InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA updates FAQs and clarifies Covid-19 tenant protections
On August 25, FHFA updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assistance options for families impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Additionally, FHFA revised its “Tenant Protections for Enterprise-Backed Rental Properties in Response to COVID-19,” which is intended “to assist households that are unable to pay rent or utilities.” Among other things, the FAQs indicate that renters “living in a property financed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have access to housing counselors with expertise in rental assistance programs and other programs to overcome financial hardships.” FHFA’s “Tenant Protections for Enterprise-Backed Rental Properties in Response to COVID-19,” clarifies and updates information for tenants in rental properties secured by a Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage.
Colorado issues remote work guidance to collection agencies
On August 19, the Colorado attorney general published updated guidance on remotely working for employees of entities regulated by the Consumer Credit Unit. Memorandum HB 22-1410, which was signed by the governor on June 7, amended Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code so that a supervised lender licensee may permit its employees to work from a remote location, so long as the licensee complies with certain requirements. The memorandum also provided that the March 2020 guidance issued by the Consumer Credit Unit Administrator for employees of regulated entities during the COVID-19 pandemic “remains in effect for regulated entities not covered by HB22-1410, including collection agencies, debt management providers, and student loan servicers, and will remain in effect until the last day of the 2023 legislative session of the 74th General Assembly, May 10, 2023.” The memorandum also noted that “due to concerns regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, individuals who work for regulated entities may be required, or wish, to work from home to avoid further spread of the outbreak, even though their homes are not licensed as branches.”
The memorandum also disclosed that the state will not take any administrative, disciplinary, or enforcement actions for individuals working at home in what are technically unlicensed branches as long as certain criteria are met: (i) “The Colorado activity is conducted from the home location of an individual working on behalf of an entity who is licensed, registered, or files notification with the Administrator”; (ii) “The individual is working from home due to a reason connected to the Covid-19 outbreak and has informed the regulated entity in writing”; (iii) “None of the Colorado activity will be conducted in person with members of the public at the home location”; (iv) “Individuals working from home will not advertise, receive official mail directly, or permanently store any books or records at their remote location”; (v) “The Colorado licensee shall at all times exercise reasonable supervision of the licensable activity being performed at the home office and ensure sufficient safeguards to protect consumer information and data security”; and (vi) “The individual ceases conducting the activity from the home location as soon as reasonably possible, consistent with recommendations from the CDC, CDPHE, and applicable state health departments.”
District Court dismisses EFTA claims over prepaid debit card fraud
On August 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a putative class action alleging violations of the EFTA and state privacy and consumer protection laws brought against a national bank on behalf of consumers who were issued prepaid debit cards providing pandemic unemployment benefits. The named plaintiff—a self-employed individual who did not qualify for state unemployment insurance but who was eligible to receive temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits—alleged that he lost nearly $15,000 when an unauthorized user fraudulently used a prepaid debit card containing PUA funds that were intended for him. The court dismissed the class claims with respect to the EFTA and Regulation E, finding that the Covid-19 pandemic was a “qualified disaster” under applicable law and regulations (i.e. PUA payments were “qualified disaster relief payments”), and that as such, the payments satisfied the CFPB’s official interpretation of Regulation E and were excluded from the definition of a “prepaid account.” The court further explained that while relevant CFPB regulations define an “account” to include a prepaid account, Regulation E excludes “any ‘account that is directly or indirectly established through a third party and loaded only with qualified disaster relief payments.’” Because the prepaid debit card in question was established through a third party and was loaded only with PUA funds, it did not meet the definition of a “prepaid account” and therefore fell outside the EFTA’s definition of a covered account. The court also disagreed with the plaintiff’s contention that PUA payments were authorized by Congress in the CARES Act due to the public health emergency rather than a disaster.
