InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC issues Covid-19 related general license and FAQs
On June 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued three general licenses, Iran GL N, Syria GL 21, and Venezuela GL 39, (referred to as the “COVID-19-related GLs”) to expand upon Treasury’s existing authorizations for Covid-19-related transactions and activities. As previously covered by InfoBytes, OFAC published a Fact Sheet providing guidance to ensure humanitarian-related trade and assistance reaches at-risk populations through legitimate and transparent channels during the global Covid-19 pandemic. The recently released COVID-19-related GLs build on longstanding humanitarian exemptions, exceptions, and authorizations to cover Covid-19-related transactions and activities, which include, among others, “transactions and activities involving the delivery of face masks, ventilators and oxygen tanks, vaccines and the production of vaccines, COVID-19 tests, air filtration systems, and COVID-19-related field hospitals.” These GLs are also part of the Biden Administration’s efforts designated in National Security Memorandum – 1, which directs certain government agencies to review existing U.S. and “multilateral financial and economic sanctions to evaluate whether they are unduly hindering responses to the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide.” According to OFAC, these new authorizations will continue to support the effort by governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private sector actors in providing Covid-19-related assistance to people in certain sanctioned jurisdictions. OFAC also published six FAQs related to the COVID-19-related GLs (see 906, 907, 908, 909, 910, and 911).
CFPB reports low delinquency rates despite Covid-19
On June 16, the CFPB released findings on delinquency trends for auto loans, student loans, mortgages, and credit cards. The post—the first in a series that will document consumer credit trend outcomes during the Covid-19 pandemic—examines how trends have evolved since June 2020. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August, the Bureau issued a report examining trends through June 2020 in delinquency rates, payment assistance, credit access, and account balance measures, which showed that generally there was an overall decrease in delinquency rates since the start of the pandemic among auto loans, first-lien mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. According to the Bureau’s recent findings, as of March 2021, new delinquencies remain below pre-pandemic levels, despite a slight rise since July 2020 in auto loan and credit card delinquencies. These levels, the Bureau noted, may be attributed to federal, state, and local policy interventions that provide payment assistance and income support to consumers. Researchers also found that overall trends in new delinquencies were consistent across credit score groups, although “trends were more pronounced for consumers with lower credit scores.” Additionally, the Bureau reported that while stimulus payments and increasing vaccination rates may boost economic activity and keep delinquency rates down, accounts that would have been delinquent in the absence of payment assistance may begin to be reported as delinquent as assistance programs begin to end. Later this year, the Bureau will release a post in this series discussing payment assistance trends since June 2020.
CFPB publishes rulemaking agenda
On June 11, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s spring 2021 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information released represents regulatory matters the Bureau is “currently pursuing under interim leadership pending the appointment and confirmation of a permanent Director.” Any changes made by the new permanent director will be reflected in the fall 2021 rulemaking agenda. Additionally, the Bureau indicates that it plans to continue to focus resources on actions addressing the adverse impacts to consumers due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and highlighted an interim final rule issued in April that addresses certain debt collector conduct associated with the CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium order (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau will also continue to take concrete steps toward furthering the agency’s “commitment to promoting racial and economic equity.”
Key rulemaking initiatives include:
- Small Business Rulemaking. Last September, the Bureau released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) outline of proposals under consideration, convened an SBREFA panel last October, and released the panel’s final report last December (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The Bureau reports that it anticipates releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Section 1071 regulations this September to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws as well as enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.”
- Consumer Access to Financial Records. The Bureau notes that it is considering rulemaking to implement section 1033 of Dodd-Frank in order to address the availability of electronic consumer financial account data. The Bureau is currently reviewing comments received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) issued last fall regarding consumer data access (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau published an ANPR in March 2019 seeking feedback on the unique features of PACE financing and the general implications of regulating PACE financing under TILA. The Bureau notes that it continues “to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers’ financial outcomes.”
- Automated Valuation Models (AVM). Interagency rulemaking is currently being pursued by the Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations for AVM quality control standards as required by Dodd-Frank amendments to FIRREA. The standards are designed to, among other things, “ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, [ ] avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews,” and account for any other appropriate factors. An NPRM is anticipated for December.
