Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • CFPB proposes delaying effective date for recent debt collection rules

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On April 7, the CFPB proposed to extend the effective date of two recent debt collection rules to allow affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) delays the effective date by 60 days of the two final rules issued under the FDCPA, which were scheduled to take effect on November 30 but are now proposed to take effect January 29, 2022. The proposed delay would give stakeholders affected by the pandemic more time to examine and implement the rules. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the first debt collection rule, issued in October 2020, addressed debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The second debt collection rule, issued in December 2020, clarified the information debt collectors must provide to consumers at the outset of collection communications and provided a model validation notice containing such information (covered by InfoBytes here).

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB Debt Collection Covid-19

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB urges servicers to stave off foreclosure wave

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On April 1, the CFPB urged mortgage servicers “to take all necessary steps to prevent a wave of avoidable foreclosures this fall.” Citing to the millions of homeowners currently in forbearance due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bureau’s compliance bulletin warns servicers that consumers will need assistance when pandemic-related federal emergency mortgage protections begin to expire later this year. The Bureau notes that it “will closely monitor how servicers engage with borrowers, respond to borrower requests, and process applications for loss mitigation,” and “will consider a servicer’s overall effectiveness in helping consumers when using its discretion to address compliance issues that arise.” According to the Bureau, industry data suggests that almost 1.7 million borrowers will exit forbearance programs starting in September, many of whom will be a year or more behind on mortgage payments. The Bureau cautions servicers to take proactive measures to prevent avoidable foreclosures, including by (i) contacting borrowers before the end of the forbearance period; (ii) working with borrowers to ensure they obtain all necessary information; (iii) addressing language access and maintaining compliance with ECOA and other applicable laws; (iv) evaluating income fairly when determining loss mitigation options; (v) handling inquiries promptly; and (vi) preventing avoidable foreclosures through compliance with foreclosure restrictions under Regulation X and other federal and state restrictions.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB Compliance Mortgages Mortgage Servicing Foreclosure Forbearance

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB rolls back last year’s Covid-19 flexibilities

    Federal Issues

    On March 31, the CFPB rescinded, effective April 1, the following policy statements, which provided temporary regulatory flexibility measures to help financial institutions work with consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic:

    • A March 26, 2020, statement addressing the Bureau’s commitment to taking into account staffing and related resource challenges facing financial institutions related to supervision and enforcement activities.
    • A March 26, 2020, statement postponing quarterly HMDA reporting requirements. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
    • A March 26, 2020, statement postponing annual data submission requirements related to credit card and prepaid accounts required under TILA, Regulation Z and Regulation E. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
    • An April 1, 2020, statement on credit reporting agencies and furnishers’ credit reporting obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bureau notes that the rescission “leaves intact the section entitled “Furnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19” which articulates the CFPB’s support for furnishers’ voluntary efforts to provide payment relief and that the CFPB does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflect the payment relief measures they are employing.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
    • An April 27, 2020, statement affirming that the Bureau would not take supervisory or enforcement action against land developers subject to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and Regulation J for delays in filing financial statements and annual reports of activity. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
    • A May 13, 2020, statement providing supervision and enforcement flexibility for creditors to resolve billing errors during the pandemic. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
    • A June 3, 2020, statement providing temporary flexibility for credit card issuers regarding electronic provision of certain disclosures during the Covid-19 pandemic in accordance with the E-Sign Act and Regulation Z. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)

    The rescission also withdraws the Bureau as a signatory to the April 7, 2020, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (covered by InfoBytes here), and the April 14, 2020, Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus (covered by InfoBytes here).

    Additionally, the Bureau issued Bulletin 2021-01 announcing changes to how it communicates supervisory expectations to institutions. Bulletin 2021-01 replaces Bulletin 2018-01 (covered by InfoBytes here), which previously created two categories of findings conveying supervisory expectations: Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs) and Supervisory Recommendations (SRs). Under the revised Bulletin, the Bureau notes that examiners “will continue to rely on [MRAs] to convey supervisory expectations” but will no longer issue formal written SRs, as the agency believes that MRAs will more effectively convey its supervisory expectations. The Bulletin further states that “Bureau examiners may issue MRAs with or without a related supervisory finding that a supervised entity has violated a Federal consumer financial law.”

    Federal Issues CFPB Covid-19 Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Data Collection / Aggregation Mortgages HMDA Credit Cards Prepaid Cards TILA Examination Supervision Consumer Finance

    Share page with AddThis
  • Fed formalizes stance on supervisory guidance

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 31, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, an October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the 2018 Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.” The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and mirrors final rules issued by the CFPB, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Reserve Supervision Examination Enforcement

    Share page with AddThis
  • FinCEN seeks comments on beneficial ownership reporting

    Financial Crimes

    On April 1, FinCEN issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comments on a range of issues related to the implementation of the beneficial ownership information requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CTA is included within the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2021, which was enacted in January as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Among other things, the ANPRM requests comments on reporting procedures and standards for entities to submit information to FinCEN about their beneficial owners, as well as input on FinCEN’s implementation of related CTA provisions “that govern FinCEN’s maintenance and disclosure of beneficial ownership information subject to appropriate protocols.” According to FinCEN, the CTA amended the Bank Secrecy Act “to require corporations, limited liability companies, and similar entities to report certain information about their beneficial owners (the individual natural persons who ultimately own or control the companies).” The CTA also requires FinCEN to develop a secure, non-public database to house collected beneficial ownership information, and authorizes FinCEN to disclose beneficial ownership information to several categories of recipients, including federal law enforcement. Moreover, FinCEN is required to revise existing financial institution customer due diligence regulations concerning beneficial ownership to incorporate the new direct reporting of beneficial ownership information.

