InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California Department of Business Reaches $1.1 Million Settlement With South Carolina-Based Mortgage Lender and Servicer
The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced on December 11 that it had reached a $1.1 million settlement with a South Carolina-based mortgage lender and servicer to resolve allegations that the company (1) violated California’s statutory restriction on per diem interest and (2) serviced loans without a California license. This settlement marks the second time in five years that examiners discovered alleged per diem overcharges in the company’s loans. Under California law, lenders are prohibited from charging interest on mortgage loans prior to the last business day that immediately precedes the day the loan proceeds are disbursed. In addition, it is a violation of state law to service residential mortgage loans without obtaining proper licensure.
According to the terms of the settlement—which resolves violations identified during a 2016 supervisory examination—the company must: (i) refrain from loan servicing activities until licensed by the state; (ii) pay $1 million in penalties to DBO for past violations; (iii) pay $125 for each additional violation identified by an independent audit of its loan originations; and (iv) issue per diem interest refunds totaling more than $141,000 to at least 1,347 borrowers. The company has also agreed to revise its policies and procedures to prevent future violations of California law.
OCC Updates Public Comment Policy on Licensing Applications
On November 17, the OCC released Bulletin 2017-55 announcing a revised version of its “Public Notice and Comments” booklet. This revised booklet replaces a May 2017 booklet of the same name, and is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual. The revised booklet reflects updates related to the OCC’s policy regarding review of public comments on licensing filings. Specifically, the OCC will now only consider public comments if they are received before the close of the comment period (typically 30 days following a filing), unless an extension has been granted “in accordance with 12 CFR 5.10(b)(2).” The revised booklet also describes situations in which an extension may be granted.
OCC Updates Comptroller’s Licensing Manual to Provide Revised Guidance on Branching and Relocation Procedures
On November 15, the OCC released Bulletin 2017-54 announcing a revised version of its “Branches and Relocations” booklet (replacing the booklet of the same title issued in October 2009), which includes updates related to procedures and requirements for national banks and federal savings associations submitting branch or relocation applications. The booklet, which is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual, covers:
- policies and criteria of general applicability, including the application and approval process; and
- specific policies and requirements unique to national banks and those unique to federal savings associations.
Reflected in the newly revised booklet are updates to procedures and regulations that have been implemented since 2009, including the integration of the Office of Thrift Supervision into the OCC and the issuance of revised regulation 12 C.F.R. § 5 that went into effect July 1, 2015.
OCC Updates Comptroller’s Licensing Manual to Provide Revised Guidance on Business Combination Applications
On November 14, the OCC released Bulletin 2017-53 announcing a revised version of its “Business Combinations” booklet (replacing the booklet of the same title issued in December 2006), which includes updates related to regulations addressing applications for national banks and federal savings associations proposing to execute a business combination. The booklet, which is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual, covers:
- policies and decision criteria that the OCC considers when evaluating applications from banks seeking to execute business combinations, including mergers, consolidations, certain purchase and assumption transactions, and reorganizations;
- the application process, including the pre-filing, filing, review, decision, and post-consummation phases;
- guidance on application requirements and circumstances under which a streamlined business combination is granted; and
- references and links to informational resources for applicants to use during the filing process.
Reflected in the newly revised booklet are updates to procedures and regulations that have been implemented since 2006, including the integration of the Office of Thrift Supervision into the OCC and the issuance of revised regulation 12 C.F.R. § 5 that went into effect July 1, 2015.
OCC Updates Policies and Procedures to Clarify Impact of CRA Ratings on Licensing Applications
On November 8, the OCC issued Bulletin 2017-51, updating guidance related to its approach when evaluating certain licensing applications from OCC-supervised banks that have “less than satisfactory” Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings, either overall or in one or more particular geographic region. The revised Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM 6300-2) provides clarity on the OCC’s scrutiny of a bank’s CRA performance when an application is submitted to participate in a covered transaction such as (i) establishing or relocating a branch or main or home office; (ii) participating in a Bank Merger Act filing; (iii) converting from a state to a federal charter; and (iv) converting between federal charters. The revisions also allow applicants to document for the OCC how participating in such a transaction would “help the bank to achieve its CRA objectives” and “meet the credit needs of the community it serves, consistent with its safe and sound operation.”
CSBS Accepting Licensing Renewal Applications from Non-Depository Financial Institutions
On November 1, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced it is accepting state license renewal applications through December 31 from non-depository financial institutions that wish to continue operating in 2018. Institutions can submit licensing renewals through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS)—operated by CSBS on behalf of state regulators. However, CSBS warned institutions to apply early, noting that last year “almost 93 percent of renewal applications submitted by November 30 were approved by December 31, [but] only about 49 percent of license renewals requested after December 15 were approved by the end of the year.”
As previously announced in InfoBytes, the New York Department of Financial Services recently announced that it will transition licensed lenders and sales finance companies to the NMLS, as part of its continued initiative to link with other states and provide enhanced supervision of non-depository institutions.