- Amendments to Regulation Z to Facilitate LIBOR Transition. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an NPRM in June 2020 to amend Regulation Z to address the sunset of LIBOR, and to facilitate creditors’ transition away from using LIBOR as an index for variable-rate consumer products. A final rule is expected in January 2022.
- Reviewing Existing Regulations. The Bureau notes in its announcement that while it will conduct an assessment of a rule implementing HMDA (most of which took effect January 2018), it will no longer pursue two HMDA proposed rulemakings previously listed in earlier agendas related to the reporting of HMDA data points and public disclosure of HMDA data. Additionally, the Bureau states that it finished a review of Regulation Z rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 and plans to publish any resulting changes in the fall 2021 agenda.
The Bureau’s announcement also highlights several completed rulemaking items, including (i) a final rule that formally extended the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage final rule to October 1, 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here); (ii) proposed amendments to the mortgage servicing early intervention and loss mitigation-related provisions under RESPA/Regulation X (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) (the Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule before June 30, when the federal foreclosure moratoria are set to expire); and (iii) a proposed rule (covered by InfoBytes here), which would extend the effective date of two final debt collection rules to allow affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic (the Bureau plans to issue a final rule in June on whether, and for how long, it will extend the effective date once it reviews comments).
CFPB to address racial equality
On June 2, CFPB acting Director Dave Uejio published a blog post highlighting Bureau efforts to address issues regarding racial injustice and the long-term economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on consumers. In January, as previously covered by InfoBytes, Uejio released a statement announcing his immediate priorities for the Bureau as: (i) relief for consumers facing hardship due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the related economic crisis; and (ii) racial equity. In the recent blog post, Uejio acknowledged that the “pandemic has created economic and financial insecurity for millions of Americans,” and has disproportionally impacted communities of color in terms of health and the related financial crises. Uejio also pointed out that, as acting director, his top priority is to “take bold and swift action to address issues of pervasive racial injustice and the long-term economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumers” and noted that it is his “intent that the CFPB use all of [its] tools and authorities to protect and fight for fairness and equity.”
Fed winding down Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility
On June 2, the Federal Reserve Board announced plans to wind down the portfolio of the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), a temporary emergency lending facility that was established and provided by the Treasury Department under the CARES Act, which closed in December 2020. The SMCCF (covered by InfoBytes here) played a role in restoring market functioning, supported the availability of credit for certain employers, and assisted employment numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the announcement, sales from the SMCCF portfolio will be “gradual and orderly,” aiming to decrease the likelihood of “any adverse impact on market functioning by taking into account daily liquidity and trading conditions for exchange traded funds and corporate bonds.” The announcement also indicates that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which manages the operations of the SMCCF, will release more details before sales begin.
SBA updates PPP FAQs
On June 8, the SBA updated its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) frequently asked questions to clarify certain conditions related to whether a nonprofit organization that has received approval of an application for tax exemption from the Puerto Rico Departamento de Hacienda qualifies as a “nonprofit organization” under section 7(a)(36)(A)(vii) of the Small Business Act. The FAQ discusses exemption criteria for certain nonprofit organizations, and specifies that SBA will treat a nonprofit organization that has obtained approval of its application for tax exemption from the Puerto Rico Departamento de Hacienda as meeting the definition of “nonprofit organization” under section 7(a)(36)(A)(vii) of the Small Business Act “if the nonprofit organization reasonably determines, in a written record maintained by the nonprofit organization, that it would be an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (without regard to the notification requirement in section 508(a) of the Internal Revenue Code) and is therefore within a category of organizations that are eligible to be exempt from taxation under section 501(a), regardless of whether the nonprofit organization has applied for recognition from the Internal Revenue Service.” However, these nonprofit organizations must meet all other applicable eligibility criteria in order to receive a PPP loan and loan forgiveness, SBA emphasizes.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SBA stopped accepting new PPP loan guarantee applications on June 1.
6th Circuit: SBA can’t prioritize race or sex for Covid relief
On May 27, the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Small Business Administration (SBA) cannot allocate limited Covid-19 relief funds based on the race and sex of the applicants. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the SBA’s practice of giving priority to certain Restaurant Revitalization Fund applicants (i.e. restaurants owned and controlled at least 51 percent by women, veterans, or the “socially and economically disadvantaged”) during the first 21 days violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause by impermissibly granting priority based on race and gender classifications. The plaintiff applied for funding on the first day the application period opened, but because the restaurant he co-owned 50/50 with his Hispanic wife was not owned 51 percent by a woman or a veteran, he faced an added evidentiary burden to show he qualified as “socially and economically disadvantaged” to get priority status. The plaintiff requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prohibit the SBA from granting funds unless it did so in a manner that ignored race and sex. The district court denied the request, as well as subsequent requests made by the plaintiff, ruling that he was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims.
