cancel was defective when the loan was signed, resulting in an extended rescission period under TILA, but his suit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Once again, in 2012, the district court dismissed the consumer’s TILA suit after finding that the consumer had not exhausted his administrative remedies with the FDIC before filing suit.
On appeal, the three-judge panel rejected the consumer’s claim that his lender was not placed into receivership until after his loan was sold, and therefore he did not have to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. The panel subscribed to the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the exhaustion requirement, stating that “even where an asset never passes through the FDIC’s receivership estate, the FDIC should assess the claim first.” According to the opinion, the FIRREA requirement that the consumer exhaust his remedies with the FDIC applied to this action because the panel determined that (i) the consumer’s claim was “susceptible of resolution under the FIRREA claims process”; (ii) the consumer’s claim was related to an act or omission of the lender; and (iii) the FDIC, which “was not required to have possessed the loan before determining a claim” had been appointed as receiver for that lender, stripping the appellate court of subject matter jurisdiction until after the FDIC determined his claim.
On April 12, the DOJ announced that a multinational corporation will pay $1.5 billion in a settlement resolving claims brought under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) that a financial services subsidiary of the corporation misrepresented the quality of loans it originated in connection with the marketing and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). According to the DOJ, between 2005 and 2007, the majority of the mortgage loans sold by the subsidiary for inclusion in RMBS did not comply with the quality representations made about the loans. Specifically, the loan analysts allegedly approved mortgage loans that did not meet criteria outlined in the company’s underwriting guidelines, as they would receive additional compensation based on the number of loans they approved. The DOJ asserts that there were inadequate resources and authority for the subsidiary’s quality control department, resulting in deficiencies in risk management and fraud controls. Additionally, if an investment bank were to reject a loan due to defects in the loan file, the DOJ alleges the subsidiary would attempt to find a new purchaser, without disclosing the previous rejection or identifying the alleged defects. The corporation does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, but agreed to pay a $1.5 billion civil money penalty to resolve the matter.
On November 8, the DOJ announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against an international bank and several of its U.S. affiliates for allegedly defrauding investors in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) from 2006 through 2007. Specifically, the DOJ alleges the bank violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) based on mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and other misconduct by “knowingly and repeatedly” making false and fraudulent representations to investors about the quality of the loans backing 40 RMBS deals. The DOJ is seeking an unspecified amount of civil money penalties under five FIRREA claims.
In response to the filing, the international bank issued a statement indicating that it intends to “contest the complaint vigorously,” arguing, among other things, that the risks of RMBS investments were clearly disclosed to investors and that the bank suffered its own losses from investing in the RMBS referred to in the DOJ complaint.
On October 16, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York announced that the U.S. branch of a Japanese bank and several of its affiliates would settle claims related to the bank’s marketing, sale, and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. In particular, the U.S. Attorney alleged that the bank, among other things, (i) misrepresented the effectiveness of its due diligence loan review procedures and the quality of the RMBS to investors; (ii) overruled due diligence warnings and allowed the securitization of loans that failed to comply with underwriting guidelines without investors’ knowledge; and (iii) continued to work with originators that “had ‘systemic’ underwriting issues and employed ‘questionable’ origination practices.” The bank disputes the allegations and does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, but agreed to pay a $480 million civil money penalty pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act to resolve the matter.
On October 9, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado announced that an international bank would settle claims related to the bank’s packaging, securitizing, issuing, marketing and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. In particular, the U.S. alleged that (i) the bank’s due diligence loan review procedures disclosed to investors were not, in certain instances, followed; (ii) bank managers overruled due diligence vendors’ warnings regarding the quality of certain loans included in securitizations; and (iii) the bank misrepresented the quality of the RMBS to investors. The bank disputes the allegations and does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing, but agreed to pay a $765 million civil money penalty pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act to resolve the matter.
International bank agrees to pay $4.9 billion in civil penalties to settle allegations of RMBS misconduct
On August 14, the DOJ announced a settlement with an international bank to resolve federal civil claims of misconduct in the bank’s underwriting and issuing of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to investors in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. According to the press release, the bank allegedly violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act by, among other things, failing to accurately disclose the risk of the RMBS investments when selling the securities. Under the terms of the settlement, the bank has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $4.9 billion. The bank disputes the allegations and does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.
International bank agrees to pay $2 billion in civil penalties to settle allegations of RMBS misconduct
On March 29, the DOJ announced a $2 billion settlement with an international bank and several of its affiliates to resolve allegations of misrepresentation in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities, in violation of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. The bank agreed to pay the civil monetary penalty in exchange for dismissal of a civil action filed in 2016. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 36 securitizations by the bank between 2005 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents, the bank allegedly misled investors about the quality of the mortgage loans backing the deals. Separately, two former bank executives agreed to pay a combined $2 million to resolve claims brought against them individually. The bank did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.
VA Extends Foreclosure Moratorium Following Hurricane Disasters; Federal Agencies Issue Appraisal Exceptions; Freddie Mac Extends Temporary Selling Requirements Related to Wildfire Areas
Hurricane Relief. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is extending the foreclosure moratorium on properties affected by the recent hurricanes. For disaster areas impacted by Harvey, Irma, and Maria, the VA is updating the original circulars to change the 90-day moratorium to 180 days (a complete list of change notices can be found here).
On October 24, the FDIC, Federal Reserve, National Credit Union Administration, and the OCC issued a temporary exception to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) appraisal requirements for areas affected by the recent hurricanes. More specifically, the FDIC's Financial institution Letter states that the agency will not require financial institutions to obtain appraisals for affected transactions, if (i) the properties involved are located in areas declared major disasters; (ii) there are binding commitments to fund the transactions within 36 months of the date the areas were declared major disasters; and (iii) the value of the real properties support the institutions' decisions to enter into the transactions.
California Wildfire Relief. On October 25, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2017-24 extending the temporary selling requirements applied to hurricane disaster areas to eligible disaster areas impacted by the California wildfires. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Freddie Mac is requiring servicers to suspend foreclosure sales and eviction activities and has agreed to reimburse sellers for certain property inspections for property located in eligible disaster areas.
Here is a complete list of InfoBytes disaster relief coverage.
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “How the new administration sets the tone for 2021” at the American Conference Institute Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Forum on Fintech & Emerging Payment Systems
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk to discuss UDAAP in consumer finance at an American Bar Association webinar
- Jeffrey P. Naimon to discuss "What to expect: The new administration and regulatory changes" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “The future of fair lending” at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Steven R. vonBerg to discuss "LO comp challenges" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Major litigation" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss “The False Claims Act today” at the Federal Bar Association Qui Tam Section Roundtable