InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
D.C. Circuit Court Affirms Dismissal of Suit, FCA First-to-File Bar Applies
In an opinion handed down on July 25, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) suit because it violated the first-to-file bar, ruling that a relator must re-file a qui tam action and cannot merely amend a complaint where the relator’s complaint was filed when a related qui tam case was still pending. The first-to-file bar provides that if an individual brings an action under the FCA, “no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.”
The case concerned a qui tam relator who claimed that a telecommunications company overbilled on government contracts, thereby violating the FCA, which “penalizes the knowing submission of a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government.” While the first suit was still pending, the relator filed a second suit alleging that the fraud was more widespread. The related suit was then resolved, but a district court dismissed the second suit based on the FCA’s first-to-file bar, which the D.C. Circuit affirmed. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the relator’s petition for certiorari, and vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision, citing a holding in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al v. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970 (2015), in which the Court claimed that the first-to-file bar only applies when a previous suit is pending—not once it has been resolved. Therefore, once the first-filed suit has been resolved, the first-to-file bar “no longer prohibits bringing a new action.” Because the statute of limitations period had run while the case was being appealed to the Supreme Court, the relator sought to amend his complaint rather than file a new action. The defendant moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the defendant’s motion. The relator appealed the ruling back to the D.C. Circuit, but the appellate court sided with the defendants and dismissed the relator’s action without prejudice. However, the appellate court expressly declined to opine on whether the statute of limitations would be equitably tolled if the relator were to re-file his complaint.
District Judge Denies Summary Judgement in FTC, New York AG FDCPA Suit
On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York denied summary judgment in a suit filed by the FTC and the New York Attorney General against four corporate defendants (Corporate Defendants) and four individual defendants (Individual Defendants) alleging that the Defendants engaged in abusive and deceptive debt collection practices. See Federal Trade Commission and People of the State of New York v. Vantage Point Services, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-00006-WMS-HKS (W.D.N.Y., Jul. 18, 2017). Plaintiffs argued that the Corporate Defendants, together with several non-defendant debt-collecting businesses, engaged in a single debt-collection enterprise. The Corporate Defendants maintained, however, that while they “did business with the various entities, either by placing debt with them or by processing payments on debt they were collecting,” the businesses remained separate, distinct entities, and they operated independently.
The court found that there were “numerous disputed issues of fact” concerning the plaintiffs’ common enterprise theory, including a failure by the plaintiffs to specify which entities allegedly made threats or used illegal tactics to collect debt. Indeed, the court noted that while there was “overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing,” the plaintiffs had “failed to link that wrongdoing to any specific Defendant.” In fact, the court observed that the “majority of the wrongdoing appears to have been committed by the non-defendant call initiators.” The court also found material disputes of fact as to whether the Corporate Defendants shared office space and commingled funds and as to whether the Individual Defendants were liable at all.
Judge Issues Ruling that Federal Safe Harbor Provision Applies in RESPA Case
On July 13, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued an opinion holding that a safe harbor provision for affiliated business arrangements under Section 8(c)(4) of RESPA protects a Louisville law firm's relationship with a string of now-closed title insurance agencies. (See CFPB v. Borders and Borders, Plc, No. 3:13-cv-01047-CRS-DW (W.D. Ky. July 13, 2017)). In 2013, the CFPB alleged the firm violated RESPA by paying kickbacks for real estate settlement referrals through a network of joint ventures with the principals of nine title insurance companies. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) The judge granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment on only one safe harbor question, stating that the firm’s agreements with the title insurance agencies qualified as “affiliated business arrangements” because it “disclosed the relationship…, the customers could reject the referral, and the Bureau failed to show that the [title insurance companies] received anything of value beyond their ownership interests.”
The judge rejected the firm's claim that the CFPB cannot seek disgorgement as a remedy and further declined to address the firm’s ultra vires argument that the CFPB is an unconstitutional agency and therefore lacks legal authority to bring suit, stating that the en banc decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB has not yet been issued.
Notably, however, the judge appeared to suggest that case could be appealed because the firm’s other arguments fail to qualify for RESPA safe harbors under Sections 8(c)(1) and 8(c)(2).
Enforcement Actions Announced by CFTC for Fraud, Registration Violations in Florida
On July 11, the CFTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered an order for final judgment by default against two individuals and their company for fraudulently soliciting investors in a commodity pool, misappropriating pool participants’ funds, and committing futures fraud, among other things. According to the CFTC complaint filed on January 26 of 2017, the defendants fraudulently marketed their company to prospective participants, materially misrepresented their past trading success using fabricated high rates of return, provided account statements to investors showing fictitious increases in value, and failed to disclose defendant’s previous permanent injunction on trading.
In addition to imposing a permanent injunction on trading and registration, the Court ordered defendants to pay civil monetary penalties of almost $1.85 million as well as restitution of $459,613. An appointed monitor will oversee the defendants’ payment of restitution. The Court also required one of the defendants to affirmatively disclose his violations in any future marketing materials, presentations, speeches or websites. The required disclosure names his violations, the amount of restitution and civil penalties he must pay, along with the case numbers of his CFTC actions.
Both of the defendants recently pleaded guilty to related criminal charges. One defendant was sentenced to one year and one day in prison in connection with her guilty plea to one count of obstruction of justice, and the other defendant is awaiting sentencing in connection with his guilty plea to one count of wire fraud.
