Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On June 25, the FDIC announced PR-58-2021, which outlines a modified approach to implementing its rule requiring insured depository institutions (IDIs) with $100 billion or more in total assets (CIDIs) to submit resolution plans under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Among other things, the modified approach extends the resolution plan’s submission frequency to a three-year cycle and lays out new details regarding the FDIC’s emphasis on engagement with firms. The new approach “exempts filers from other content requirements that have been less useful or are obtainable through other supervisory channels.” In addition, on a case-by-case basis, the FDIC plans to “expressly exempt certain content requirements based on the FDIC’s evaluation of how useful or material the information would be in planning to resolve the specified CIDI.” Resolution plans will be submitted in two groups. The first group will contain IDIs whose top tier parent company is not regarded as a U.S. global systemically important bank or a category II banking organization. The second group encompass all other IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets. For institutions with less than $100 billion in total assets, the moratorium on submission of IDI plans announced in November 2018 remains in effect.
On May 20, the FDIC filed a motion for summary judgment in response to a challenge brought by eight state attorneys general to the FDIC’s valid-when-made rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC’s final rule clarifies that, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan. The AGs filed a lawsuit last year (covered by InfoBytes here) arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that while the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the FDIA,” it cannot issue regulations that would apply to nonbanks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.”
The FDIC countered that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule, which “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law.” Rather, the FDIC argued that the rule clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority. “The rule, which enjoys widespread support from the banking industry, represents a reasonable interpretation of [the FDIA], and should be upheld under Chevron’s familiar two-step framework,” the FDIC stated. Moreover, the FDIC contended, among other things, that the rule is appropriate because the FDIA does not address at what point in time the validity of a loan’s interest rate should be determined and is “silent” about what effect a loan’s transfer has on the validity of the interest rate. The FDIC also challenged the AGs’ argument that it is improperly trying to regulate non-banks, pointing out that the rule “regulates the conduct and rights of banks when they sell, assign, or transfer loans” and that “any indirect effects the rule has on non-banks do[es] not place the rule outside the agency’s authority.”
5th Circuit: District courts lack jurisdiction over claims arising from FDIC enforcement proceedings
On March 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that federal district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising out of certain FDIC enforcement proceedings. According to the opinion, the FDIC brought two enforcement actions against the bank and its directors (plaintiffs), alleging violations of various banking laws and regulations, which resulted in civil money penalties and cease-and-desist orders. The plaintiffs petitioned the 5th Circuit for review. While the first appeal was pending, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging the FDIC committed constitutional violations during the enforcement actions. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the FDIC (i) targeted the bank due to the bank president’s age and denied it equal protection; and (ii) violated due process by preventing the plaintiffs from offering certain evidence and preventing the president’s ability to talk with his counsel at certain times. These allegations were raised and rejected during the FDIC’s second enforcement proceeding. The FDIC moved to dismiss the action for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the statutory review process precludes district court jurisdiction over actions arising from enforcement proceedings. The district court agreed and dismissed the action without prejudice, indicating that the bank could assert its claims in the district court on direct review of the agency’s final order. The bank appealed.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit noted that the language in the statute “virtually compels” it to concede that Congress intended to preclude district court jurisdiction over claims against the FDIC arising from enforcement proceedings. The appellate court then addressed whether the claims raised by the plaintiffs were the type of claims Congress intended to be reviewed within the statutory scheme. The appellate court determined that the Federal Deposit Insurance Act allows for “meaningful judicial review,” by authorizing review of challenges to a final agency order by a federal circuit court. Moreover, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that its claims are “wholly collateral” to the administrative order because they did not challenge the merits of the order but rather, the claims “arise directly from alleged irregularities in the agency enforcement proceedings.” Lastly, the court found that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims do not fall outside of the agency’s expertise. Based on the foregoing, the court found that the district court correctly dismissed the action.
