InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS opposes OCC’s true lender rule
On September 2, NYDFS Superintendent Linda A. Lacewell announced the regulator’s opposition to the OCC’s proposed “true lender” rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposed rule would amend 12 CFR part 7 to state that “a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it (i) is named as lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan,” and intends to cover situations where the bank “has a predominant economic interest in the loan,” as the original funder, even if it is not “the named lender in the loan agreement as of the date of origination.” In response, NYDFS issued a comment letter stating that if the proposed rule is enacted, nonbank lenders that are not chartered or licensed by the federal government would be able to “qualify for federal protection from state usury laws” and make high-cost loans with interest rates well above the interest rate normally permitted by New York law. These laws currently make predatory, high-interest lending illegal, and make usurious loans entered into in the state void and unenforceable, NYDFS stated, arguing that the proposed rule would “gut state usury laws and state licensing requirements with respect to unregulated lenders.” NYDFS also stated, among other things, that the proposed rule, if codified, would “effectively sanction so-called ‘rent-a-bank’ or ‘rent-a-charter’ schemes” and allow “unregulated nonbank lenders to launder loans through banks as an end-around consumer-protective state usury limits.” In addition, NYDFS argued that the OCC lacks the authority to issue the proposed rule “because it has failed to comply with the requirements applicable to preemption determinations under federal law and conflicts with Congress’ intent to limit the preemption of states’ consumer protection laws.”
New York regulator issues guidance to regulated mortgage lenders and servicers regarding fees
On September 1, the New York Department of Financial Services issued industry guidance instructing regulated mortgage lenders and servicers not to charge (or pass through to) consumers for mortgage default registration fees. The press release announcing the guidance notes that certain counties, cities, and municipalities in New York require mortgagees to pay a fee to register mortgages declared to be in default. Noting that consumers are facing financial hardship arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, the DFS guidance provides that these fees may not be passed on to consumers. Moreover, lenders and servicers who have charged consumers such fees must provide refunds, and must create a log of all borrowers who were charged such fees.
OCC defends fintech charter authority in NYDFS challenge
On August 13, the OCC filed its reply brief in its appeal of a district court’s 2019 final judgment, which set aside the OCC’s regulation that would allow non-depository fintech companies to apply for Special Purpose National Bank charters (SPNB charter). As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgment in favor of NYDFS, ruling that the SPNB regulation should be “set aside with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” rather than only those that have a nexus to New York State.
As discussed in its opening brief filed in April appealing the final judgment (covered by InfoBytes here), the OCC reiterated that the case is not justiciable until it actually grants a fintech charter, that it is entitled to deference for its interpretation of the term “business of banking,” and that the court should set aside the regulation only with respect to non-depository fintech applicants with a nexus to New York. Following NYDFS’s opening brief filed last month (covered by InfoBytes here), the OCC argued, among other things, that the case is not ripe and NYDFS lacks standing because its alleged injuries are speculative and “rely on a series of events that have not occurred: OCC receiving and approving an SPNB charter application from a non-depository fintech that intends to conduct business in New York, and then does so in a manner that causes the harms [NYDFS] identifies.”
The OCC further argued that NYDFS “cannot show the statutory term ‘business of banking’ is unambiguous, or that it requires a bank to accept deposits to receive an OCC charter.” Highlighting the evolution of the “business of banking” over the last 160 years, the OCC contended that the National Bank Act does not contain a requirement “that an applicant for a national bank charter accept deposits if it can present the OCC with a viable business model that does not require it,” and that its regulation interpreting the ambiguous phrase “business of banking” is reasonable as it is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court case law. Lastly, the OCC argued that NYDFS’s claim that it is entitled to nationwide relief afforded under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is inconsistent with another 2nd Circuit decision, “as well as principles of equity and the APA’s text and history.” The OCC stated that even if the appellate court were to conclude that NYDFS’s claims are justiciable, the regulations should be set aside only with respect to non-depository fintech applicants with a nexus to New York.