DOJ Announces Settlement with Michigan Credit Union over SCRA Violations
On July 6, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Michigan-based credit union resolving allegations that the credit union illegally repossessed four servicemembers’ vehicles in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). As previously reported, the DOJ filed its complaint on July 26, 2016, alleging that the credit union violated the “SCRA’s prohibition against repossessing a motor vehicle from a servicemember during military service without a court order if the servicemember made a deposit or installment payment on the loan before entering military service.”
Servicemember protections under the SCRA empower the court to (i) review and approve each repossession; (ii) delay a repossession or require the lender to refund the payments made by the servicemember prior to the repossession; (iii) appoint an attorney to represent the servicemember; and (iv) require the lender to post bond with the court.
Under the settlement, the credit union agreed to a civil penalty of $5,000. In addition, the credit union agreed to pay up to $10,000 plus lost equity in the vehicle with interest and to repair the credit of each affected servicemember whose vehicle was repossessed. The credit union also agreed to obtain either a court order or a valid SCRA waiver before repossessing a servicemember’ s vehicle, and to develop policies and procedures for vehicle repossessions that comply with the SCRA as well as provisions to ensure that servicemembers may benefit from the 6 percent interest rate cap on vehicle loans.
Fifth Circuit Affirms Debt Collector Violation of FDCPA
On July 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it failed to notify credit reporting agencies that a consumer had disputed a debt. The Fifth Circuit further determined that this failure was sufficient to comprise a concrete injury conferring standing for the consumer to sue.
In its opinion, the appellate court focused on FDCPA § 807(8) and § 809(b), since the debt collector argued that the requirements in § 809 apply to § 807(8), relieving it of its notification duty under § 807(8). Although the appellate court found that the consumer had not disputed his debt under § 809, it agreed with the district court that this failure did not obviate the debt collector’s responsibility under § 807(8). The appellate court found that the debt collector was in violation of the FDCPA for passing on “credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure” to notify credit agencies of consumer’s disputed debt. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the debt collector’s violation of § 807(8) “exposed [the consumer] to a real risk of financial harm caused by an inaccurate credit rating.”
District Court Order Dismissing TCPA Claim Reversed on Appeal
On July 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a single telemarketing call to a consumer established a concrete injury sufficient to support a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) suit against a New Jersey-based fitness company. The appellate court reversed the District Court’s dismissal of the suit “because the TCPA provides [the consumer] with a cause of action, and her alleged injury is concrete.”
The appellate court considered two questions in the appeal: (i) was the alleged robocall a violation of the TCPA? If so, (ii) is the alleged injury concrete enough to provide Article III standing to sue under the United States Constitution? The court answered the first question by noting that the TCPA prohibits robocalls and prerecorded messages to cellular phones and that it “does not limit—either expressly or by implication—the statute's application to cell phone calls.” In answering the second question, the court determined that the alleged injury is exactly the kind of injury the TCPA was created to prevent: a nuisance or invasion of privacy.
The Third Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their findings.
Debt Collector Liable for Violating FDCPA and TCPA
On July 3, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed that a debt collector violated the Telephone Consumer Practices Act (TCPA) when it called a consumer’s cell phone without the consumer’s consent, resulting in a damages award of $34,500. Additionally, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision regarding a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim for sending a collection letter to the consumer without taking proper precautions to ensure the consumer’s account number would remain private. The debt collector put forth the defense of bona fide error regarding its alleged violations of the FDCPA. The appellate court, citing Supreme Court precedent, rejected the defense, holding that bona fide error could be claimed only in the case of a clerical or factual error, but a “mistaken interpretation of the law is inexcusable under the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense.” The Third Circuit remanded the FDCPA claim to the district court to enter judgment for the consumer and calculate the damages the debt collector must pay.
FTC Announces Settlement of More Than $104 Million with Company for Selling Sensitive Financial Information
On July 5, the FTC issued a press release announcing a settlement of more than $104 million with a lead generation company for allegedly misleading loan applicants with promises of matching consumers with lenders that could offer the best loan terms. Actually, the FTC asserts, defendants were selling the applications, including sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers and bank account numbers, to anyone who would pay for them “without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure.”
The proposed order accompanying the settlement states that defendants used deceptive and unfair acts or practices in the course of their lead generation activities, and permanently prohibits defendants from misrepresenting financial products or services to consumers. It also enjoins defendants from selling or transferring a consumer’s personal information unless the consumer has provided consent and provides that defendants may not benefit from any consumer information collected before the entry of the order. Further, defendants must destroy all personal consumer information in any form within 30 days after the order.
In addition to the above settlement terms, the defendants agreed to (i) compliance monitoring, (ii) creating certain records for ten years after the date of entry of the order, and (iii) compliance reporting
Although defendants have filed for bankruptcy, they agreed that the amount owed to the FTC in the settlement will not be dischargeable.
Second Circuit Affirms No Actual Harm in FACTA Suit
On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, without concrete evidence of actual harm, a consumer lacks standing under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) to sue a merchant for printing credit card expiration dates on receipts. The consumer alleged that printing the expiration date on her credit card receipt led to a material risk of identity theft, and therefore constituted an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. The court disagreed, noting that Congress’s amendments to FACTA belie that expiration dates on credit card receipts increase the risk of identity theft. Moreover, the court held that the consumer failed to allege actual harm from the merchant’s practice.
The court’s decision in Cruper-Wienmann comes approximately one month after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016), which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm” are not enough to establish standing.