New York Enters Second Stage in Use of Nationwide Licensing System
On November 1, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced that it will transition licensed lenders and sales finance companies to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS). NMLS allows companies to apply for, update, and renew licenses in one or more states online. According to the announcement, transitioning to NMLS will allow NYDFS to link with other states and thus provide enhanced supervision of nondepository institutions. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, NYDFS began its initiative to manage the licensing and regulation of all nondepository financial institutions operating in the state by transitioning money transmitters to the web-based system.
Pennsylvania Issues Reminder to Fintech Companies of Licensing Requirements
On October 6, prompted by the “evolving technological innovations that impact the financial services sector” and the rise of “technology focused companies offering financial services via new delivery mechanisms,” the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (Department) issued a reminder of the Department’s “long-standing position” that all persons offering financial services to the consumers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must be licensed by the Department and comply with consumer protection requirements before conducting business with Pennsylvania consumers. “The Department regulates financial transactions based upon the transaction offered or delivered, not the method of delivery,” and as a result, fintech companies must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.
Ninth Circuit Claims California Licensing Law Violates Dormant Commerce Clause
On October 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down an opinion concerning alleged violations of certain California statutes by an Ohio-based mortgage servicer (plaintiff). The panel held that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in its bid for a court order blocking the enforcement of the state’s financial code by certain California district attorneys because the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause—a legal doctrine that prohibits states from unduly burdening interstate commerce. The defendants allege that the plaintiff violated Section 12200 of the California Financial Code, which requires a prorater—a person who is compensated for receiving monies from debtors and distributing the funds to creditors—to obtain a California prorater license and be incorporated in the state before conducting business on an interstate basis. The panel determined that “[t]his form of discrimination between in-state and out-of-state economic interests is incompatible with a functioning national economy, and the prospect of each corporation being required to create a subsidiary in each state is precisely . . . [what] the Dormant Commerce Clause exists to prevent.” Consequently, the panel vacated the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff was required to disclose in its mail solicitations to homeowners that it “lacked authorization from lenders,” and opined that the plaintiff would most likely not prevail in its effort to challenge allegations that it violated sections of the California Business and Professions Code on a First Amendment basis. The First Amendment, the panel reasoned, “does not generally protect corporations from being required to tell prospective customers the truth.”
Finally, in a portion of the opinion in which one of the circuit judges dissented, the panel reversed a district court’s order dismissing both cases under Younger v. Harris “because the cases had proceeded beyond the ‘embryonic stage’ in the district court before the corresponding state cases were filed.” Judge Montgomery—who otherwise joined the opinion with respect to the Dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment questions—argued that the district court's dismissal under Younger should have been upheld because “[b]oth cases arrived in federal court…as a preemptive strike by [the plaintiff] to enjoin state district attorneys from enforcing state statutes in state court.”
CSBS Files Motion in Opposition to OCC’s Motion to Dismiss Fintech Charter Challenge
On September 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) filed its response to the OCC’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the agency, which challenged its statutory authority to create a special purpose national bank (SPNB) charter for fintech companies. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the OCC argued in its motion to dismiss that the CSBS lawsuit was premature because the agency has not reached a decision on whether it will make SPNB charters available to fintech companies or other nonbank firms. The OCC further asserted that under the National Bank Act (NBA), its interpretation of “the business of banking” deserves Chevron deference. In its response, CSBS disagreed and argued that in December 2016 the OCC “formally announced” its decision to begin chartering nonbanks, and that with the publication of a supplement to its Licensing Manual—which both stated its authority to issue SPNP charters to “institutions that neither take deposits nor are insured by the [FDIC]” and “invited interested parties to initiate the application process”—the OCC “crystalized its position.”
In addressing other issues raised by the OCC in support of dismissal of the lawsuit, CSBS argued that:
- CSBS has sufficient injury for standing because the OCC’s decision to grant charters interferes with states’ sovereignty and the ability to oversee and enforce state licensing and consumer protection laws;
- the court must test the underlying legal premise, which is that the “OCC lacks the requisite statutory authority under the [NBA] to encroach upon the regulation of nonbanks by issuing national bank charters to institutions that do not take deposits, and therefore do not engage in the ‘business of banking’” because “there is no point in either [the] OCC or its charter applicants devoting resources to ultra vires charters that will be invalidated”;
- the OCC’s position that CSBS has “failed to state a claim” concerning the interpretation of the “business of banking” is unsupported, and the court “must consider the statutory context of the term, including a regulatory regime that encompasses not only the NBA, but also other federal banking statutes” to conclude that the “business of banking” necessarily includes the taking of deposits; and
- if the OCC seeks to expand its authority “into areas traditionally occupied by states, courts require a clear showing that Congress, acting through the agency, has approved such a result”—which the OCC has not shown.