On appeal, the majority of the Sixth Circuit disagreed, concluding that the district court should have issued an injunction pending appeal since the SBA “failed to justify its discriminatory policy.” According to the majority, the SBA “injected explicit racial and ethnic preferences into the priority process” by “presume[ing] certain applicants are socially disadvantaged based solely on their race or ethnicity.” Additionally, the majority stated that the “added evidentiary burden faced by white men and other non-presumptively disadvantaged groups stands in marked contrast with lenient evidentiary standards set by the American Rescue Plan Act,” and pointed out that “broad statistical disparities cited by the government are not nearly enough” to suggest intentional discrimination. Because “an effort to alleviate the effects of societal discrimination is not a compelling interest,” the majority stated, “the government’s policy is not permissible.” The majority also rejected the SBA’s argument that the issue was moot because the priority period for the program has ended, commenting that race and sex preferences continue to factor in whether an applicant receives funds before the program’s money runs out.
The dissenting judge argued, however, that the “Constitution permits the government to use race-based classifications to remediate past discrimination,” and added that the plaintiff has not demonstrated that he will be irreparably harmed by the way the program’s funds are distributed.
VA updates loan repayment relief for Covid-19 borrowers
On June 3, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued changes updating Circular 26-21-07 to address loan repayment relief for borrowers affected by Covid-19. The circular provides servicers with information regarding home retention options and foreclosure alternatives to use to assist borrowers affected by the pandemic. The guidance stems from the extended duration of the pandemic and developments in the VA’s program. According to the changes, “servicers should not require a borrower to make a lump sum payment to bring the loan current.” Additionally, the VA will allow “for Disaster Extend Modifications to extend the loan’s original maturity date for up to 18 months, in cases where the loan is modified not later than the date that is 18 months after the date on which the COVID-19 national emergency ends.” The circular is effective until April 1, 2022.
D.C Circuit keeps CDC eviction moratorium in place
On June 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a group of realtors’ motion to lift an administrative stay placed by a district court on its own order, in which it had previously ruled that the CDC’s nationwide eviction moratorium issued in response to the Covid-19 pandemic exceeded the agency’s statutory authority with the temporary ban. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court vacated the CDC’s eviction moratorium and rejected the federal government’s request that the decision be narrowed, ruling that “when ‘regulations are unlawful, the ordinary result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioner is proscribed.’” However, shortly after the federal government filed a notice of appeal, the district court stayed its own summary judgment order pending appeal.
In denying the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay pending appeal, the appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in staying its own ruling, and noted that the federal government has a good chance of winning its appeal. “[W]hile of course not resolving the ultimate merits of the legal question, we conclude that [the federal government] has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” the appellate court wrote, adding, among other things, that “Congress has expressly recognized that the agency had the authority to issue its narrowly crafted moratorium.” Moreover, the D.C. Circuit determined that the plaintiffs failed to show the likelihood of irreparable injury should the stay remain in place.
Bank enjoined from administering prepaid debit cards for EDD benefits
On June 1, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction enjoining a national bank from certain actions in administering prepaid debit cards to class member recipients of Employment Development Department unemployment or disability benefits. Under the terms of the preliminary injunction, the bank is prohibited from “considering the results of [its] initial automated fraud claims filter” when investigating or resolving any alleged unauthorized transaction error claims, or from closing claims or denying credit before conducting an investigation, pursuant to EFTA and Regulation E. Class members are also entitled to a written explanation of investigative findings before the bank can deny or close a claim. Additionally, the bank is, among other things, (i) prohibited from considering the results of its claim fraud filter as justification for freezing the card account of any class member; (ii) required to reopen any claims that were closed or denied “based solely” on results of its claim fraud filter if those claims have not already been paid or previously reopened and investigated; (iii) required to provide written notice to class members with blocked accounts explaining that their accounts will be unblocked if they authenticate their identity; and (iv) establish a process for handing class member claims.