InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NCUA approves rule to facilitate credit union access to central liquidity facility
On April 13, the NCUA approved an interim final rule intended to make it easier for credit unions to join the NCUA’s Central Liquidity Facility, a mixed-ownership governing corporation, which can be used as a source of contingency liquidity. The rule now permits credit unions to join the facility as a direct member or through an agency relationship. It also eliminates the waiting period for new members to receive advances and eases collateral requirements.
California Department of Real Estate issues guidance regarding late submission of certain required reports
On April 13, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) issued guidance providing that the DRE will review situations on a case-by-case basis with respect to deadlines for filing certain DRE required reports. Entities that are late in submitting their reports are requested to add a signed explanation as to the delay, if possible. The DRE will work with brokers who miss deadlines due to disruptions resulting from Covid-19.
District court says CARES Act does not provide a private right of action under PPP loan provisions
On April 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against a national bank, ruling that “the CARES Act does not expressly provide a private right of action” and that the bank’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) eligibility restrictions do not violate the Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiffs alleged that the bank prioritized existing lending clients in the PPP and limited access to depository-only customers that did not have a credit card or loan with another financial institution. The plaintiffs argued that the bank had no legal authority under the Act to deny, restrict, or impede access, even though there is no such prohibition in the Act.
The court first determined that the Act contains neither an express nor implied private right of action. Moreover, even if Congress did intend to provide a private right of action, the bank’s alleged conduct “does not run afoul” of the law. While the Act outlines requirements that banks must consider when offering loans to small businesses, it “does not constrain banks such that they are prohibited from considering other information when deciding from whom to accept applications, or in what order to process applications it accepts.” The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Congress waived the “credit elsewhere” requirement with respect to PPP loans. According to the court, “[t]ypically, when an entity applies for an SBA loan, it has to certify that it could not obtain a loan from a different source. . . . In this case, [the bank] has imposed no such requirement on businesses’ eligibility for the PPP.” The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that imposing a temporarily restraining order could disincentivize lenders from participating in the program and reduce small businesses’ access to PPP loans. “[G]iven the competing policy interests, the need to balance the desire to assist the widest swath of small businesses with the need to incentivize lender participation, and the overall fluidity of this epidemic, Congress is better positioned to remedy any defects in the CARES Act, and to pass the supplemental legislation it believes best aimed at ameliorating the effects of the COVID-19 crisis,” the court wrote.
On April 14, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
FINRA adds PPP question to Covid-19 FAQs
On April 13, FINRA updated its FAQs on regulatory relief due to Covid-19 to include an FAQ that addresses Paycheck Protection Program loans. The FAQ answers a question relating to loan forgiveness for registered persons, stating that the loan forgiveness amount will not be considered a “compromise with a creditor” and will not need to be reported on Form U4 for question 14K.
HUD announces multifamily mortgage payment relief
On April 13, HUD announced new measures for FHA-approved multifamily mortgagees regarding the implementation of CARES Act forbearance. The guidance stipulates that servicers must grant multifamily borrowers who experience financial hardships due to Covid-19 and request assistance up to 90 days of forbearance, and may grant this forbearance without receiving direct approval from HUD provided they follow guidance outlined in Mortgagee Letter 2020-09 (covered by InfoBytes here). As required by the CARES Act, all owners and agents of FHA-insured multifamily properties and properties participating in HUD multifamily assisted housing programs must also cease all evictions of tenants for non-payment of rent for 120 days. The guidance also outlines the standard multifamily forbearance protocol, which is intended to streamline processing for borrowers, servicers, and lenders. The protocol stipulates that HUD is (i) “allowing servicers to grant, without HUD approval, up to 30 days of forbearance for borrowers experiencing a financial hardship due to COVID-19 if the borrower was current on their mortgage payments as of February 1, 2020”; (ii) “allowing automatic forbearance extensions from servicers to borrowers for up to two additional 30-day periods, without HUD approval”; and (iii) “encouraging borrowers to enter into repayment plans with renters (residential and commercial) that experience an income reduction or temporary loss of household income but are able to make up the difference over time, without HUD approval.”