Biden signs bills providing 10-year SOL on PPP and EIDL fraud
On August 5, President Biden signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Bank Fraud Enforcement Harmonization Act (see H.R. 7352) and the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan Fraud Statute of Limitations Act (see H.R. 7334). H.R. 7352 provides a 10-year statute of limitations for fraud by borrowers under the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program, while H.R. 7334 establishes a 10-year statute of limitations for fraud by borrowers under the SBA’s Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan programs.
FSB highlights crypto threats to global financial system
On July 11, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) outlined challenges and vulnerabilities facing the global financial system in a letter sent to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors. While recognizing that markets have seemingly coped with “evolving economic conditions and high volatility in an orderly manner” and that so far “[n]o major financial institution has shown signs of distress,” the FSB cautioned that vigilance is necessary, as unexpected economic deteriorations may test financial resilience. Among other topics, the FSB discussed targeted approaches for phasing out of Covid-19 measures to mitigate the adverse effects of high debt, and stressed that “[e]xit strategies need to reflect specific domestic economic conditions and avoid excessive financial market reactions, which may limit the scope to engineer a fully synchronized exit across jurisdictions.” Crypto-assets also create vulnerabilities, the FSB added, pointing to a recent FSB communication that clarified that stablecoins and other crypto-assets “do not operate in a regulation-free space” and warned crypto-asset providers that they may not operate in any jurisdiction without meeting applicable regulatory, supervisory, and oversight requirements. The FSB will take enforcement action against members that fail to comply with existing legal obligations, it said, adding that it is currently working to ensure that crypto-assets are subject to regulation and supervision through coordinated regulatory initiatives. Additionally, the FSB noted it is closely collaborating with standard-setting bodies, including the Financial Action Task Force, to regulate and supervise stablecoins and other crypto-assets and understand the implications of decentralized finance on financial stability. Consultative reports discussing recommendations for global regulatory and supervisory approaches to stablecoins and other crypto-assets will be submitted in October to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors.
NYDFS releases best practices for promoting PSLF program and time-limited waiver
On July 13, NYDFS called on all federal student loan servicers to increase awareness of and enroll borrowers in public service loan forgiveness programs before a temporary waiver expires on October 31. NYDFS’s letter reminded servicers that under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, full-time government and certain non-profit employees may be eligible to have federal direct loans forgiven after making 120 qualifying monthly payments. Last October, the Department of Education announced temporary PSLF changes due to the Covid-19 pandemic. These changes provided qualifying borrowers a time-limited PSLF waiver, which allows all payments to count towards PSLF regardless of loan program or payment plan (covered by InfoBytes here). Expressing concerns that many borrowers may not learn of this opportunity before it expires in October, NYDFS encouraged servicers to adopt eight best practices to promote awareness of the PSLF Program and the waiver. These include “enhanced trainings for customer service staff, proactive communications with borrowers, and increased promotion of the PSLF program on servicer websites and on borrower account pages,” NYDFS said in its announcement.
The letter follows a December 2021 NYDFS request sent to federal student loan servicers asking for updates on steps taken to address the waived rules. NYDFS also reminded servicers that it “will diligently enforce all servicer legal requirements concerning the PSLF program and will consider the extent to which servicers engaged in proactive measures to promote the PSLF Waiver in future supervisory examinations.”
SBA says larger nonprofits eligible for PPP loan forgiveness
On July 8, the SBA added question #71 to its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) frequently asked questions clarifying whether 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations with more than 500 employees are eligible for PPP loan forgiveness. SBA explained that while the CARES Act generally provided that “501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations with a total of 500 or fewer employees were eligible to receive a First Draw PPP Loan,” the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) later “increased the size eligibility standard for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations for First Draw PPP Loans from a total of 500 or fewer employees to no more than 500 employees per physical location of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.” On March 22, 2021, SBA published an interim final rule (IFR) implementing recent PPP changes that were included in the ARPA enacted on March 11, 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here).
