InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York Financial Services Regulator First To Sue Under Dodd-Frank's UDAAP Provisions
On April 23, New York State Department of Financial Services (NYS DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky became the first state regulator to sue a financial services company to enforce the Dodd-Frank Act’s Title X prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices (UDAAP). Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed what appears to be the first suit by a state attorney general to enforce Dodd-Frank’s UDAAP provisions. Although state authorities generally are limited to enforcing Title X against state banks and non-bank financial service companies—except that state attorneys general may enforce rules of the CFPB against national banks and thrifts—these actions bring into sharp focus the full scope and reach of the Title X’s enforcement provisions and are likely to inspire similar state actions.
Mr. Lawsky’s complaint accuses a nonbank auto finance company of violating Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as Section 408 of the New York Financial Services Law and Section 499 of the New York Banking Law by, among other things, “systematically hid[ing] from its customers the fact that they have refundable positive credit balances.” The complaint alleges that the company concealed its customers’ positive account balances—from insurance payoffs, overpayments, trade-ins, and other reasons—by programming its customer-facing web portal to shut down a customer’s access to his or her loan account once the loan was paid off, even if a positive credit balance existed. The company allegedly failed to refund such balances absent a specific request from a customer. In addition, the complaint charges that the company hid the existence of positive credit balances by submitting to the New York State Comptroller’s Office false and misleading “negative” unclaimed property reports, which represented under penalty of perjury that the company had no unrefunded customer credit balances.The complaint claims that DFS’s examination findings for the company “demonstrate the persistent refusal and failure of [the company] and its owner . . . to implement even the most basic policies, procedures and controls necessary to manage a $300 million, state-licensed lending institution.” Further, Mr. Lawsky asserts that the company rejected “virtually all of those findings” and ignored or refused, based largely on economic considerations, to comply with written directives to institute proper policies, procedures, and controls.
In addition to being the first of its kind, the suit is notable for several other reasons. First, the suit names the company’s individual owner and CEO. Mr. Lawsky recently urged financial services regulators to consider taking more actions against individuals. His remarks added to a trend among regulators and enforcement authorities to more aggressively pursue individual alleged bad actors. In the complaint, Mr. Lawsky argues that “as the person responsible for oversight of [the company’s] operations and for setting and effectuating policies” the owner caused the company to adopt a policy of “stealing, converting, and retaining for its positive credit balances belonging to its customers.”
Second, Mr. Lawsky claims that certain of the alleged practices violate Dodd-Frank’s prohibition against “abusive” acts or practices. Although defined in the statute, the government has yet to provide additional guidance as to which acts or practices might be considered “abusive.” For instance, the CFPB, which has authority to draft regulations defining abusive practices, has declined to do so. Instead it has elected to develop the abusive standard through enforcement, most recently in an action against a for-profit educational institution, though no court has yet ruled on what constitutes an abusive practice.
Third, Mr. Lawsky filed the suit with the help of an outside plaintiffs’ firm. The practice of state agencies hiring outside counsel to represent them in investigations has been the subject of lawsuits and criticisms. The practice has been criticized in part because it creates an incentive for the outside lawyers to find violations in order to be paid. It also has been the subject of litigation where the law firm assisting the agency also represented other clients adverse to the target of the investigation.
Fourth, the complaint alleges that the finance company violated Section 1036 with regard to its data security and privacy practices and representations. Mr. Lawsky claims that the finance company falsely represented to its customers, in connection with servicing automobile loans, that it implemented reasonable and appropriate measures to protect borrowers’ personal information against unauthorized access. Instead, the complaint charges the company failed to take such reasonable and necessary actions and/or expend resources necessary to provide such protection, and in doing so took unreasonable advantage of (i) the inability of its customers to protect their own interests; and (ii) the reasonable reliance by its customers on the company to act it their interests.
Finally, the suit demonstrates the significant level of regulatory and enforcement activity originating from the NYS DFS. In recent months, Mr. Lawsky has moved to exercise the full scope of his authorities and has positioned himself at the forefront of numerous financial services issues, including, for example, by: (i) developing a regulatory framework for virtual currencies; (ii) aggressively supervising mortgage servicing rights transfers; (iii) obtaining a substantial settlement in a state licensing enforcement action; and (iv) conducting an expansive investigation related to online payday lending.
New York DFS Obtains Substantial Settlement In Licensing Enforcement Action
On March 31, in an enforcement action with potential implications for a range of financial service providers, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that an insurance holding company agreed to pay a $50 million civil fine to resolve allegations that two of its subsidiaries conducted unlicensed insurance business in the state, and that one of the subsidiaries made false representations about those activities. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office (DA) announced that the company agreed to resolve a parallel criminal investigation by entering into a deferred prosecution agreement and disgorging $10 million in profits.