District Court dismisses usury claim against New York lender
On August 12, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York dismissed usury claims against a lender, concluding that lenders licensed in New York can charge interest rates up to 25 percent on loans under $25,000. According to the opinion, a consumer received a check in the mail in the amount of $2,539 from a licensed lender under Article IX of New York Banking Law, with terms requiring repayment at an annual interest rate of 24.99 percent, if the consumer cashed the check. The consumer cashed the check, agreeing to the loan terms. After failing to repay the debt in full, the consumer filed a complaint against the lender asserting various claims, including that the interest rate is unenforceable under New York General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-511 because it exceeds 16 percent. The lender moved to dismiss the action.
The court agreed with the lender on the usurious claim, concluding that as a licensed lender in New York, the lender is “authorized to extend loans of $25,000 or less with interest rates up to 25[percent]” which is “the limit set by New York’s criminal usury statute, New York Penal Law § 190.40.” The court cited to NYDFS interpretations, stating that unlicensed nonbank lenders may not charge more than a 16 percent annual interest rate, but lenders that “obtain an Article IX license [] may charge interest up to 25[percent] per annum on the small loans.” Because the lender was licensed under Article IX in the state of New York, the lender “was permitted to loan $2,539.00 to [the consumer] at an agreed-upon annual interest rate of 24.99[percent] without violating GOL § 5-511.”
NYDFS extends suspension of license expiration for individual insurance producers
On August 6, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a third supplement to Insurance Circular Letter No. 9, previously covered here and here. The letter, which suspended the expiration of licenses for individual insurance producers, has been extended for an additional 30 days through September 6, 2020. All licenses that would have expired between March 25, 2020, and September 6, 2020, but for Insurance Circular Letter No. 9 (2020) and the supplements thereto will automatically expire on September 7, 2020, unless the producer completes all necessary continuing education credits, and submits a license renewal application, before September 7, 2020. The supplement notes that the extension is a “final accommodation.”
States urge Department of Education to protect federal student loans borrowers as CARES Act deadline approaches
On August 6, the NYDFS sent a letter to the Department of Education, urging Secretary Betsy DeVos to take measures to protect student loan borrowers when federal student loan borrower relief under the CARES Act ends September 30. Currently, the CARES Act provides an automatic freeze for borrowers with Federal Family Education Loan Program and Federal Direct loans (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), and stipulates that during the suspension period, interest will not accrue, servicers will report suspended payments as having been made to consumer reporting agencies, and—for borrowers in loan forgiveness or rehabilitation programs—servicers will treat suspended payments as having been made.
The letter, sent on behalf of seven state student loan ombudspersons, expresses concerns that, despite protections afforded by the CARES Act, “many borrowers are being left behind and . . . borrowers will face hardships once the CARES Act coverage expires.” Specifically, the letter requests DeVos to take additional proactive steps, including: (i) expanding the CARES Act protections to federal borrowers not currently eligible for relief (i.e., “borrowers whose loans are owned by commercial lenders and Perkins Loan borrowers whose loans are owned by their schools”) and extending the term of those protections; (ii) ensuring servicers are prepared for the September 30 end-date to ensure that borrowers are not harmed when their student loan accounts are placed back into repayment status; and (iii) streamlining access to income driven repayment (IDR) plans by eliminating “logistical and administrative barriers to automated IDR plan enrollment” and recommending “that borrowers be able to self-report income and that applications be deemed provisionally approved upon submission, even if incomplete, so that relief is given as quickly as possible.”
NYDFS counters OCC’s arguments in fintech charter challenge appeal
On July 23, NYDFS filed its opening brief in the appeal of its challenge to the OCC’s decision to allow non-depository fintech companies to apply for Special Purpose National Bank charters (SPNB charter). The OCC filed its opening brief with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in April (covered by InfoBytes here), appealing the district court’s final judgment in favor of NYDFS, which ruled that the SPNB regulation should be “set aside with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” rather than only those that have a nexus to New York State.