    Comments on the ANPRM should be submitted by May 5.

    Financial Crimes FinCEN Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Of Interest to Non-US Persons Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 Anti-Money Laundering Bank Secrecy Act Beneficial Ownership

    Share page with AddThis
  • FFIEC releases 2021 HMDA reporting guide

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 30, the FDIC issued FIL-21-2021 announcing the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s issuance of the 2021 edition of the “Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting It Right!” The guide applies to HMDA data collected in 2021 that will be reported to supervisory agencies by March 1, 2022, and includes (i) a summary of responsibilities and requirements; (ii) directions for assembling the necessary tools; and (iii) instructions for reporting HMDA data. According to the announcement, the 2021 edition provides information to assist with HMDA compliance in the event of a merger or acquisition, as well as updates to the appendices that reflect amendments to Regulation C made by a CFPB final rule published last year (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule increased the permanent threshold from 25 to 100 loans starting July 1, 2020, for both depository and nondepository institutions, and also increased the permanent threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from 100 to 200. The latter change, however, will not take effect until January 1, 2022, when the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit expires.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC FFIEC HMDA CFPB Regulation C Mortgages

    Share page with AddThis
  • Prudential regulators exploring how institutions use AI

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 29, the FDIC, Fed, OCC, CFPB, and NCUA issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on financial institutions’ use of artificial intelligence (AI), which may include AI-based tools and models used for (i) fraud prevention to identify unusual transactions for Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering investigations; (ii) personalization of customer services; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) risk management; (v) textual analysis; and (vi) cybersecurity. The RFI also solicits information on challenges financial institutions face in developing, adopting, and managing AI, as well as on appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI when providing services to customers. Additionally, the agencies seek input on whether it would be helpful to provide additional clarification on using AI in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. According to FDIC FIL-20-2021, while the agencies support responsible innovation by financial institutions and believe that new technologies, including AI, have “the potential to augment decision-making and enhance services available to consumers and businesses, . . . identifying and managing risks are key.” Comments on the RFI are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues Artificial Intelligence Federal Reserve FDIC OCC CFPB NCUA Fintech

    Share page with AddThis
  • Treasury issues emergency capital investment program FAQs

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 30, the U.S. Treasury Department issued frequently asked questions to provide timely guidance concerning all aspects of the Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP). The FAQs cover issues regarding:

    • The types of institutions eligible to participate in the ECIP;
    • Submission of an ECIP application and emergency investment lending plan;
    • How Treasury will decide allocation of the available capital among applicants that meet the thresholds for eligibility, including how well an applicant has responded to the needs of communities impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic;
    • Whether an institution can choose to issue preferred stock or subordinated debt in the ECIP; and
    • Compliance and reporting requirements.

    The ECIP was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here), and will provide up to $9 billion in capital directly to Community Development Financial Institutions and minority depository institutions to provide, among other things, “loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority businesses and consumers in low income communities” that may be disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered in InfoBytes, on March 22, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC published an interim final rule (IFR) to facilitate the implementation of the ECIP.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance ECIP OCC Federal Reserve Board FDIC Covid-19

    Share page with AddThis
  • Fed sets resumption of share repurchases, dividends for July

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On March 25, the Federal Reserve Board announced that measures previously instituted to ensure that large banks maintain a high level of capital resilience in light of uncertainty introduced by the Covid-19 pandemic would expire for most banks after June 30. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed’s measures prohibited large banks from making share repurchases and capped dividend payments. The Fed most recently advised that “[i]f a bank remains above all of its minimum risk-based capital requirements in this year’s stress test, the additional restrictions will end after June 30 and it will be subject to the [stress capital buffer]’s normal restrictions.” Banks whose capital levels fall below required levels in the stress tests will remain subject to the restrictions through September 30. Further, banks still below the capital required by the stress test at that time will face even stricter distribution limitations.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Reserve Covid-19 Stress Test

    Share page with AddThis
  • FATF updates virtual assets and service provider guidance

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    In March, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) updated pre-existing guidance on its risk-based approach to virtual assets (VAs) and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). The draft updated guidance revises guidance originally released June 2019, wherein FATF members agreed to regulate and supervise virtual asset financial activities and related service providers (covered by InfoBytes here) and place anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations on VAs and VASPs. According to FATF, the revisions “aim to maintain a level playing field for VASPs, based on the financial services they provide in line with existing standards applicable to financial institutions and other AML/CFT-obliged entities, as well as minimizing the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage between sectors and countries.” The revisions provide updated guidance in six main areas intended to:

    • Clarify VA and VASP definitions to make it clear that these definitions are expansive and that “there should not be a case where a relevant financial asset is not covered by the FATF Standards (either as a VA or as a traditional financial asset)”;
    • Provide guidance on how FATF Standards apply to so-called stablecoins;
    • Provide further guidance on risks and potential risk mitigants for peer-to-peer transactions;
    • Provide updated guidance on VASP licensing and registration requirements;
    • Provide additional guidance for public and private sectors on the implementation of the “travel rule”; and
    • Include principles of information sharing and cooperation among VASP supervisors.

    FATF intends to consult private sector stakeholders before finalizing the revisions, and is separately considering implementing revised FATF Standards on VAs and VASPs—as well as whether further updates are necessary—through a second 12-month review.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FATF Virtual Currency Of Interest to Non-US Persons Anti-Money Laundering Combating the Financing of Terrorism Financial Crimes

    Share page with AddThis

Pages