InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New NYDFS proposal to implement Commercial Finance Disclosure Law
On September 14, NYDFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under New York’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) related to disclosure requirements for certain providers of commercial financing transactions in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFDL was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February to expand coverage and delay the effective date. (See S5470-B, as amended by S898.) Under the CFDL, providers of commercial financing, which include persons and entities who solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party, are required to give consumer-style loan disclosures to potential recipients when a specific offering of finance is extended for certain commercial transactions of $2.5 million or less. Last December, NYDFS announced that providers’ compliance obligations under the CFDL will not take effect until the necessary implementing regulations are issued and effective (covered by InfoBytes here).
The newest proposed regulations (see Assessment of Public Comments for the Revised Proposed New Part 600 to 23 NYCRR) introduce several revisions and clarifications following the consideration of comments received on proposed regulations published last October (covered by InfoBytes here). Updates include:
- A new section stating that a “transaction is subject to the CFDL if one of the parties is principally directed or managed from New York, or the provider negotiated the commercial financing from a location in New York.”
- A new section requiring notice be sent to a recipient if a change is made to the servicing of a commercial financing agreement.
- An revised definition of “recipient” to now “include entities subject to common control if all such recipients receive the single offer of commercial financing simultaneously.”
- Clarifying language stating that the “requirements pertaining to the statement of a rate of finance charge or a financing amount, as that term appears in Section 810 of the CFDL, shall be in effect only upon the quotation of a specific commercial financing offer.”
- Provisions allowing providers to perform calculations based upon either a 30-day month/360-day year or a 365-day year, with the acknowledgment that different methods of computation may lead to slightly different results.
- An amendment stating that “a ‘provider is not required to provide the disclosures required by the CFDL when the finance charge of an existing financing is effectively increased due to the incurrence, by the recipient, of avoidable fees and charges.’”
- An acknowledgement of comments asking that 23 NYCRR Part 600 be identical to California’s disclosure requirements (covered by InfoBytes here) “or as consistent as possible.” In response, NYDFS said that while it generally agrees, and has consulted with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), the regulations cannot be identical because the CFDL differs from the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the Department cannot anticipate any future revisions DFPI may make to its proposed regulations.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due October 31.
DFPI proposal would consider ISAs as student loans
On September 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt new regulations and amend current regulations implementing the Student Loan Servicing Act (Act), which provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by DFPI (formerly the Department of Business Oversight) (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed rulemaking also outlines new clarifications to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law, which was enacted in 2020 (effective January 1, 2021) to provide new requirements for student loan servicers (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
In its initial statement of reasons for the new regulations, DFPI noted that since the Act took effect five years ago, additional private student loan financing products have emerged, such as income share agreements and installment contracts, which use terminology and documentation distinct from traditional loans. DFPI commented that while lenders and servicers of these products have asserted that their products do not fall within the definition of a student loan and are not subject to the statute’s requirements, these education financing products serve the same purpose as traditional loans—“help pay the cost of a student’s higher education"—and are therefore student loans subject to the Act, and servicers of these products must be licensed and comply with all applicable laws. The proposed rulemaking, among other things, (i) defines the term “education financing products,” which now fall under the purview of the Act, along with other related terms; (ii) amends various license application requirements, including amended financial requirements for startup applicants; (iii) outlines provisions related to non-licensee (e.g., servicers that do not require a license but that are subject to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law) filing requirements; and (iv) specifies that servicers of all education financing products must submit annual aggregate student loan servicing reports to DFPI. The proposed rulemaking also removes certain unnecessary requirements based on DFPI’s experience in administering the Act to reduce the regulatory burden.
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking are due October 28.
California broadens DFPI commissioner’s enforcement authority
On August 26, the California governor signed AB 2433, which broadens DFPI’s unlawful practices oversight and enforcement power over any person currently engaging in or having engaged in the past, in unlicensed activity. Among other things, the bill amends the DFPI commissioner’s enforcement of various laws, such as the California Commodity Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law (CFL), Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Student Loan Servicing Act, and California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. The bill establishes that the commissioner may act “upon having reasonable grounds to believe that a broker-dealer or investment advisor has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill also permits the DFPI to “act upon having cause to believe that a licensee or other person has violated the CFL.” The CFL provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders, brokers, and specified program administrators by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a citation to the licensee or person and to assess an administrative fine, as specified, among other things. The CFL also regulates certain persons acting under the PACE program, including PACE solicitors and PACE solicitor agents. The new bill establishes that “if the commissioner, upon inspection, examination, or investigation, has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or PACE solicitor agent is violating any provision of that law, or rule or order thereunder, the commissioner or their designee is required to exhaust a specified procedure before bringing an action.” Additionally, bill specifies that certain “procedures apply when the commissioner has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or solicitor agent has violated any provision of that law or rule or order thereunder.” The bill also mentions the Student Loan Servicing Act, which “provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the commissioner,” and establishes that the commissioner is required, upon having reasonable grounds after investigation to believe that a licensee is conducting business in an unsafe or injurious manner, to direct, by written order, the discontinuance of the unsafe or injurious practices. This bill specifies “that these procedures also apply if, after investigation, the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill is effective immediately.
