InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DFPI revokes crypto lending company's license; issues notice to suspend a different crypto lending company
On December 19 , the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it has moved to revoke a cryptocurrency lender’s license. According to DFPI revoking the license "is the result of the department’s examination, which found that the New Jersey-based finance lender failed to perform adequate underwriting when making loans and failed to consider borrowers’ ability to repay these loans, in violation of California’s financing laws and regulations." DFPI previously announced on November 18 an order suspending a cryptocurrency lender’s California license for 30 days pending DFPI’s investigation. The suspension follows the DFPI’s notice to suspend issued on November 11, which was prompted by the cryprocurrency lender's November 10 announcement that it would limit platform activity, including pausing client withdrawals. DFPI noted that the cryptocurrency lender confirmed its “significant exposure to [a crypto asset platform]” and affiliated entities. DFPI further noted that the cryptocurrency lender expected “that the recovery of the obligations owed to us by [the crypto company] will be delayed as [the crypto company] works through the bankruptcy process.” According to the cryptocurrency lender, withdrawals would continue to be paused. DFPI also noted that in February 2022, the respondent was ordered to desist and refrain from offering or selling unqualified, non-exempt securities in the form of its interest accounts in California.
Later, DFPI issued an order suspending a different cryptocurrency lender’s license license for 30 days pending DFPI’s investigation into the respondent’s recent announcement to limit its platform activity, including pausing client withdrawals. The respondent had sent a communication to customers signed by the CEO, stating: “I am sorry to report that the collapse of [the cryptocurrency lender that was issued a notice to suspend from DFPI on November 10] has impacted our business. Until we are able to determine the extent of this impact with specific details that we feel confident are factually accurate, we have paused deposits and withdrawals on [its own platform] effective immediately.” DFPI also noted that it is “investigating the extent to which [the cryptocurrency lender] has been affected by the bankruptcy of [the cryptocurrency lender that was issued a notice to suspend from the DFPI on November 10] and related companies.”
California DFPI concludes MTA licensure not required for crypto exchange
On November 3, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to a cryptocurrency exchange’s transactions. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring company’s proposed business activities—which “will offer the purchase, sale, and trading of various cryptocurrencies using a platform provided by its affiliate and in conjunction with another affiliate that is a . . . registered broker-dealer”—are exempt from the MTA. Transactions on the company’s platform will involve the use of the company’s tokenized version of the U.S. dollar. Customers will deposit U.S. dollar funds into a company account where an equivalent amount of tokens will be created and used to facilitate a trade for cryptocurrency. The tokens can also be exchanged for U.S. dollars, or customers can hold the tokens in their wallet. According to the letter, the company says it “does not take custody of its client’s currencies or offer digital wallets,” but rather a “client’s digital wallet is directly linked to the platform and transacts on a peer-to-peer basis with other clients.” In addition to trading cryptocurrencies, the company also plans to allow customers to “trade in cryptographic representations of publicly listed securities,” thereby permitting customers to purchase, sell, or trade the securities tokens on the platform. The company will also be able to transfer customers’ shares of securities tokens from the platform to a customer’s traditional brokerage account. The company explained that these transactions of securities tokens will be covered by the company’s affiliate’s broker-dealer license.
DFPI concluded that because the Department has not yet “determined whether the issuance of tokenized versions of the U.S. Dollar or securities, or their use to trade cryptocurrencies, is money transmission,” it will not require the company to obtain an MTA license in order to perform the aforementioned services or to issue tokenized version of the U.S. dollar or securities. DFPI noted, however, that its conclusions are subject to change, and emphasized that its letter does not address whether the proposed activities are subject to licensure or registration under other laws, including the Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
California amends certain debt collector licensing provisions
On September 27, the California governor signed AB 156, which, among other things, amends various provisions of the Debt Collection Licensing Act to allow any debt collector that submits an application to the commissioner of the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation before January 1, 2023, to operate pending the approval or denial of the application. The amendments also authorize the commissioner to issue a conditional license pending the receipt and review of fingerprints and related information. Additional provisions state that a conditional license will expire under certain conditions, including the issuance of an unconditional license. The amendments also grant the commissioner authorization to deem an application abandoned. The amendments take effect January 1, 2023.
