InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts Appeals Court holds deficiency debt notice should be applied retroactively
On July 21, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a 2018 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) decision in Williams v. American Honda Fin. Corp., which resolved a conflict in state law regarding the proper way for a creditor to calculate a consumer’s deficiency debt in an automobile repossession notice, should be applied retroactively. After a consumer defaulted on his car loan, his creditor sent him a presale repossession notice advising him that the amount owed would be reduced by the money received from the sale of the vehicle. This notice was insufficient under Williams, but the creditor argued that the decision should only apply prospectively, and the Superior Court agreed and dismissed the consumer’s complaint. The consumer appealed.
In Williams, the SJC resolved a conflict as to whether the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), G. L. c. 106, §§ 9-600, or the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA), G. L. c. 255B should be used to calculate a consumer’s deficiency debt in an automobile repossession notice. While both statutes contain similar elements, they also contain conflicting provisions, which the SJC resolved in Williams by holding that all automobile repossession notices are required to state that the consumer’s deficiency debt will be calculated, in accordance with RISA, based on the difference between the unpaid balance and the vehicle’s fair market value. The SJC further determined that the fair market value language in RISA displaces the UCC’s inconsistent safe harbor provision.
The Appeals Court first noted that decisions in Massachusetts construing a statute are presumptively given retroactive effect. The Appeals Court further held that Williams is intended “to give effect to the clear meaning of a statute designed to protect consumers,” which was “best accomplished through retroactive application.” In agreeing with the consumer, and noting that because Williams does not include a retroactive-prospective analysis, the Appeals Court stated that “there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the presumption of retroactivity.”
4th Circuit affirms arbitration clause waiving statutory rights is unenforceable
On July 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, holding that the arbitration agreements operated as prospective waivers of federal law and were thus unenforceable. According to the opinion, a group of Virginia borrowers filed suit against two online lenders owned by a sovereign Native American tribe and their investors (collectively, “defendants”). In the action, the plaintiffs contended that they obtained payday loans from the defendants, which included annual interest rates between 219 percent to 373 percent—an alleged violation of Virginia’s usury laws and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The defendants moved to compel arbitration, which the district court denied, concluding that choice-of-law provisions—such as “‘[t]his agreement to arbitrate shall be governed by Tribal Law’; ‘[t]he arbitrator shall apply Tribal Law’; and the arbitration award ‘must be consistent with this Agreement and Tribal Law’”—prospectively excluded federal law, making them unenforceable.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed with the district court despite a “strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.” Most significantly, the appellate court rejected the defendants’ assertion that the choice-of-law provisions did not operate as a prospective waiver. The court noted that while the choice-of-law provisions “do not explicitly disclaim the application of federal law, the practical effect is the same,” as they limit an arbitrator’s award to “remedies available under Tribal Law,” effectively preempting “the application of any contrary law—including contrary federal law.” Moreover, the appellate court concluded that under the arbitration agreement, borrowers would be unable to effectively pursue RICO claims against the defendants, and more specifically, would be unable to “effectively vindicate a federal statutory claim for treble damages” under RICO. Thus, because federal statutory protections and remedies are unavailable to borrowers under the agreement, the appellate court concluded the entire agreement is unenforceable.
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.
Texas Department of Banking issues guidance on Main Street Lending Program and state lending limits
The Texas Department of Banking issued guidance explaining the application of lending limits imposed on state chartered banks to loans issued under the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s Main Street Lending Program (“MSLP”). The guidance explains that if the bank funds a MSLP loan prior to seeking to sell a participation in the loan to the Department of the Treasury, the entire amount of the loan will count towards eligible lending limits. After the participation is sold, the portion of the loan sold need not be treated as a loan for purposes of lending limits. If the bank enters into a MSLP loan agreement, the funding of which is contingent on a binding commitment from the Treasury to purchase a participation in the loan, the bank need only include the portion of the loan to be retained when calculating lending limits.
OCC proposes True Lender rule
On July 20, the OCC issued a proposed rule (see also Bulletin 2020-70) that addresses when a national bank or federal savings association (bank) is the “true lender” in the context of a partnership between a bank and a third party in order to clarify uncertainties about the legal framework that applies. Specifically, the proposed rule amends 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.” The OCC notes that the proposal 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, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a statement opposing the proposal, stating that “the true lender doctrine is and should remain a matter of state law.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC and the FDIC recently issued final rules clarifying that whether interest on a loan is permissible under federal law is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan, effectively reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision. At the time, both agencies chose not to address the “true lender” issue.
Colorado amends public health order to require certain employees of critical businesses to wear masks, gloves
On July 21, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued Amended Public Health Order 20-31, which provides requirements for face coverings and gloves. All employees, contractors, and others providing services for critical businesses that interact in close proximity with other employees or with the public must wear a medical or non-medical cloth face covering that covers the nose and mouth, unless this would inhibit the individual’s health. Employers that operate critical businesses should provide employees with non-medical face coverings. Employees, contractors, and others providing services for critical businesses must also wear gloves, as appropriate by industry standards, when in physical contact with customers or goods if gloves are provided by the employer. The order took effect on July 21 and will continue through August 15, unless otherwise suspended or extended.
Texas Supreme Court orders CARES Act certifications in eviction proceedings
On July 21, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order requiring landlords initiating eviction proceeds to issue a sworn statement describing whether the premises at issue is subject to the CARES Act moratorium on evictions, and whether the landlord has provided the defendant with 30 days’ notice to vacate as required by the CARES Act. The order applies to eviction proceedings filed through August 24.
Massachusetts governor extends pause on evictions and foreclosures
On July 21, the Massachusetts governor extended a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for an additional 60 days, until October 17, 2020. The moratorium was established through legislation enacted in April and previously covered here. The moratorium applies to most residential and small business commercial evictions, as well as residential foreclosures. The statement announcing the extension also notes the recent launch of a $20 million, statewide fund to assist low-income households and support landlords. An additional $18 million is available through the Residential Assistance for Families in Transition homeless prevention program for rent or mortgage payments.
FTC, Florida issue TRO against rate-reduction operation
On July 16, the FTC and the Florida attorney general announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a temporary restraining order against an allegedly fraudulent credit card interest rate reduction operation. According to the complaint, the operation violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices act by targeting “financially distressed consumers and older adults” through telemarketing phone calls promising to substantially reduce their credit card interest rates and charging consumers upfront fees, ranging from $995 to $3,995. The operation typically charged the fees “during, or immediately following, the telemarketing call, often by using remotely created payment orders” against the consumer’s checking account or credit card. The complaint asserts that consumers often did not receive permanently reduced credit card interest rates, nor did they save “thousands of dollars on their credit card debt,” as promised. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, restitution, and civil money penalties.
Colorado regulator updates guidance to real estate businesses with new mask requirements
On July 17, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies updated its Safer at Home: Additional Guidance for Real Estate Brokers & Servicers, previously covered here, to account for the Colorado governor’s recently-issued mask ordinance. The updated guidance provides that businesses must refuse service to customers not wearing masks and responds to frequently asked questions regarding the mask ordinance, including whether businesses should follow state or local mask orders.