InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Florida amends MSB provisions to define “control persons”
On May 12, the Florida governor signed HB 273, which amends provisions related to money services business activities. The bill, among other things, revises provisions related to prohibited activities without a license and other requirements for written contracts between a money transmitter or payment instrument seller and an authorized vendor, and provides requirements for a money transmitter that receives virtual currency, among other things. The bill also establishes that “each money transmitter that receives virtual currency, either directly or through an authorized vendor, for the purpose of transmitting such virtual currency from one person to another location or person must at all times, until the transmission obligation is completed, hold virtual currency of the same type and amount owed or obligated to the other location or person.” The bill is effective January 1, 2023.
Georgia updates license exemption provisions
On May 2, the Georgia governor signed HB 891, which updates provisions related to licensing exemptions. The bill establishes that, starting on July 1, in addition to all other fees, license fees, fines, or other charges now or hereafter levied or assessed on the licensee, there is a fee of 0.125 percent of the gross loan amount. Further, such per loan fee becomes due on the making of any such loan, including, but not limited to, the closing of a loan, the renewal or refinancing of a loan, or a modification of a loan which results in the execution of a new or amended loan agreement. Additionally, the bill clarifies that the Department of Banking and Finance can issue cease and desist orders to persons that are not licensed. The bill also establishes that an individual cannot engage in the business of making installment loans or acting as an installment lender in Georgia unless that person is licensed. Among other things, the bill also makes conforming changes, provides definitions, and repeals conflicting laws.
Georgia amends mortgage lender/broker licensing provisions
On May 2, the Georgia governor signed SB 470, which amends state provisions related to mortgage lender and broker licensing. Among other things, the act: (i) defines a “covered employee” as “any employee of a mortgage lender or mortgage broker who is involved in residential mortgage loan related activities for property located in Georgia,” including but not limited to, “a mortgage loan originator, processor, or underwriter, or other employee who has access to residential mortgage loan origination, processing, or underwriting information”; (ii) adds “covered employee” to the list of persons for whom the Department of Banking and Finance may not issue a license or must revoke a license due to a felony conviction; and (iii) authorizes the Department to obtain conviction data with respect to a “covered employee.” The act is effective immediately.
Connecticut issues CDO against unlicensed small-dollar marketplace lender
On May 4, the Connecticut Banking Commissioner issued a temporary cease and desist order against an unlicensed California-based marketplace lender after determining it had reason to believe the respondent allegedly violated several provision of the Connecticut General Statutes, as well as Section 1036 of the CFPA. The respondent operates a mobile application to help consumers take out small-dollar loans and solicits lenders via its website through advertisements claiming it “takes the work out of lending by vetting and organizing a marketplace of loan requests” where “[b]orrowers set their own terms and provide appreciation tips to lenders who agree to fund a loan, allowing for mutually beneficial financial outcomes.” Consumers initiate loans on the respondent’s platform for a certain amount, which includes optional monetary tips for both the lender and the respondent of up to 12 and 9 percent of the loan amount respectively. The Commissioner’s investigation noted that while the respondent touted the tips as being optional and not required for submitting a loan request or receiving funding, 100 percent of the loans originated to Connecticut consumers from June 2018 to August 2021 included a tip. When the tips were factored into the finance charge, the APRs of the Connecticut consumers’ loans ranged from 43 percent to over 4,280 percent. During the identified time period, loan disclosures identified the amount of the tips for each loan; however, starting in April 2021, the revised disclosures and promissory notes removed any itemization of the tips, and promissory notes allegedly “failed to indicate any obligation of the borrower to pay tips on their loans.” According to the Commissioner, the corresponding disclosures “stated that only one payment, for the principal loan amount, was due at the end of the loan,” however on the loan’s due date, the total loan amount including tips was withdrawn from the consumer’s account. Additionally, disclosures allegedly informed consumers that the APR on the loans was zero percent even though all the loans carried much higher APRs.