DFPI cracks down on crypto-asset Ponzi schemes
On September 27, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation issued desist and refrain orders against 11 entities, including nine crypto asset trading platforms, one metaverse software development company, and one decentralized finance platform for violating California securities laws. While each of the 11 entities allegedly offered and sold unqualified securities through their platforms and promised various fixed rates of return to investors, DFPI claimed that the entities actually engaged in Ponzi-like schemes and used investor funds to distribute supposed profits and returns to other investors. Additionally, DFPI accused the entities of “luring” new investors through referral programs that operated like pyramid schemes in which investors would be paid commissions to recruit new investors. Referring to these as “high yield investment programs (HYIPs),” DFPI claimed the entities provided investors with few details about the people operating the HYIPs, how the HYIPs make money, or how the HYIPs facilitate deposits and withdrawals with crypto assets, among other things. DFPI also accused 10 of the 11 entities of making material representations and omissions to investors about the qualifications of their securities under California law as well as the purported risks. DFPI said in its announcement that it had been directed by an executive order issued by the governor in May (covered by InfoBytes here) to initiate enforcement actions to stop violations of consumer financial laws and to increase residents’ awareness of the benefits and risks associated with crypto asset-related financial products and services.
States accuse crypto platform of offering unregistered securities
On September 26, the New York attorney general sued a cryptocurrency platform for allegedly offering unregistered securities and defrauding investors. New York was joined by state regulators from California, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Washington, and Vermont who also filed administrative actions against the platform. The states alleged that the platform failed to register as a securities and commodities broker but told investors that it was fully in compliance. According to the New York AG’s complaint, the platform promoted and sold securities through an interest-bearing virtual currency account that promised high returns for participating investors. The NY AG said that a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the platform last year, and that while the platform stated it was “working diligently to terminate all services” in the state, it continued to handle more than 5,000 accounts as of July. The complaint charges the platform with violating New York’s Martin Act and New York Executive Law § 63(12), and seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits, and a permanent injunction.
California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) said in a press release announcing its own action that it will continue to take “aggressive enforcement efforts against unregistered interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts.” DFPI warned companies that crypto-interest accounts are securities and are therefore subject to investor protection under state law, including disclosure of associated risks.
FTC, DFPI shut down operation offering mortgage relief
On September 19, the FTC and the California Department of Financial Protection (DFPI) announced a lawsuit against several companies and owners for allegedly operating an illegal mortgage relief operation. (See also DFPI’s announcement here.) The filing marks the agencies’ first joint action, which alleges the defendants’ conduct violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law, the FTC Act, the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule (the MARS Rule or Regulation O), the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act. The agencies claimed that the defendants preyed on distressed consumers with false promises of mortgage assistance relief. According to the complaint, the defendants made misleading claims during telemarketing calls to consumers, including those with numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, as well as through text messages and in online ads. In certain cases, defendants represented they were affiliated with government agencies or were part of a Covid-19 pandemic assistance program. Among other things, defendants falsely claimed they were able to lower consumers’ interest rates or payments, and instructed consumers not to pay their mortgages, leading to late fees and significantly lower credit score. Defendants also allegedly told consumers not to communicate directly with their lenders, which caused consumers to miss default notices and face foreclosure. Additionally, defendants charged consumers illegal up-front fees ranging from $500 to $2,900 a month, and told consumers they were negotiating loan modifications that in most cases never happened.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a restraining order temporarily shutting down the defendants’ operations. In freezing the defendants’ assets and ordering them to submit financial statements, the court noted that the agencies established a likelihood of success in showing that the defendants “have falsely, deceptively, and illegally marketed, advertised, and sold mortgage relief assistance services.”
California passes UDAAP legislation
On September 15, the California governor signed AB 1904, which amends Section 1770 of the Civil Code relating to financial institutions and addresses certain provisions under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Among other things, the bill prohibits a covered person or a service provider from engaging in unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regarding consumer financial products or services, such as, among other things: (i) misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification; (ii) using deceptive representations of geographic origin; (iii) representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered; (iv) advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and (v) making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions. The bill authorizes the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to bring a civil action for a violation of the law. The bill would also make unlawful the failure to include certain information, including a prescribed disclosure, in a solicitation by a covered person, or an entity acting on behalf of a covered person, to a consumer for a consumer financial product or service.
New NYDFS proposal to implement Commercial Finance Disclosure Law
On September 14, NYDFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under New York’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) related to disclosure requirements for certain providers of commercial financing transactions in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFDL was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February to expand coverage and delay the effective date. (See S5470-B, as amended by S898.) Under the CFDL, providers of commercial financing, which include persons and entities who solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party, are required to give consumer-style loan disclosures to potential recipients when a specific offering of finance is extended for certain commercial transactions of $2.5 million or less. Last December, NYDFS announced that providers’ compliance obligations under the CFDL will not take effect until the necessary implementing regulations are issued and effective (covered by InfoBytes here).
