InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Arkansas modifies Fair Mortgage Lending Act
On February 26, the Arkansas Governor signed SB 188, which amends certain provisions of the state’s Fair Mortgage Lending Act (the Act) to comply with recent developments in federal law. Among other things, the amendments, which take effect 90 days after adjournment, include (i) modifying the Act’s definition of an “applicant” and “licensee” to now include transitional loan officers; (ii) specifying that an “exempt person” must comply with outlined compensation limits, mortgage banker affiliation disclosures, and loan term negotiation restrictions; (iii) defining a “transitional loan officer” to mean “an individual who, in exchange for compensation as an employee of, or who otherwise receives compensation or remuneration from, a mortgage broker or mortgage banker, is authorized to act as a loan officer subject to a transitional loan officer license,” with term limits of no more greater than 120 days and is not subject to commissioner reapplication, renewal, or extension requirements; and (iv) outlining transitional loan officer termination conditions and employment restrictions. The amendments also address audited financial statement requirements for mortgage bankers and servicers, and state that transitional loan officers may now be subject to criminal background investigations should the state join a multistate automated licensing system.
Wyoming is second state to create fintech sandbox
On February 19, the Wyoming Governor signed HB 57, which creates a fintech sandbox program in the state for companies to test innovative financial products and services. Wyoming is the second state to introduce a regulatory sandbox program, following Arizona’s sandbox introduction last March. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the “Financial Technology Sandbox Act” (the Act), the state’s sandbox will be open to innovative financial products and services, including those focused on blockchain and cryptocurrencies, and will allow testing of these products for up to two years with the possibility of an additional 12 month extension before requiring participants to apply for formal licensure. Additionally, under certain conditions, the Act—which grants various supervisory and enforcement power to the state banking commissioner and the secretary of state, including revocation and suspension rights—will authorize (i) limited waivers of specified statutes or rules, and (ii) reciprocity agreements with other regulators. The Act takes effect January 1, 2020.
Arkansas amends Uniform Money Services Act
On February 13, the Arkansas Governor approved SB 187, which amends the state’s Uniform Money Services Act as it relates to money transmission licensees and currency exchanges. Among other things, the amendments (i) revise surety bond and net worth amounts money transmission licensees are required to maintain; (ii) specify application and renewal requirements and deadlines; (iii) permit the use of international financial reporting standards (in addition to generally accepted accounting principles) to compute the value of permissible investments licensees are required to maintain; and (iv) repeal certain savings and transitional provisions. The amendments take effect 90 days after adjournment.
CSBS agrees to implement recommendations from fintech advisory panel
On February 14, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) agreed to implement specific recommendations from the CSBS Fintech Industry Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel, which was formed in 2017 and consists of 33 fintech companies, works to “identify and remove unnecessary pain points in the multistate experience of fintechs and other nonbanks operating regionally or nationwide while improving financial supervision.” Of the 19 recommended actions by the Advisory Panel, CSBS supported 14, including: (i) creating a 50-state model law to license money services businesses; (ii) creating a standardized call report for consumer finance businesses; (iii) expanding the use of the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System across all license types; and (iv) building an online database of state licensing and fintech guidance. Recommendations related to small business lending were among the items saved for future action or implementation.
District Court: New Jersey licensing requirements apply to debt collector
On February 11, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action against a debt collector and its legal counsel, holding that the plaintiff debtor made a plausible claim under the FDCPA that the debt collector was required by New Jersey’s Consumer Financing Licensing Act (NJCFLA) to be licensed as a consumer lender. According to the opinion, the plaintiff had defaulted on his credit card debt and, nine years later, received a letter from the defendant’s legal counsel seeking payment of the balance due. The plaintiff filed a proposed class action arguing that the letter violated the FDCPA because the debt collector had not been licensed with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance prior to purchasing the debt, and therefore lacked the authority to collect on the debt. The defendant debt collector moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming, among other things, that it was exempt from the licensing requirements because it did not qualify as a “consumer loan business” under the NJCFLA. The debt collector argued that it never exceeded the state’s interest rate cap and therefore was exempt from the licensing requirements. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s licensing violation arose from a second part of the “consumer loan business” definition, under which the licensing requirements apply because the defendant “directly or indirectly engag[es] . . . in the business of buying. . . notes.” The district court agreed with the plaintiff, stating that “[t]his statutory language does not narrow the category of lenders falling under that definition according to the interest rates that they charge.”