States ask Treasury to exempt stimulus payments from garnishment and urge CFPB to “vigorously enforce” FCRA
On April 13, a coalition of state attorneys general and the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection (states) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, calling for immediate action to ensure that stimulus checks issued under the CARES Act to consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic are not subject to garnishment by creditors and debt collectors. While the CARES Act does not “explicitly designate these emergency stimulus payments as exempt from garnishment,” the states claim that a “built-in mechanism” contained within a provision of the CARES Act can rectify the legislative oversight. Specifically, the states point to Section 2201(h), which “authoriz[es] Treasury to issue ‘regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section,’” and ask Treasury to immediately designate the stimulus checks as “‘benefit payments’ exempt from garnishment.”
The same day, another coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger urging the Bureau to rescind an April 1 policy statement directed at consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers (covered by InfoBytes here) that stated the Bureau will take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [(FCRA)] and Regulation V.” According to the states, the policy statement suggests that the Bureau does not plan on enforcing the CARES Act amendment to the FCRA, which requires lenders to report as current any loans subject to Covid-19 forbearance or other accommodation. The Bureau’s decision, the states contend, may discourage consumers from taking advantage of offered forbearances and other accommodations. The states also argue that allowing CRAs to take longer than the FCRA-prescribed 30 days to investigate consumer disputes puts consumers at risk. The states stress that the recent increase in Covid-19 scams has heightened the need for the Bureau to vigorously enforce the FCRA, and that, moreover, the thousands of complaints received by the states, FBI, FTC, and DOJ concerning phishing and other scams designed to gather consumers’ financial information have highlighted identity theft risks. The states emphasize “that even if the CFPB refuses to act. . .we will not hesitate to enforce the FCRA’s deadlines against companies that fail to comply with the law.”
CFPB issues guidance allowing pandemic relief payment distribution with prepaid cards
On April 13, the CFPB issued an Interpretive Rule (IR) addressing the “Treatment of Pandemic Relief Payments Under Regulation E and Application of the Compulsory Use Prohibition.” Pursuant to the CARES Act, many consumers are entitled to pandemic relief payments, generally provided through direct deposit to the consumer’s bank account. When that information is unavailable, or when the consumer does not have a bank account, the IR allows government agencies to provide the economic impact payments via alternative means, including by issuing prepaid account cards. However, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and implementing Regulation E prohibit government agencies from requiring consumers to “establish accounts for receipt of electronic fund transfers with a particular financial institution as a condition of receipt of a government benefit. ” According to the IR, the “compulsory use prohibition” will not apply to prepaid cards and the Covid-19 relief payments will not be classified as government benefits, provided the cards fulfill certain requirements. In order to not be considered “government benefits” the payments must: (i) be to aid consumers impacted by Covid-19; (ii) not be “part of an already-established government benefit program”; (iii) be distributed “on a one-time or otherwise limited basis”; and (iv) not require consumers to apply for the funds.
Treasury opens web portal to distribute CARES Act funds to state, local, and tribal governments
On April 13, the Department of Treasury initiated a web portal to quickly distribute CARES Act funds to eligible state, local, and tribal governments to help them recover expenditures incurred due to the Covid-19 public health emergency. Eligible governments must register through the portal and can expect funds to arrive in designated accounts as quickly as 24 hours afterward. Each state will receive half of its allotted funds in the state’s first disbursement, and the other half prior to April 24. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said of the Treasury’s launch of the web portal, “we have moved with unprecedented speed to get these funds to those who need them a week ahead of schedule.” For additional information, visit the Treasury’s website here.
Rhode Island governor issues executive order on shareholder meetings
On April 10, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo issued an executive order mandating that all shareholder annual and special meetings must be held remotely due to the Covid-19 crisis. The order will remain in effect until May 8, unless renewed, modified, or rescinded.
SEC issues statement regarding requirements for Form 144 paper filings in light of Covid-19
On April 10, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued a statement regarding requirements for Form 144 paper filings in light of Covid-19. For those who submit Forms 144 for the period from and including April 10, 2020, to June 30, 2020, the Division staff will not recommend enforcement action if Forms 144 are submitted via email in lieu of mailing or delivering the paper form to the SEC (as required under Rules 101(b)(4) or 101(c)(6) of Regulation S-T) if the filer or submitter attaches a complete Form 144 as a PDF attachment to an email sent to the SEC. The division also will not recommend enforcement action if the filer or submitter provides a typed form of signature in lieu of the manual signature, provided certain requirements are met.