D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking says certain Bitcoin activity subject to money transmission laws
Recently, the District of Columbia’s Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) issued a bulletin informing industry participants engaging in or planning to engage in money transmission involving Bitcoin or other virtual currency “used as a medium of exchange, method of payment or store of value in the District” that such transactions require a money transmitter license. Specifically, the bulletin noted that DISB considers Bitcoin to be money for money transmission purposes. Relying on United States v. Larry Dean Harmon, DISB stated that while “money transmission is vaguely defined in DC Code,” the court’s decision “relied on the common use of the term “money” to mean a “medium of exchange, method of payment or store of value,” and that therefore Bitcoin functions like money. The bulletin also noted that the court found that while the D.C. Money Transmitters Act of 2000 specifically defined certain banking and financial terms, it did not define “money,” thereby reasoning “that the goal of the MTA is to regulate all kinds of transfers of funds, whether fiat currency, virtual currency or cryptocurrencies.”
Additionally, DISB noted that “engaging in the business of ‘money transmission’” includes “transactions where entities receive for transmission, store, and/or take custody, of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies from consumers via kiosks (aka BTMs), mobile applications and/or online transactions.” However, transactions where entities propose to sell and buy Bitcoin and other virtual currencies from consumers in exchange for cash payments via kiosks and/or online transactions are not considered to be money transmission. Entities that plan to engage in covered activities are subject to money transmission licensing requirements, DISB stated, explaining that whether an entity is required to obtain a money transmitter license depends on the individual facts and circumstances of each applicant, which include but are not limited to an applicant’s proposed business plan and flow of funds, as well as an applicant’s business model.
Connecticut fines collection agency $100,000 and revokes license
On August 18, the Connecticut Banking Commissioner revoked a consumer collection agency’s license after finding that it failed to provide requested information during an examination. Following an examination in May, the commissioner issued a “Notice of Automatic Suspension, Notice of Intent to Revoke Consumer Collection Agency License, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing” to the collection agency warning that if it failed to request a hearing within 14 days “the allegations would be deemed admitted.” According to the order, due to the collection agency’s failure to respond to the notices, the commissioner was “unable to determine that the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of Respondent are such to warrant belief that the business will be operated soundly and efficiently.” The collection agency also allegedly failed to maintain a surety bond that ran in accordance with its consumer collection agency license. The commissioner revoked the collection agency’s license to operate in the state, ordered it to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-17(e) of the 2022 Supplement to the General Statutes which requires it to make its records available, and imposed a $100,000 civil penalty.
DFPI orders crypto lender to cease offering unqualified securities
On August 8, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a desist and refrain order to a now-bankrupt cryptocurrency lender and its CEO after determining that the company allegedly made material misrepresentations and omissions in the offering of crypto interest accounts, particularly with respect to understating the risks of depositing digital assets with the company. According to DFPI, since June 2018, the company funded part of its lending operations and proprietary trading through the sale of unqualified securities in the form of digital asset interest-earning accounts known as “Earn Rewards” accounts. DFPI found that the company allegedly offered these accounts to consumers without first qualifying them as securities in compliance with California’s Corporate Securities Law. Additionally, DFPI contended that the company failed to fully disclose material aspects of its business and Earn Rewards accounts, and claimed that the CEO failed to disclose material aspects of the company’s business, made materially misleading statements, or omitted material facts necessary to ensure the statements were not misleading. In June, the company suspended the fulfillment of customer withdrawals from its crypto interest accounts and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on July 13.
DFPI ordered the company and CEO to desist and refrain from further offers and sale of securities in California, including but not limited to the Earn Rewards accounts, unless such sale has been qualified under California law or unless the security or transaction is exempt from qualification. The company and CEO were also both ordered to desist and refrain from offering securities in California by means of untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact.
