InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Hawaii approves temporary authority to act as a registered mortgage loan originator
On June 7, the Hawaii governor signed HB 988, which provides 120-day temporary authority for certain mortgage loan originators to originate loans in Hawaii without a state license. Pursuant to Section 106 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the bill allows a federally-registered mortgage loan originator (MLO) holding an MLO license in another state while employed by a Hawaii-licensed mortgage company, to have temporary authority to act as a state-licensed MLO for a period not to exceed 120 days while the MLO’s Hawaii license application is pending. MLOs with temporary authority are subject to the applicable laws of Hawaii to the same extent as persons licensed by Hawaii. The bill is effective on November 24.
NY AG settlement resolves deceptive practices action with ticket resale companies
On July 10, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with two ticket resale companies that allegedly deceived thousands of consumers by selling event tickets that the companies did not actually own. According to the announcement, the defendants’ practice of selling “speculative tickets” to consumers involved listing and selling tickets the companies did not possess and attempting to purchase such tickets only after a consumer had already placed an order. The attorney general claimed the defendants often charged premiums or inflated prices for tickets then “kept the difference between the price they actually paid and the price at which the speculative ticket was sold to a consumer.” Additionally, one of the defendants also allegedly misled consumers in instances when tickets could not be provided by blaming technical errors or vague supplier issues. While the defendants have not admitted any liability, under the terms of the settlement—subject to court approval—they have agreed to pay $1.55 million and adopt reforms designed to protect ticket purchasers in the future, including, where appropriate, providing clear and conspicuous disclosures stipulating that the ticket seller does not possess the listed tickets and is merely offering to obtain such tickets on a consumer’s behalf.
Maine adopts legislation to license and regulate student loan servicers
On June 20, the Maine governor signed LD 995, which establishes a student loan bill of rights to license and regulate student loan servicers. Notably, supervised financial organizations, financial institution holding companies, mutual holding companies, and their wholly owned subsidiaries are exempt from the entire requirements of the bill; and licensed banks, credit unions, and their wholly owned subsidiaries, as well as certain Maine financial institutions, are exempt from the licensing requirements.
The bill requires that any student loan servicer who is not exempt from the provisions of the bill—defined as, “a person, wherever located, responsible for the servicing of a student education loan to a student loan borrower”—obtain a license from the Superintendent of Consumer Credit Protection within the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. Licenses may be renewed for 24-month periods, and renewal applications must be filed on or before September 1 of the year in which the license expires (or will be subject to a late fee); if not renewed, a license will expire on September 30 of the odd-numbered year following its issuance. Student loan servicers under contract with the U.S. Department of Education will be automatically issued limited, irrevocable licenses.
The bill requires non-exempt student loan servicers, including licensed banks or credit unions and their wholly owned subsidiaries, to comply with certain requirements, including (i) responses to written inquires; (ii) application of payments; and (iii) repayment program evaluations. Additionally, the bill prohibits student loan servicers from, among other things, (i) engaging in unfair or deceptive practices; (ii) misapplying payments; (iii) failing to report payment histories to credit bureaus; and (iv) failing to respond within 15 days to borrower complaints submitted to the servicer by the student loan ombudsman. Violations of the bill are considered an unfair trade practice under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The bill gives the Superintendent the authority to conduct investigations and examinations and requires the Superintendent to adopt rules implementing the legislation. The law is effective January 1, 2020.
Hawaii amends motor vehicle service contract definition
On July 2, the Hawaii governor signed HB 154, which clarifies that motor vehicle service contracts regulated by the Insurance Commissioner include contracts for certain motor vehicle repair and replacement services. The bill amends the law’s definition of “service contract” to include a specified list of repair or placement activities related to motor vehicles. The amendments are effective on July 1, 2020.
California Court of Appeal: Prejudgment interest accrual did not violate Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
On July 1, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part a previous superior court judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that the debt collector did not violate the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act) by adding prejudgment interest from the date of charge-off to a consumer’s account, and reporting the account, with such additional interest, to several credit bureaus.
The lawsuit initially arose when the debt collector sued to collect the entire amount owed, and the consumer filed a cross-complaint alleging the debt collector had violated the Rosenthal Act, among other laws, by “‘falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt,’ ‘failing to verify that the amount demanded was accurate,’ and ‘failing to provide an accurate accounting of the alleged debt.’” The superior court rejected the consumer’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the debt collector in the amount of the debt plus attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the debt collector did not violate the Rosenthal Act because the consumer failed to show that the original creditor waived the right to accrue additional interest on the account by not accruing the interest after charge-off. Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the statutory prejudgment interest rate is only available when there is no specified contractual rate. However, the Court determined that the debt collector did not improperly accrue interest when it applied a seven percent interest rate, as seven percent is lower than the statutory interest rate and the contractual interest rate. With respect to attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeal concluded the superior court improperly awarded fees associated with the legal action to collect the debt and the cross-complaint, noting that the superior court, “should have limited the fee award to time spent on efforts necessary to prove the allegations in the complaint.” Therefore, the court reversed the fee judgment and remanded the case back to superior court for “further consideration of the fee award in accordance with our narrower interpretation of the contractual fee provision.”
FTC and NY AG settle with phantom debt operation
On July 1, the FTC announced, together with the New York attorney general, a settlement with two New York-based phantom debt operations and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) resolving allegations that the operations bought, placed for collection, sold lists of, and collected on fake debts that consumers did not owe. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the June 2018 complaint alleged that the defendants ran a deceptive and abusive debt collection scheme in violation of the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and New York state law. The settlement order against one company and its owners bans the defendants from debt collection activities, including buying, placing for collection, and selling debt. The order requires the defendants to pay a combined $676,575, suspending the total judgment of $6.75 million, due to inability to pay. The settlement order against the other company and its owner prohibits the defendants from engaging in unlawful collection practices and requires the payment of $118,000, suspending the total judgment of $4.94 million, due to inability to pay.
Split 9th Circuit reverses dismissal of class action alleging bank-assisted fraud
On June 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the dismissal of a non-customer class action against a California bank alleging the bank knowingly assisted a fraudulent scheme, in violation of California law. The class action asserts eight claims against the bank under California law, including aiding and abetting fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, for allegedly “knowingly assist[ing] a $125 million fraudulent scheme” initiated by one of the bank’s clients. The district court dismissed the action, holding the consumers “had not pleaded sufficient facts giving rise to a plausible inference that [the bank] knew [its client] was misappropriating funds.”
On appeal, the 9th Circuit disagreed, concluding the consumers plausibly alleged specific allegations concerning the bank’s actual knowledge of the client’s misappropriation and fraud. The appellate court noted that while generally banks owe no duty to non-customers under California law, an exception exists when a bank “‘knowingly makes itself a party to a fraud, [it] must make good the loss that results from the misappropriation.’” The appellate court concluded that several allegations made by the consumers were plausible based on the bank using “atypical banking procedures,” which included “repeatedly making advances at [the client]’s request without obtaining supporting documentation or verifying that [the client] used the advanced proceeds appropriately (despite indications to the contrary) and extending maturity dates on short-term loans year after year (even when [the client] was in default).”
In dissent, a panel judge argued that the consumers made no specific allegations of the bank’s actual knowledge of the fraud, noting that the complaint is “vague and lengthy” and just “a series of common banking practices dressed up in ominous language.” Additionally, the judge noted that California courts traditionally only find actual knowledge in “‘extreme circumstances,’” and have previously “refused to hold banks liable in far more egregious cases than this.”
23 states agree to streamline money service licensing process for fintech companies
On June 24, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that financial regulators from 23 states have now agreed to a multi-state compact that will offer a streamlined licensing process for money services businesses (MSB), including fintech firms. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February 2018, the original agreement included seven states. According to the announcement, 15 companies are currently involved in the initiative, and as of June 20, they have received 72 licenses. The 23 states participating in the MSB licensing agreement are: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi. North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
Japanese bank pays $33 million to settle NYDFS claims of weak BSA/AML controls
On June 24, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), together with the New York Attorney General, announced a $33 million settlement with a Japanese bank resolving allegations the bank’s internal controls—specifically, its anti-money laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions compliance programs—at its New York Branch were “systematically deficient” between November 2014 and November 2018. This allegedly resulted in violations of state and federal laws and regulations, as well as two previous NYDFS consent orders from 2013 and 2014. The settlement resolves an action that was commenced by the bank against NYDFS in connection with a 2017 application with the OCC to convert its state-licensed branches in New York, Illinois, and California and its state-licensed agency offices in Texas to federally licensed branches and agency offices. The action sought to block a NYDFS order that would keep the bank under its supervisory purview notwithstanding the OCC’s granting of the federal charter. The settlement indicates that neither NYDFS, NYAG, or the bank admit any wrongdoing, but have agreed to dismiss all outstanding claims, upon the bank’s monetary payment. The settlement states that NYDFS releases the bank of any further obligations related to the previous consent orders and notes that it “will not attempt to exercise any visitorial power or other supervisory, regulatory, or enforcement authority over [the bank] or its branches or agencies.”
Mortgage servicer agrees to pay $7.8 million in escrow interest in CDBO action
On June 18, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) announced a $7.8 million settlement with a mortgage servicer to pay allegedly overdue escrow interest to more than 94,000 California homeowners. According to the stipulation reflecting the settlement, the allegations result from a 2017 CDBO mortgage servicing examination, which found that the servicer “had failed to pay [two percent] interest on escrow impounds in violation of” California Fin. Code § 50202(d) and California Civ. Code § 2954.8. The settlement requires the servicer to pay the two percent interest for the period of July 1, 2014, through December 31, 2018, to 94,483 borrowers with escrow impound accounts. The servicer also agreed to pay two percent interest on escrow impound accounts for California residential mortgages going forward, although it reserved the right to stop paying interest in certain circumstances, including a final civil order or decision from the California Supreme Court or U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit finding that Financial Code Section 2954.8 is not applicable to national banks or their subsidiaries.