The DFS and the DA claim that their coordinated investigations revealed that the subsidiaries used New York-based sales representatives to solicit insurance business for the companies and their affiliates, and to directly sell insurance products in New York to multinational companies, notwithstanding representations to the contrary from the companies. However, the authorities allege, neither company was licensed to conduct business in the state, and both companies used sales representatives who were not licensed as insurance brokers or agents in New York.
In addition, the DFS and the DA assert that one of the subsidiaries, while operating under the control of a different parent company, intentionally misrepresented to the New York State Insurance Department (one of the DFS’s predecessor agencies) that the subsidiary did not solicit business in New York and that its New York staff did not engage in such activities. At the time, in seeking an opinion as to whether it was required to obtain a license, the company asserted that its New York operations were limited to “back office” operations not subject to licensing requirements.
The civil fine in this action is substantially larger than fines typically imposed with regard to state licensing violations in other financial services industries. Notably, the large fine was imposed even after the companies agreed to cooperate in an ongoing investigation of the two subsidiaries’ former parent company. Also significant, the disgorgement order equates to two years’ worth of profits earned in connection with the alleged unlicensed activity. The holding company also agreed to certain restrictions on its business and that of the two subsidiaries pending full compliance with state law.
The DFS is the principal financial industry regulator in the state of New York, with jurisdiction over banks; mortgage lenders, brokers and servicers; consumer lenders; money transfer businesses; insurance companies; and others.
New York Financial Services Regulator Urges More Enforcement Against Individuals, Reaffirms Focus On Nonbank Mortgage Servicers
On March 19, New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky called on banking regulators to assess whether they are doing enough, particularly with regard to enforcement, to deter or prevent financial crime. In remarks delivered to the Exchequer Club, Mr. Lawsky asserted that true deterrence means focusing not only on corporate liability, but individual accountability. He called on banking regulators to “publicly expose – in great detail – the actual, specific misconduct that individual employees engaged in,” and, where appropriate, ensure individuals face “real, serious penalties and sanctions when they break the law.” Mr. Lawsky is the most recent of several regulators and policymakers to advocate for more individual accountability. Federal enforcement officials, including CFPB Director Richard Cordray and SEC Chair Mary Jo White, have similarly threatened an enhanced enforcement focus on individuals. Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote critically of financial fraud enforcement, and suggested “that the future deterrent value of successfully prosecuting individuals far outweighs the prophylactic benefits of imposing internal compliance measures that are often little more than window-dressing.” In addition to his prepared statement on individual enforcement, Superintendent Lawsky devoted a substantial amount of his remarks and Q&A responses to his concerns about nonbank mortgage servicers. He specifically raised concerns about nonbank servicers’ staffing, especially in the context of the single point of contact requirements of the CFPB’s new servicing rules and the agreements certain servicers entered into with the DFS in 2011 and 2012.
New York DFS Seeking Virtual Currency Exchange Applications
On March 11, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued an order calling for “proposals and applications in connection with the establishment of virtual currency exchanges located in the State of New York.” Proposals can be submitted immediately. Approved exchanges would be subject to any eventual virtual currency regulatory framework established by the DFS, which the DFS now states will be proposed no later than the end of June. The DFS also announced it will “in the near future” consider applications for other virtual currency firms beyond exchanges.
New York Launches Student Lending Resource Center
On March 13, the New York DFS launched a new website to provide student borrowers with information about (i) the types of financial aid available; (ii) what to do in the event of default; (iii) “how to avoid unnecessary or unfair fees when opening a bank account at school”; and (iv) the tax credits and deductions available for education expenses. The website also includes a link to the DFS’s consumer complaint portal to allow borrowers to file complaints about “student-related” financial products or services. The website was launched as part of the state’s Student Protection Unit announced in January 2014.
State Regulators Form Emerging Payments Task Force
On February 20, the CSBS announced the formation of an Emerging Payments Task Force to study changes in payment systems—including virtual currencies and other innovations—to determine the potential impact on consumer protection, state law, and banks and nonbank entities chartered or licensed by the states. The Task Force is comprised of nine state regulators, including New York State Department of Financial Services Superintendent Lawsky who has recently indicated New York will seek to become the first state to directly address virtual currency through new regulations. The Task Force will be chaired by David Cotney, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Division of Banks, who testified on these issues on behalf of the CSBS last fall before the Senate Banking Committee. The CSBS stated that the Task Force will “take a comprehensive approach to studying the changing payment systems” by engaging with a broad range of federal, state, and industry stakeholders to understand how new entrants and technologies affect the stability of payment systems and the broader financial marketplace and “to develop ideas for connecting the emerging payments landscape to the financial regulatory fabric.”