Virtual currency is not considered “money” in Pennsylvania; platforms do not need money transmitter license
The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities recently published guidance stating that virtual currency, including “Bitcoin,” is not considered “money” under the state’s Money Transmitter Act (MTA). According to the guidance, only “fiat currency,” or currency issued by the U.S. government is considered “money” under the MTA and that to transmit money under the MTA, (i) fiat currency must be transferred with or on behalf of an individual to a third party; and (ii) the money transmitter must charge a fee for the transmission. Because virtual currency trading platforms (along with virtual currency kiosks, ATMs, and vending machines) never directly handle fiat currency and there is no transfer of money from a user to a third party, they are not money transmitters under the MTA and therefore do not need a license in order to operate in the state.
Georgia Department of Banking and Finance revokes money transmitter license
On January 11, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (Department) announced the issuance of a Final Order taken against a Florida-based money transmitter and two of its officers for allegedly failing to, among other things, timely file suspicious activity reports (SARs) or conduct required background checks on covered employees. Following a hearing, the Department issued the Final Order on January 9 to revoke the company’s money transmitter license and order the officers to cease and desist. According to the Order, the officers’ failure to timely file SARs related to four cancelled money transmission transactions violated Georgia’s Rules and Regulations 80-3-1-.03(3), which obligate money transmitters to “comply with the recordkeeping requirements, currency transaction reporting, and suspicious activity reporting set forth in the Bank Secrecy Act.” Moreover, the Department further asserted that the officers materially misrepresented why the filings were delayed, and therefore deemed the officers “incompetent or untrustworthy to engage in the money transmission business.”
Ohio mortgage servicers now required to register
On December 19, 2018, the Ohio Governor signed Substitute House Bill 489 (HB 489), which amends the Ohio Residential Mortgage Lending Act (RMLA) to, among other things, require a person acting as mortgage servicer to obtain a Residential Mortgage Lending Act Certificate of Registration in the state, unless exempt from the RMLA. The amendments define a “mortgage servicer” as an entity that holds mortgage servicing rights, records mortgage payments on its books, or carries out other responsibilities under the mortgage agreement.
HB 489 also revises the laws governing financial institution regulations and consumer protections. Specifically, it includes amendments which (i) provide some regulatory relief to state banks and credit unions concerning the frequency of examinations that meet certain conditions; (ii) enable requests for data analytics to be conducted on publicly available information regarding regulated state banks, credit unions, and consumer finance companies; and (iii) require that a specified notice be given to a debtor for certain collections related to defaulted debt secured by junior liens on residential properties.
The amendments take effect 91 days after the bill is filed with the Ohio Secretary of State.
Maryland Court of Appeals holds state licensing requirement is a “statutory specialty” with 12-year statute of limitations
On December 18, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the licensing requirement, §12-302, of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (MCLL) is a “statutory specialty” and causes of action under it are accorded a 12-year statute of limitations period. The decision results from a question of law posed to the appeals court by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after consumers brought an action in the district court against a lender for alleged violations of the MCLL that occurred over three years before the lawsuit was filed. The lender claimed the action was time-barred under the state’s three-year general statute of limitations for civil actions, while the consumers argued the MCLL was an “other specialty,” which would provide a 12-year statute of limitations under state law. To answer the question, the appeals court applied a three-part test to determine whether the statute constituted an “other specialty”: (i) if the obligation sought to be enforced is imposed solely by statute; (ii) if the remedy pursued is authorized solely by statute; and (iii) if the civil damages sought are liquidated, fixed, or, by applying clear statutory criteria, are readily ascertainable. The appeals court analyzed the first and third prongs of the test as the parties agreed the second was not an issue. For the first prong, the court concluded that the MCLL’s licensing requirement was created and imposed solely by statute and not by common law. As for the third prong, the court agreed with the consumers that the need for fact-finding with regard to the monetary liability does not preclude “ready ascertainment.” Because all three elements of the test were satisfied, the court concluded the licensing requirement is a “statutory specialty” and is afforded a 12-year statute of limitations period.
Illinois amends Residential Mortgage License Act
On December 19, the Illinois governor signed HB 5542, which amends the state’s Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 (the Act) to make various changes to state licensing requirements. Among other things, the amended Act (i) clarifies the definition of a “bona fide nonprofit organization”; (ii) provides a list of prohibited acts and practices; (iii) stipulates that a licensee filing a Mortgage Call Report is not required to file an annual report with the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation (Secretary) disclosing applicable annual activities; (iv) repeals a provision requiring the Secretary to obtain loan delinquency data from HUD as part of an examination of each licensee; (v) clarifies that the notice of change in loan terms disclosure requirements do not apply to any licensee providing notices of changes in loan terms pursuant to the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure procedure under TILA and RESPA, while removing the provision that previously excluded licensees limited to soliciting residential mortgage loan applications as approved by the Secretary from the requirements to provide disclosure of changes in loan terms; (vi) removes certain criteria concerning the operability date for submitting licensing information to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System; and (vii) makes other technical and conforming changes. The amendments are effective immediately.