InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC and SBA warn companies about misleading PPP marketing
On May 14, the FTC and SBA sent letters to two companies for allegedly misleading small businesses seeking Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. The first letter was sent to a California-based media company, which owns the web address “sba.com.” The letter claims the website suggests an “an affiliation or relationship with the SBA and approved PPP lenders” and encourages customers to apply for PPP loans through the site. The second letter, sent to a Utah-based company, asserts the company and its affiliate lead generators may be violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. Among other things, the FTC notes that one of the company’s affiliate lead generators advertises itself as an SBA loan packager for a $495 fee, even though the SBA prohibits lead generators from charging fees to PPP loan applicants. Both letters instruct the recipients to remove all deceptive claims and advertisements and remediate any harm that may have been caused. The letters require the companies to notify the FTC within 48 hours of the actions taken in response.
SBA issues IFR extending PPP Safe Harbor
The Small Business Administration (SBA) recently issued an interim final rule (IFR) to supplement the CARES Act and extend the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) safe harbor for repayment from May 7 to May 14. Borrowers who received a PPP loan prior to April 24 but determined that the funds were “obtained based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the required certification standard” will be deemed by the SBA to have made the borrower certification on a loan application in good faith if they repay the loans in full by May 14. Additional guidance on the safe harbor extension is forthcoming. (The SBA first announced the repayment extension last week in updated Frequently Asked Questions, covered by InfoBytes here.) Due to the safe harbor extension, the IFR also extends the deadline to May 22 for PPP lenders to file yet-to-be released Form 1502 in order to receive their lender processing fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SBA stated that PPP lenders must disburse each loan and submit SBA Form 1502 within 20 days of loan approval. The IFR takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register, with comments due within 30 days.
SBA, Treasury won’t audit PPP loans beneath $2 million
On May 13, the Small Business Administration (SBA) in consultation with the Treasury Department updated the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to provide additional borrower guidance. Borrowers that submit PPP applications must certify, in good faith, that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” FAQ #46 establishes a safe harbor that “[a]ny borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.” According to SBA, this safe harbor is appropriate because borrowers with loans of less than $2 million are generally less likely to have access to other forms of liquidity than borrowers who are able to obtain larger loans. Also, the safe harbor will provide more certainty to PPP borrowers with more limited resources, and it will allow SBA to use its resources efficiently to prioritize reviews of larger loans, where compliance audits may yield higher returns.
SBA’s guidance noted, however, that borrowers with loans greater than the $2 million threshold “may still have an adequate basis for making the required good-faith certification, based on their individual circumstances in light of the language of the certification and SBA guidance.” Those loans will be subject to review by the SBA, and if the SBA determines a borrower lacks an adequate basis for certification, the borrower will not be eligible for loan forgiveness and must pay the outstanding balance. If a borrower repays a loan after receiving notification from the SBA, the SBA states that it will not pursue administrative enforcement or make referrals to other agencies based on its determination concerning the certification of necessity.
Additionally, in FAQ #47, the SBA extended until May 18 the PPP safe harbor repayment deadline for borrowers who received PPP loans but had access to other sources of capital. Borrowers who applied for a PPP loan and repay the loan in full by May 18 will be deemed by the SBA to have made the required certification regarding necessity of the loan request in good faith. The extension is intended to provide borrowers an opportunity to consider FAQ #46. The SBA’s interim final rule providing the safe harbor (covered by InfoBytes here) will be revised to reflect the extension.
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.
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.
CFPB issues 2019 fair lending report to Congress
On April 30, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress, which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2019 to fulfill its fair lending mandate. According to the report, in 2019 the Bureau continued to focus on promoting fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, highlighting several fair lending priorities that continued from years past such as mortgage lending, student loans, and small business lending. The Bureau also highlighted three policies released over the last year to promote innovation and to facilitate compliance: the No-Action Letter Policy, the Trial Disclosure Program Policy, and the Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the report discussed the Bureau’s efforts in encouraging consumer-friendly innovation to expand access to unbanked and underbanked consumers and communities. These include: (i) using alternative data in credit underwriting to expand credit access responsibly; (ii) issuing a request for information on the use of “Tech Sprints” (covered by InfoBytes here) to encourage regulatory innovation and stakeholder collaboration; (iii) continuing to enforce fair lending laws such as ECOA and HMDA, including reaching a settlement with one of the largest HDMA reporters nationwide to resolve HMDA reporting allegations; and (iv) engaging with stakeholders to discuss fair lending compliance, issues related to credit access, and policy decisions. The report also provides information related to supervision, enforcement, rulemaking, and education efforts.
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.