DFPI enters into settlement with unlicensed point-of-sale lender
On August 3, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced a settlement with a Florida-based point-of-sale lender for allegedly engaging in the business of finance lending in California without obtaining a license. According to the settlement, after conducting an inquiry, DFPI determined that the company violated California Financial Code section 22100(a) “by making loans through the operation of buy now, pay later’ point-of-sale products” without obtaining a proper license. The company voluntarily agreed to the consent order, and, among other things: (i) agreed to desist and refrain from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker in California unless/until it obtains a California Financing Law (CFL) license authorizing the company to conduct business as a finance lender or broker; (ii) must pay an administrative penalty of $2,500; and (iii) refund fees totaling $13,065. The company also agreed that it will only make loans, deferred payment products, and extensions of credit to California residents under the authority of a CFL license and in compliance with the statute.
Minnesota fines debt collector for violating earlier consent order
Recently, the Minnesota Department of Commerce issued a consent order assessing $20,000 in fines to a debt collector accused of violating a 2020 consent order. The state previously entered into a consent order with the debt collector, in which it agreed to cease and desist from violating the FDCPA and state law after it was found to have, among other things, commingled funds and allowed agents to work from unlicensed branch locations. The state later found that the debt collector allegedly continued to violate state and federal law by collecting on payday loans from unlicensed lenders and failing to provide meaningful disclosures on telephone calls or register several of its agents as debt collectors in the state. As a result, the state ordered the debt collector to pay the stayed portion of the 2020 fine ($19,000), as well as a $25,000 civil penalty of which $24,000 is stayed. If the stay has not been lifted by December 31, 2025, the remaining portion of the civil penalty will be vacated provided the debt collector does not commit any further violations.
NYDFS imposes $30 million fine against trading platform for cybersecurity, BSA/AML violations
On August 2, NYDFS announced a consent order imposing a $30 million fine against a trading platform for alleged violations of the Department’s Virtual Currency Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 200), Money Transmitter Regulation (3 NYCRR Part 417), Transaction Monitoring Regulation (3 NYCRR Part 504), Cybersecurity Regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500), and for failing to maintain adequate Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) obligations. According to a Department investigation, the platform’s BSA/AML compliance program contained significant deficiencies, including an inadequate transaction monitoring system. Among other things, the platform failed to timely transition its manual system to an automated transaction monitoring system, which was unacceptable for a program of its size, customer profiles, and transaction volumes, and did not devote sufficient resources to adequately address risks. The Department also found “critical failures” in the platform’s cybersecurity program, which failed to address operational risks, and that specific policies within the program did not fully comply with several provisions of the Department’s cybersecurity and virtual currency regulations. According to the press release, pursuant to NYDFS’s Transaction Monitoring Regulation and Cybersecurity Regulation, companies should only file a Certificate of Compliance with the Department if their programs are fully compliant with the applicable regulation.
In light of the program’s deficiencies, NYDFS stated that the platform’s 2019 certifications to the Department attesting to compliance with these regulations should not have been made and thus violated the law. The platform also “failed to comply with the Supervisory Agreement by failing to promptly notify the Department of (a) actual or material potential actions, proceedings, or similar process that were or may have been instituted against [the platform] or any affiliated entity by any regulatory body or governmental agency; and (b) of the receipt by [the platform], or any affiliated entity, of any subpoena from any regulatory body or governmental agency in which [the platform], or any affiliated entity, was the target of the investigation.” NYDFS determined that in addition to the penalty, the platform will be required to retain an independent consultant that will perform a comprehensive evaluation of its compliance with the Department’s regulations and the platform’s remediation efforts with respect to the identified deficiencies and violations.
A Buckley Special Alert is forthcoming.
Connecticut issues money transmitter advisory
Recently, the Connecticut Department of Banking (Department) issued an advisory on money transmission, providing general guidance on what types of activities and entities must be licensed. According to the advisory, transmission can occur whenever “a person takes possession or control of monetary value belonging to another person” and holds it for a period of time, or transmits it to a third party. The Department noted that “[t]he increased use of technology to enable immediate payment mechanisms, as well as the explosion of virtual currency, has caused significant disruption to traditional money transmission systems.” The Department also acknowledged that many consumers do “not realize or understand the regulatory landscape that applies” to using money transmitters. Among other things, the advisory listed entities that traditionally provide transmission services like bill payers, payroll processors, and issuers and sellers of prepaid cards and money orders. The advisory also discussed Connecticut’s license application and penalties for unlicensed transmission, explaining that licensure goes through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and involves disclosing pertinent information concerning all “control persons.”