Exercising her broad authority under the PPP, and in light of litigation earlier this year, on July 8 the SBA administrator announced that “any 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that received a loan before March 11, 2021, but submits a forgiveness application on or after March 11, 2021, will not be ineligible for forgiveness on the basis that they have more than 500 employees in multiple physical locations” provided it has otherwise complied with all applicable PPP rules.
FHA expands mortgage eligibility for Covid-affected borrowers
On July 7, FHA announced expanded mortgage eligibility for qualifying borrowers who previously experienced employment gaps or loss of income due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Under Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2022-09, salaried and hourly wage-earners, as well as self-employed individuals impacted by a Covid-19 related economic event (defined “as a temporary loss of employment, temporary reduction of income, or temporary reduction of hours worked during the Presidentially Declared COVID-19 National Emergency”), who now have stable income will have a greater opportunity to purchase a home using affordable FHA-insured mortgage financing. Specifically, ML 2022-09 updates calculation guidelines for a borrower’s effective income under certain sections in the Single-Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1. While ML 2022-09’s provisions are effective for all case numbers assigned on or after September 5, 2022, lenders may begin using the policies immediately. According to FHA Commissioner Julia Gordon, the changes further agency efforts “to facilitate recovery from COVID-19 and support access to homeownership, particularly for populations most deeply impacted by the pandemic.” Gordon noted that the pandemic impacted “the livelihoods of tens of millions of workers in this country, particularly workers of color and those at the lower end of the wage scale.”
District Court approves contact tracing suit settlement
On October 31, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards related to a class action settlement alleging that an internet platform (defendant) violated the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, as well as other state laws through its “contact tracing” system that operated on consumers’ mobile devices. According to the motion, the defendant co-designed a digital contact tracing system to combat the spread of COVID-19 on mobile devices using the defendant’s mobile device operating system. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant unlawfully exposed confidential medical information and personally identifying information through this system. Furthermore, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's system was "fundamentally flawed in its design and implementation" because it left users’ private medical and personally identifying information unprotected on mobile device “system logs” to which the defendant and third parties had routine access. Under the terms of the settlement, class counsel will receive approximately $1.95 million in attorneys’ fees and $56,457.44 in expenses. Additionally, the defendant must pay service awards to class representatives.
N.J. appeals court says debt collector may file suit during the pandemic
On June 29, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff debt collector in an action over whether a suit could be filed during the Covid-19 pandemic despite a clause in an agreement with the original creditor that barred collection actions in a disaster area. According to the opinion, the plaintiff purchased a portfolio of debts, including two credit card debts owned by the individual defendant. The plaintiff sued the defendant after attempts to collect on the debts were unsuccessful. The defendant filed a third-party complaint against the plaintiff asserting counterclaims accusing the plaintiff of violating the FDCPA, and stating that collection agencies were barred by an executive order that allegedly prohibited the initiation and adjudication of debt collection matters during the pandemic. A lower court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, after finding no genuine issue of material fact which would prevent summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the lower court “found that plaintiff provided sufficient, credible evidence in the record that established the nexus between the accounts and defendant,” and “also found the executive order and FDCPA argument meritless,” as “no directive existed that prevented agencies from initiating debt collection matters during the COVID-19 pandemic.” The defendant appealed.
On appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, that the lower court had “improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay documents” and erred in finding the executive order and FDCPA inapplicable. The defendant referred to a clause in an agreement she had with the original creditor, which said: “Without limiting the foregoing, [plaintiff] further represents and warrants that it shall: . . . (x) upon declaration by [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] or any appropriate local, state or federal agency that a location is a disaster area, [plaintiff] agrees to temporarily suspend its collection activities within said area until such time as is reasonable and practicable.” The appeals court agreed with the lower court’s reasoning, and called the defendant’s argument “baseless.” According to the appeals court, the defendant “failed to present evidence that an executive order prohibited the commencement and adjudication of debt collection matters during a state emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic” and failed to establish “that there is a contractual bar to plaintiff filing a debt collection suit in a disaster area.”