In its brief, NYDFS argued that the district court was “correct to hold that the OCC had exceeded its statutory authority. . .in deciding to issue federal bank charters to nondepository fintech companies.” In response to the OCC’s arguments that NYDFS lacked standing and that the claims were not ripe, NYDFS first stated that “standing and ripeness exist not only when injury has already occurred, but also when it is imminent or when there is a substantial risk of harm.” Specifically, NYDFS asserted that its claims are ripe because (i) the OCC has actively solicited charter applications from the fintech industry and has indicated that companies had started the application process; and (ii) “one of the OCC’s stated objectives in the Fintech Charter Decision is to allow fintech companies that receive [an SPNB charter] to escape state regulation.” NYDFS also argued that because nondepository institutions are not engaged in the “business of banking” within the meaning of the National Bank Act (NBA), they cannot receive federal bank charters. Moreover, it contended that “when Congress did intend to extend OCC’s regulatory jurisdiction over such institutions, it expressly amended the NBA to do so.” Among other arguments, NYDFS claimed it is entitled to nationwide relief, stating that the district court merely granted the relief afforded under the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that the proper remedy for when an agency’s actions are contrary to law and “‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations” is to set aside the regulation.
Additionally, several parties, including the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Independent Community Bankers of America, filed separate amicus briefs (see here and here) in support of NYDFS, arguing that the OCC lacks the authority to grant SPNB charters.
NYDFS enforces its cybersecurity regulation for the first time
On July 22, NYDFS filed a statement of charges against a title insurer for allegedly failing to safeguard mortgage documents, including bank account numbers, mortgage and tax records, and other sensitive personal information. This is the first enforcement action alleging violations of NYDFS’ cybersecurity regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500), which took effect in March 2017 and established cybersecurity requirements for banks, insurance companies, and other financial services institutions. (See InfoBytes coverage on NYDFS’ cybersecurity regulation here.) Charges filed against the company allege that a “known vulnerability” in the company’s online-based data storage platform was not fixed, which allowed unauthorized users to access restricted documents from roughly 2014 through 2019 by changing the ImageDocumentID number in the URL. Although an internal penetration test (i.e., an authorized simulated cyberattack) discovered the vulnerability in December 2018, NYDFS claims that the company did not take corrective action until six months later, when a well-known journalist publicized the problems.
The company allegedly violated six provisions of 23 NYCRR Part 500, including failing to (i) conduct risk assessments for sensitive data stored or transmitted within its information systems; (ii) maintain appropriate, risk-based policies governing access controls to sensitive data; (iii) limit user-access privileges to information systems providing access to sensitive data, or periodically reviewing these access privileges; (iv) implement a risk assessment system to sufficiently identify the availability and effectiveness of controls for protecting sensitive data and the company’s information system; (v) provide adequate data security training for employees and affiliated title agents responsible for handling sensitive data; and (vi) encrypt sensitive documents or implement suitable controls to protect sensitive data. Additionally, NYDFS maintains that, among other things, the company misclassified the vulnerability as “low” severity despite the magnitude of the document exposure, failed to investigate the vulnerability within the timeframe dictated by the company’s internal cybersecurity policies, and did not conduct a reasonable investigation into the exposure or follow recommendations made by its internal cybersecurity team.
A hearing is scheduled for October 26 to determine whether violations occurred for the company’s alleged failure to safeguard consumer information.
NYDFS extends suspension of license expiration for individual insurance producers
On July 2, the New York Department of Financial Services issued a supplement that extends the relief provided by Insurance Circular Letter No. 9, previously covered here. The letter, which, among other things, suspended the expiration of licenses for individual insurance producers, has been extended for an additional 30 days through August 7, 2020. Licenses that would have expired but for the extension will automatically expire on August 7, 2020, unless the producer has submitted a license renewal application and completed all necessary continuing education credits before that date.
New York Department of Financial Services adopts emergency measure to provide relief to insureds
On June 28, the New York Department of Financial Services adopted an emergency measure that amends the insurance regulations to provide relief to policyholders, contract holders, and insureds who can demonstrate financial hardship relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. Among other things, the emergency measure: (i) provides that premiums remitted by a creditor will be assumed to provide coverage under a credit life or credit unemployment insurance policy for insured debtors whose payments are not more than three months overdue; (ii) provides certain protections for insureds who do not make timely premium payments to certain insurance entities; and (iii) prohibits a premium finance agency from cancelling an insurance policy due to an insured’s failure to make a timely installment payment for a period of at least 90 days, if the insured can demonstrate financial hardship due to Covid-19, and subject to the safety and soundness of the premium finance agency.