The newest proposed regulations (see Assessment of Public Comments for the Revised Proposed New Part 600 to 23 NYCRR) introduce several revisions and clarifications following the consideration of comments received on proposed regulations published last October (covered by InfoBytes here). Updates include:
- A new section stating that a “transaction is subject to the CFDL if one of the parties is principally directed or managed from New York, or the provider negotiated the commercial financing from a location in New York.”
- A new section requiring notice be sent to a recipient if a change is made to the servicing of a commercial financing agreement.
- An revised definition of “recipient” to now “include entities subject to common control if all such recipients receive the single offer of commercial financing simultaneously.”
- Clarifying language stating that the “requirements pertaining to the statement of a rate of finance charge or a financing amount, as that term appears in Section 810 of the CFDL, shall be in effect only upon the quotation of a specific commercial financing offer.”
- Provisions allowing providers to perform calculations based upon either a 30-day month/360-day year or a 365-day year, with the acknowledgment that different methods of computation may lead to slightly different results.
- An amendment stating that “a ‘provider is not required to provide the disclosures required by the CFDL when the finance charge of an existing financing is effectively increased due to the incurrence, by the recipient, of avoidable fees and charges.’”
- An acknowledgement of comments asking that 23 NYCRR Part 600 be identical to California’s disclosure requirements (covered by InfoBytes here) “or as consistent as possible.” In response, NYDFS said that while it generally agrees, and has consulted with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), the regulations cannot be identical because the CFDL differs from the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the Department cannot anticipate any future revisions DFPI may make to its proposed regulations.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due October 31.
DFPI proposal would consider ISAs as student loans
On September 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt new regulations and amend current regulations implementing the Student Loan Servicing Act (Act), which provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by DFPI (formerly the Department of Business Oversight) (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed rulemaking also outlines new clarifications to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law, which was enacted in 2020 (effective January 1, 2021) to provide new requirements for student loan servicers (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
In its initial statement of reasons for the new regulations, DFPI noted that since the Act took effect five years ago, additional private student loan financing products have emerged, such as income share agreements and installment contracts, which use terminology and documentation distinct from traditional loans. DFPI commented that while lenders and servicers of these products have asserted that their products do not fall within the definition of a student loan and are not subject to the statute’s requirements, these education financing products serve the same purpose as traditional loans—“help pay the cost of a student’s higher education"—and are therefore student loans subject to the Act, and servicers of these products must be licensed and comply with all applicable laws. The proposed rulemaking, among other things, (i) defines the term “education financing products,” which now fall under the purview of the Act, along with other related terms; (ii) amends various license application requirements, including amended financial requirements for startup applicants; (iii) outlines provisions related to non-licensee (e.g., servicers that do not require a license but that are subject to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law) filing requirements; and (iv) specifies that servicers of all education financing products must submit annual aggregate student loan servicing reports to DFPI. The proposed rulemaking also removes certain unnecessary requirements based on DFPI’s experience in administering the Act to reduce the regulatory burden.
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking are due October 28.
DFPI orders crypto lender to cease offering unqualified securities
On August 8, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a desist and refrain order to a now-bankrupt cryptocurrency lender and its CEO after determining that the company allegedly made material misrepresentations and omissions in the offering of crypto interest accounts, particularly with respect to understating the risks of depositing digital assets with the company. According to DFPI, since June 2018, the company funded part of its lending operations and proprietary trading through the sale of unqualified securities in the form of digital asset interest-earning accounts known as “Earn Rewards” accounts. DFPI found that the company allegedly offered these accounts to consumers without first qualifying them as securities in compliance with California’s Corporate Securities Law. Additionally, DFPI contended that the company failed to fully disclose material aspects of its business and Earn Rewards accounts, and claimed that the CEO failed to disclose material aspects of the company’s business, made materially misleading statements, or omitted material facts necessary to ensure the statements were not misleading. In June, the company suspended the fulfillment of customer withdrawals from its crypto interest accounts and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on July 13.
DFPI ordered the company and CEO to desist and refrain from further offers and sale of securities in California, including but not limited to the Earn Rewards accounts, unless such sale has been qualified under California law or unless the security or transaction is exempt from qualification. The company and CEO were also both ordered to desist and refrain from offering securities in California by means of untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact.