InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York AG settles with debt relief company for $3.6 million
On June 23, the New York attorney general announced a $3.6 million proposed settlement with a debt relief operation for allegedly making exaggerated advertisements in violation of a 2011 consent order with the state. According to the press release, the 2011 consent order was based on allegations that the company engaged in “illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive practices” related to advertising. The 2011 consent order permitted the company to advertise certain savings if those savings were achieved by a defined group of New York consumers and if the company “clearly disclosed which consumers were in that group and what approximate percentage of the whole group of New York consumers the defined group represented.” However, the attorney general alleges the company failed to follow this requirement and continued to advertise consumer savings without disclosing the details of the group who achieved the savings, noting that “the majority of New York consumers achieved less than half of the savings [the company] advertised.”
In addition to the $3.6 million in restitution for the New York consumers, the proposed settlement reinforces the 2011 consent order’s injunctive provisions and requires the company to (i) acknowledge that certain high savings numbers are not typical by “[e]xpressly stating the percentage of consumers who achieve the high end range of savings claims”; and (ii) ensure that future savings claims are based on consumers’ total debt with the company’s program.
Privacy initiative makes California ballot
On June 24, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) ballot initiative was submitted to the California Country Clerk’s office as an initiative qualified for the November 2020 General Election ballot after receiving more than the 623,212 valid signatures required to qualify. The initiative was drafted by Alastair Mactaggart, the Founder and Chair of the Californians for Consumer Privacy, and would amend the CCPA in several significant ways. Notably, Mactaggart also drafted the initiative that ultimately resulted in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The ballot initiative would, among other things:
- Provide consumers with the right to require a business to correct inaccurate personal information;
- Revise the definition of “business” to: (i) clarify that the time period for calculating annual gross revenues is based on the prior calendar year; (ii) provide that an entity meets the definition of a “business” if the entity, in relevant part, alone or in combination, annually buys, sell, or shares the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households; (iii) include a joint venture or partnership composed of businesses in which each business has at least a 40 percent interest; and (iv) include a person who does not otherwise qualify as a “business” but voluntarily certifies to the California Privacy Protection Agency (described below) that it is in compliance with, and agrees to be bound by, the CPRA;
- Create the California Privacy Protection Agency, which would have the authority to implement and enforce the CCPA (powers that are currently vested in the attorney general). The agency would be governed by a five-member board, including a single Chair, with members being appointed by the governor, the attorney general, and the leaders of the senate and assembly; and
- Expand on the CCPA’s opt-out provisions and prohibit businesses from selling a consumers’ “sensitive personal information”—a new term introduced by the initiative— without affirmative authorization.
Additional details regarding the proposed changes are available in the September 2019 InfoBytes post announcing the initiative. Since originally filing the initiative in September 2019, Mactaggart has amended the initiative several times, without significant change.
OCC: National banks do not need state money transmitter licenses to exercise fiduciary powers
In June, the OCC posted an interpretive letter to establish that a national bank, subject to certain limits established by 12 U.S.C. § 92a and 12 C.F.R. part 9, may exercise fiduciary powers in any state without obtaining a state money transmitter license. Interpretive Letter #1167 responds to a request for clarification as to whether a bank, whose fiduciary powers are derived from and governed by the National Bank Act and OCC regulations, is required to obtain a state money transmitter license or exemption in order to exercise its fiduciary capacity. The OCC determined that under 12 U.S.C. § 92a, national banks are authorized to act in specific fiduciary capacities “and any other fiduciary capacity permitted for state institutions when acting in the capacity is not in contravention of state law.” The OCC noted that while a national bank’s fiduciary capacities are determined by reference to state law, 12 U.S.C. § 92a (i) “imposes no geographic limits on where a national bank with fiduciary powers may act in a fiduciary capacity”; and (ii) “does not limit where a national bank may market its fiduciary activities, where its fiduciary customers may be located, or where the property being administered may be located.” As such, a national bank may conduct federally authorized fiduciary activities in any state, even if aspects of the bank’s activities fall within a state’s definition of money transmission and the bank is not licensed as a money transmitter in that state. According to the OCC, state laws that are intended to impose licensing requirements on a national bank’s exercise of fiduciary powers are preempted and satisfaction of an exemption from those requirements is not required. However, the OCC cautioned that “[d]ifferent facts and circumstances or consideration of different laws and regulations could result in a different conclusion.”
Nevada governor issues Emergency Directive to assist landlords and tenants impacted by Covid-19
On June 25, the Nevada governor issued Emergency Directive 025 to assist landlords and tenants in Nevada that have been directly or indirectly impacted by the economic environment caused by Covid-19. The directive, among other things: (i) strongly encourages the use of form Lease Addendum/Promissory Note for Rental Arrearages Due to COVID-19, to cure rental payment defaults of the original lease agreement, whether written or oral; (ii) strongly encourages landlords and tenants to enter into a voluntary repayment agreement for defaults in rental payments related to COVID-19; (iii) orders landlords to cease any eviction proceeds in a repayment agreement is entered into; (iv) authorizes limited residential summary eviction actions as outlined in the directive; (v) clarifies that the prohibition on charging late payment fees or penalties for nonpayment under the terms of a lease or rental agreement will terminate on August 31, 2020, but cannot be applied retroactively to late rental payments due between March 30 and August 31; and (vi) authorizes unlawful detainer actions for other than commercial tenancies as set forth in the directive. The Executive Department also issued General FAQs, Residential Landlord FAQs, Residential Tenant FAQs, and Commercial FAQs for the Directive.
Michigan extends Executive Order regarding remote transactions
On June 24, the Michigan governor announced Executive Order 2020-131, which extends a previous order that temporarily allowed e-signatures on official documents and remote notarizations (previously discussed here). Any notarial act may be performed by a notary that holds a valid notarial commission in Michigan using two-way real-time audiovisual technology if certain conditions are met. The order sets forth additional requirements for remote notarizations and continues through July 31, 2020 at 11:59 p.m.
New Jersey Supreme Court holds that state fiduciary law does not permit affirmative cause of action against bank
On June 17, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an appellate division’s judgment and dismissed a complaint against a bank after concluding that the New Jersey Uniform Fiduciaries Law (UFL) does not permit an affirmative cause of action against banks but rather provides them with limited immunity for failing to take notice of and action on the breach of a fiduciary’s obligation. In 2015, the plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of himself and his dental practice against two of his employees who allegedly took insurance company checks issued to the plaintiff and his practice totaling “several hundred thousand dollars,” forged his endorsement on them, and deposited the checks into personal accounts held by a bank who was sued in the same lawsuit for common law claims of conversion and negligence. The trial court dismissed the cause of action against the bank for failure to state a claim, reasoning that “‘common law negligence is not such a remedy’ in the absence of a ‘special relationship’ between [the plaintiff] and the bank.” The trial court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the UFL provided the basis for a cause of action, concluding that the individuals acted as “errant employees”—not as fiduciaries—and that the bank had no fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff who was not a bank customer. The appellate division partially reversed, concluding that plaintiff should be allowed to plead a UFL claim. Among other things, the plaintiff argued that the employees were acting in a fiduciary capacity as “constructive trustees” of the funds and the bank met a bad faith requirement under the UFL in depositing the checks.
The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed, holding that “[n]othing in the plain language of the UFL suggests that the UFL is itself the basis for an affirmative cause of action.” Moreover, the “UFL does not provide for a recovery through a private action or set forth remedies or a statute of limitations—all indicia of a statutory cause of action.” According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, “[w]hen an action is brought against a bank, the UFL provides that a bank’s liability depends on whether the bank acted with actual knowledge or bad faith in the face of a fiduciary’s breach of his obligations.”
CSBS challenges OCC’s Covid-19 preemption bulletin
On June 24, the Director of Regulatory Policy & Policy Counsel at CSBS, Mike Townsley, wrote a blog post in response to the OCC’s Bulletin on Covid-19 preemption, arguing that the bulletin does not have the force and effect of law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on June 17, the OCC issued a Bulletin stating that banks are governed primarily by federal standards and generally are not subject to state law limitations. The OCC acknowledged states’ efforts to respond to the economic disruptions as “well-intended,” but noted that the competing requirements could risk banks’ safety and soundness. The Bulletin also provided specific examples of the types of state laws that do not apply to banks’ lending and deposit activities.
In response, Townsley asserts that the Bulletin has no preemptive effect, because the OCC did not follow the “process required by the National Bank Act (NBA) to determine that these state COVID-19 relief measures are preempted.” Specifically, Townsley argues that through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress “amended the NBA to overturn the OCC’s preemption regulations and establish substantive procedural requirements for the determination of whether the NBA preempts a state law.” The requirements include a court or the OCC having to conclude that the law “‘prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,’” which determination, according to Townsley, if made by the OCC, must be on a case-by-case basis, and include a notice and comment period and the backing of “‘substantial evidence’ on the record.” Townsley also seeks to cast further doubt as to whether the preemption regulations cited by the Bulletin can serve as a guide on procedural grounds, observing that Dodd-Frank requires the OCC to review and decide, through notice and comment, whether to “continue or rescind” each preemption determination every five years, and it has been “well over five years” since the rules were adopted and no such review has ever been conducted. Townsley concludes by citing to the 19th century Supreme Court decision Nat'l Bank v. Commonwealth, stating that national banks “’are subject to the laws of the State.’”
Illinois regulator releases recordings of PPP Loan Forgiveness Application webinars
On June 23, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation announced that recordings of webinars offered to lenders and businesses on June 18 concerning the federal Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness Application are available online.
Washington Department of Financial Institutions extends guidance on remote work for mortgage loan originators
On June 22, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions issued interim regulatory guidance to licensed mortgage loan originators and companies that sponsor them relating to temporary remote work. The guidance extends earlier interim guidance permitting mortgage loan originators to work from home, previously covered here, until December 31, 2020.
Idaho governor takes steps to make Covid-19 regulatory waivers permanent
On June 22, Idaho Governor Brad Little issued Executive Order 2020-13 creating a rebuttable presumption that any regulation that has been waived in response to the Covid-19 pandemic is unnecessary or counterproductive outside of the emergency. The responsible agencies are instructed to determine by July 24 whether permanent suspension of the regulation would be deleterious to the public health and safety. If so, the agency head should submit a signed letter supporting that conclusion; otherwise they should take necessary steps to finalize the regulation’s permanent suspension.