New York Banking Regulator Concerned With Mortgage Servicing Rights Transfers
On February 12, New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky released excerpts of remarks he delivered to the New York Bankers Association, which focused on the “troubling trend” of “the rapid and dramatic growth of so-called ‘non-bank mortgage servicers.’” Mr. Lawsky explained that because banks are being given “less credit” for mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) with respect to capital, they are offloading MSRs to non-bank mortgage servicers rather than building up additional capital. Further, he expressed concern that non-bank mortgage services are often more lightly regulated, and indicated that regulators need to intervene on the front end of MSR transactions to prevent undue harm to homeowners before it occurs. Mr. Lawsky indicated that the DFS will have more to say on the topic in the coming weeks and months.
New York DFS Identifies Potential Next Steps for Virtual Currency Regulation
On February 11, at an event on the future of virtual currency, New York DFS Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky reiterated his intention to move forward with a virtual currency rulemaking this year as the DFS is “increasingly coming to the conclusion that simply applying our existing money transmission regulations to virtual currency firms is not sufficient.” Mr. Lawsky’s remarks follow a recent two-day DFS hearing regarding the potential state regulation of virtual currency. According to his most recent remarks, the proposal may include a specifically tailored BitLicense that adapts existing money transmission rules to virtual currency. In addition, the proposed rules may, among other things, include “a strong set of specially tailored, model consumer disclosure rules” that could address, for example, the irreversible nature of most transactions, the need to keep private keys private, and potential volatility. The DFS proposal may also seek to address capital, collateral, net worth, and investment requirements. Mr. Lawsky explained that the DFS would like more input about whether it should require licensed firms to only use public ledgers and whether to ban or restrict the use of tumblers by licensed firms.
New York DFS Hearing Considers Potential Regulation Of Virtual Currency
This week, New York State Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky presided over a two-day hearing regarding emerging virtual currencies and the appropriate role of regulation. The hearing was the next step in an inquiry announced last August, and was held as the NY DFS considers developing a state license specific to virtual currency that would subject operators to state oversight. The panels featured the views of private investors, virtual currency firms, regulatory experts, and law enforcement officials. From our view inside the room, the most prominent, theme to emerge is that regulators will need to strike a balance between protecting the public interest—both from a consumer protection standpoint and with regard to the potential for criminal activity—while allowing emerging virtual currency technologies to develop, evolve, and thrive.
Panelists agreed that bringing virtual currency activity into a regulatory framework is necessary, particularly with regard to ensure AML compliance. However, they added that recent criminal AML enforcement actions against virtual currency market participants suggested existing laws may be sufficient to meet the challenge. In general, they urged the NY DFS to apply existing laws and requirements and to otherwise “only regulate at the edges.” One panelist suggested implementing any new rules in tiered manner, allowing smaller players an “onramp” to compliance. All panelists stressed the potential economic benefits to allowing robust virtual currency markets to evolve domestically, and some panelists touted the potential broader positive impacts on ecommerce and the potential to reach individuals not served by the traditional banking sector.
Though cognizant of the potential economic benefits of allowing virtual currencies to take hold, NY DFS expressed concerns about too loose a regulatory structure, particularly with regard to the perceived risks of virtual currency to more easily facilitate money laundering and related illicit activity. In an interview between panels Mr. Lawsky stated: “It’s feeling more like little tweaks around the edges are not enough.” Federal and state law enforcement officials echoed those concerns. While they vowed to use existing laws to pursue wrongdoers, Deputy U.S. Attorney Richard Zabel and New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., challenged the assertion that enforcement of existing laws is sufficient to meet the challenges posed by virtual currencies.
Click here for links to written testimony and other hearing materials.
The hearing coincided with other events focused on virtual currency, including one co-hosted by BuckleySandler and Wells Fargo. Other industry experts discussed the rapidly emerging field of virtual currency. Panelists weighed-in on market trends, investment opportunities, compliance imperatives, and interoperability with traditional fiat currencies. Particular attention focused on regulatory compliance considerations, risk management, and policy frameworks.
* * *
For additional information about the events above, or if you have questions about virtual currencies and other emerging financial services technologies, please contact any of the lawyers in our E-Commerce or Anti-Money Laundering practice areas, or any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
New York Launches Student Protection Unit, Investigation Of Debt Relief Companies
On January 22, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo launched a new Student Protection Unit within the New York Department of Financial Services dedicated to investigating potential consumer protection violations in the student loan industry. Its first public investigation is focused on companies the unit believes are charging “high, improper fees without adequate notice for enrolling students in debt relief programs that are available for free through the federal government.” The Student Protection Unit issued subpoenas to 13 debt relief companies seeking advertising materials, contracts, consumer disclosures, and fee schedules among other materials.