On September 12, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and request for comments on the treatment of certain institutions’ reciprocal deposits to implement Section 202 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA). According to the accompanying Financial Institution Letter, FIL-47-2018, Section 202 of EGRRCPA amends Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to except a capped amount of reciprocal brokered deposits from treatment as brokered deposits for certain insured depository institutions. Under the proposal, well-capitalized and well-rated institutions are not required to treat reciprocal deposits as brokered deposits up to the lesser of 20 percent of their respective total liabilities or $5 billion. Additionally, institutions that are not well capitalized or well rated also may exclude reciprocal deposits from their brokered deposits by maintaining reciprocal deposits at or below a special cap equal to the average amount of their reciprocal deposits held at quarter-end during the last four quarters preceding the quarter that the institution fell below well capitalized or well rated. Comments are due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a national bank’s motion to dismiss or strike an FDIC complaint seeking $1.12 billion in deposit insurance payments. In January 2017, the FDIC filed a complaint against the national bank for $542 million based on the bank’s alleged failure to pay sufficient mandatory assessments under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) for the second quarter of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2014. In April 2017, the FDIC filed an amended complaint to add a claim of unjust enrichment and allege that the national bank owes an additional $583 million for underpayments predating the second quarter of 2013. In denying the bank’s motion, the court concluded that (i) the FDIC could plead alternative theories of liability at this stage and therefore could allege a claim for unjust enrichment even when an adequate legal remedy is available under the FDIA; (ii) the FDIC adequately pleaded a claim for unjust enrichment; and (iii) it was premature to determine if the FDIC’s FDIA and unjust enrichment claims are time-barred.
On March 6, the House passed H.R. 2226, the “Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act,” amending TILA and expanding the safe harbor provisions provided to qualified residential mortgages held in portfolio by banks with less than $10 billion in assets. Under the bill, a mortgage lender would not be subject to civil liability for violating specified ability-to-repay requirements if, among other things, the loan was originated and held continuously in portfolio by a covered institution and complies with certain limitations and requirements related to prepayment penalties and points and fees..
On the same day, the House also passed H.R. 4725, the “Community Bank Reporting Relief Act,” to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to reduce the regulatory reporting burden on community banks. Specifically, federal banking agencies would be required to issue regulations allowing qualified depository institutions with less than $5 billion in assets to submit abbreviated call reports (consolidated reports of condition and income) every other quarter rather than submitting full call reports every quarter.
Finally, by a vote of 264-143, the House passed H.R. 4607, the “Comprehensive Regulatory Review Act,” a measure to amend the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996’s regulatory review process. Among other things, the bill requires federal financial regulators to perform a comprehensive review at least every seven years, instead of every ten years as currently required, to identify regulations that may be tailored to limit burdens on insured depository institutions.
- Daniel R. Alonso to moderate an interactive roundtable at the Latin Lawyer and GIR Connect: Anti-Corruption & Investigations Conference
- APPROVED Checkpoint Webcast: You have license renewal questions, we have answers
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “Fintech trends” at the BIHC Network Elevating Black Excellence Regional Summit
- Jeffrey P. Naimon to discuss "Truth in lending” at the American Bar Association National Institute on Consumer Financial Services Basics
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss anti-money-laundering at FELABAN Spanish-language webinar “Perspective for banks: LAFT, FINCEN, OFAC, Cryptocurrency”
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss "What’s new in BSA/AML compliance?" at the Institute of International Bankers Regulatory Compliance Seminar
- Marshall T. Bell and John R. Coleman to speak at 2021 AFSA Annual Meeting
- Jon David D. Langlois to discuss "Regulatory update: What you need to know under the new boss; It won’t be the same as the old boss" at the IMN Residential Mortgage Service Rights Forum (East)
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss internal investigations at the Institute of Internal Auditors of Argentina Spanish-language webinar
- Benjamin B. Klubes to discuss “Creating a Fantastic Workplace Culture”
- John R. Coleman and Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss “Consumer financial services government enforcement actions – The CFPB and beyond” at the Government Investigations & Civil Litigation Institute Annual Meeting
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Consumer financial services" at the Practising Law Institute Banking Law Institute
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “Regulators always ring twice: Responding to a government request” at ALM Legalweek