The Commissioner further concluded that the respondent prohibited direct communication between consumers and lenders and charged several fees on delinquent loans, including late fees and recovery fees for its collection efforts. Moreover, at least one of the contracted collection agencies was not licensed in the state, nor was the respondent licensed as a small loan company in Connecticut, and nor did it qualify for a licensure exemption.
In issuing its order to cease and desist, order to make restitution, and notice of intent to impose a civil penalty and other equitable relief, the Commissioner stated that the respondent’s “offering, soliciting, brokering, directly or indirectly arranging, placing or finding a small loan for a prospective Connecticut borrower, without the required license” constitutes at least 1,600 violations of the Connecticut General Statutes. The Commissioner cited additional violations, which included engaging in unlicensed activities such as lead generation and debt collection, and cited the respondent for providing false and misleading information related to the terms and costs of the loan transactions in violation of both state law and the CFPA’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices. In addition to ordering the respondent to immediately cease and desist from engaging in the alleged violations, the Commissioner ordered the respondent to repay any amounts received from Connecticut consumers in connection with their loan, plus interest.
Special Alert: Federal court says state bank, fintech partner must face Maryland’s allegation of unlicensed lending before state ALJ
A federal court late last month told a state-chartered bank and its fintech partner that they must return to a state administrative law proceeding to fight a Maryland enforcement action alleging that their failure to obtain a license to lend and collect on loans violated state law — potentially rendering the terms of certain loans unenforceable.
The Missouri-chartered bank and its partners attempted to remove an action brought by the Office of the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, but the district court determined that removal was not proper and that Maryland’s Office of Administrative Hearings was the appropriate venue.
OCFR initially filed charges in January 2021 in Maryland’s Office of Administrative Hearings against the bank and its partner asserting the bank made installment and consumer loans and extended open-ended or revolving credit in the state without being licensed or qualifying for an exception to licensure. As a result, OCFR said they “‘may not receive or retain any principal, interest, or other compensation with respect to any loan that is unenforceable under this subsection.’” It said that not only are the bank’s loans to all Maryland consumers possibly unenforceable, but also that the bank, or its agents or assigns, could in the alternative be “prohibited from collecting the principal amount of those loans from any of these consumers or from collecting any other money related to those loans.”
The OCFR’s charge letter also said the fintech company that provided services to the bank violated the Maryland Credit Services Business Act by providing advice and/or assistance to consumers in the state “with regard to obtaining an extension of credit for the consumer when accepting and/or processing credit applications on behalf of the Bank without a credit services business license.” Additionally, the OCFR alleged violations of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act related to whether the fintech company engaged in unlicensed collection activities, thus subjecting it to the imposition of fines, restitutions, and other non-monetary remedial action.
The defendants filed a notice of removal to federal court last year while the enforcement action was still pending before the OAH; OCFR moved to remand the case back to the agency.
In granting the OCFR’s motion to remand, the court concluded that the OCFR persuasively argued that the defendants have not properly removed this case from the OAH for several reasons, including that the OAH does not function as a state court. “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove to federal court ‘any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.’” However, the court determined that, while defendants correctly observed that the OAH possesses certain “court-like” attributes, its limitations clearly showed that it does not function as a state court.
In reaching this conclusion, the court considered several undisputed facts, including that the OCFR is a unit of the Maryland Department of Labor “responsible for, among other things, issuing licenses to entities wishing to issue loans to consumers in Maryland and investigating violations of Maryland’s consumer loan laws.” The court also said that, while OCFR has authority under Maryland law to investigate potential violations of law or regulation and has the ability to issue cease and desist orders, revoke an individual’s license, or issue fines, it cannot enforce its own subpoenas or orders — and that its decisions are not final and may be appealed to a state circuit court.
The defendants had argued that the case involved a federal question as a result of the complete preemption of state usury laws by Section 27 of the FDI Act. The court said licensure, not state usury law claims, was the issue at hand.
During a status conference held last month to discuss OCFR’s motion to remand, defendants requested an opportunity to file a motion certifying the case for appeal. The court will hold in abeyance its remand order pending resolution of that motion. Parties’ briefings are due by the end of May.
If you have any questions regarding the ruling or its ramifications, please contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
California reinstates single commercial loan licensing exemption under the CFL
On April 28, the California governor signed SB 577, which amends provisions relating to certain financial institutions, including California Financing Law (CFL), Escrow Agent, and Money Transmitter licensees.
The bill reinstates a licensing exemption available to commercial lenders in California. Specifically, the bill reenacted a provision that formerly expired on January 1, 2022. This reinstated provision permits a lender to make a single loan within a 12-month period, if the loan is a commercial loan as defined by the CFL, without having to obtain a CFL license.
The bill also updates contact information to be included on notices posted by California Money Transmitter licensees. Specifically, the bill establishes that California Money Transmitter licensees are required to prominently post, in English and in the same language used by the licensee to conduct business, on the premises of each branch office that conducts money transmission activities a certain notice, including specific contact information for the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.
Finally, the bill removes obsolete language from provisions governing criminal and civil background requirements for Escrow Agent licensees.
The bill is effective immediately.
DFPI concludes MTA licensure not required for direct purchase and sale of cryptocurrency
Recently, 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 the purchase and sale of virtual currency. The redacted opinion letter examines whether a Company that offers customers the opportunities to deposit fiat currency to a Company account and then draw down that balance to purchase virtual currency from the company requires MTA licensure. The Company explained that virtual currency is purchased from a third party and is transferred to the customer’s Company-issued virtual currency wallet where it can then be stored, transferred to an external wallet, or sold for fiat currency. When a customer later wants to sell the purchased virtual currency for fiat currency, the transaction occurs in a similar fashion. The Company stated that “virtual currency sales to customers are from the Company’s own inventory,” and that for purposes of the opinion, DFPI “assumes these sales occur independently of the Company’s own transactions with third parties.”
DFPI concluded that because the Company’s activities are limited to directly purchasing and selling cryptocurrency to customers, it does not require an MTA license because it does “not involve the sale or issuance of stored value or receiving money for transmission.” Specifically, DFPI stated that because the “customer’s fiat currency balance in the Company account does not meet the definition of stored value” and because “funds in that account can only be used for virtual currency purchases from the Company or transferred out to the customer’s external bank account,” the closed loop stored value “does not constitute issuance of stored value that is regulated under the MTA.” DFPI reminded the Company that its determination is limited to the presented facts and that any change could lead to different conclusions.
Illinois adopts amendments to Consumer Installment Loan Act
On April 22, the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State published in the Illinois Register a notice by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation of adopted amendments to certain parts of its Consumer Installment Loan Act (CILA). Under the amendments, a licensee may obtain a license under the CILA for the exclusive purpose and use of making title secured loans. The amendments also require consumer installment lenders to provide a disclosure to consumers regarding the 36 percent annual percentage rate (APR) rate cap established by the Predatory Loan Prevention Act Annual Percentage Rate. These amendments eliminate small consumer loans and implement rules for reporting, to the state database, consumer installment loans. Additionally, the amendments include the implementation of a new definition and new rules for title-secured loans. The amendments are effective August 1.
Arizona establishes mortgage broker provisions
On April 22, the Arizona governor signed SB 1204, which amends state provisions regarding mortgage broker and banker licensing. Among other things, the bill: (i) provides that “a parent company may apply for and be granted a certificate of exemption on behalf of an entity that allows a responsible individual to reside out of state,” as long as certain criteria is met; (ii) establishes qualifications, application, bond, fees, and renewal requirements for licensing of mortgage brokers; and (iii) states that “[a] person shall APPLY for a license or for a renewal of a license in writing on the forms, in the manner and accompanied by the information prescribed by the deputy director.”
OCC revises Comptroller’s Licensing Manual
On April 7, the OCC announced an updated version of the “General Policies and Procedures,” “Management Interlocks,” and “Public Notice and Comments” booklets of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual. According to Bulletin 2022-11, the revised booklets replace booklets of the same title issued between January 2017 and October 2019. Additionally, the revised booklets, among other things: (i) reflect recent updates to 12 CFR 5 and other regulations; (ii) update guidance and references; and (iii) make other minor modifications and corrections throughout.