InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California governor signs bill amending reservist requirement for deferring financial obligations when called to active duty
On July 9, the governor of California signed into law amendments to Section 800 of the state’s Military and Veterans Code to eliminate the requirement that a reservist called to active duty provide a letter signed under penalty of perjury to an obligor for deferment of certain financial obligations. Specifically, AB 2521 states that a reservist, or his or her designee, is now required instead to deliver a written request—which includes electronic communications— to an obligor for a deferment of financial obligations, including mortgages, credit cards, retail installment accounts and contracts, and vehicle leases. The amendments take effect January 1, 2019.
Texas Attorney General leads 14-state brief to 5th Circuit challenging CFPB structure
On July 10, the Attorney General of Texas and 13 other state Attorneys General filed an amici curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in April, the 5th Circuit agreed to hear a challenge by two Mississippi-based payday loan and check cashing companies to the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director structure in response to a CFPB action filed against the companies. The brief encourages the appellate court to disagree with the en banc decision of the D.C. Circuit, which upheld the Bureau’s structure (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert). Instead, the Attorneys General argue, the court should find the structure unconstitutional rendering “all its actions unlawful.” The brief poses similar arguments to past challenges, including (i) the director should be removable at will by the president and (ii) the president’s removal power should only be restricted for multi-member commissions.
Notably, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently disagreed with the D.C. Circuit decision, concluding the CFPB’s organizational structure is unconstitutional and terminated the Bureau as a party to an action because the agency lacked the authority to bring claims under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.)
Supreme Court of New York strikes down NYDFS’ Insurance Regulation 208
On July 5, the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered the annulment of Insurance Regulation 208, which was promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in October 2017. The decision results from an Article 78 petition by several title insurance companies challenging the state regulation, which prohibits title insurance entities from providing benefits such as meals, tickets to events, gifts, cash, access to parties, trips and other incentives to referral sources. The regulation clarifies that certain “reasonable and customary” advertising and marketing expenses are permitted under New York’s insurance law, provided they are “without regard to insured status or conditioned directly or indirectly on the referral of title business.” The title insurance companies argue that Regulation 208’s restrictions are inconsistent with New York’s insurance law because the law only prohibits “quid pro quo inducements given in exchange for title insurance business” and the law permits marketing and entertainment payments so long as they are not being exchanged for “a specific identified piece of business.”
The court agreed and found that the insurance law—which prohibits a “commission,” “rebate,” “fee,” or “other consideration or valuable thing”—could not be construed to include marketing and entertainment expenses because “it is common sense that marketing is an inducement for business” and it would be “an absurd proposition” that the New York Legislature intended to prohibit companies from marketing themselves. Additionally, construing the insurance law to include marketing and entertainment expenses as prohibited expenditures but also including a provision which delineates certain types of marketing and entertainment expenses as permissible is “irreconcilable and irrational.” The court ultimately concluded that Regulation 208 must fail because it contravenes the will of the Legislature under the insurance law.
In response to the decision, NYDFS Superintendent, Maria T. Vullo, issued a statement that the state intends to appeal as they “remain certain of [their] legal opinion and are confident [they] will prevail on appeal.” On July 6, NYDFS filed a notice of appeal with the court.
California Court of Appeal: State required to return $331 million to mortgage settlement fund
On July 10, the California Third District Court of Appeal reversed in part a Superior Court’s 2015 decision to abstain from issuing a writ directing the Legislature to appropriate funds to restore the money the state allegedly unlawfully took out of the National Mortgage Settlement Deposit Fund (the NMS Deposit Fund). The NMS Deposit Fund was created in 2012 to hold the state’s share of $2.5 billion allocated as part of a settlement agreement reached between the federal government, 49 states, and five of the largest U.S. mortgage servicers. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here on the 2012 settlement.) According to the opinion, three groups filed a lawsuit in 2014 against California Governor Jerry Brown and the state’s director of finance and controller alleging they unlawfully diverted money from the NMS Deposit Fund to make bond payments and offset general fund expenditures. The groups sought a writ of mandate compelling the state government to pay back approximately $350 million in diverted funds. While the Superior Court agreed that the money had been improperly diverted, the court asserted it lacked “constitutional authority” to restore the funds; however, the court ordered the state to restore the funds “as soon as there is a sufficient appropriation ‘reasonably’ and ‘generally’ available for such purpose.” Conversely, the Third District Court of Appeal disagreed, citing to case law supporting the groups’ position that the court could order the money back. Among other things, under the law, the money still belongs in the NMS Deposit Fund, and not in the state’s General Fund. Furthermore, the fact that the state’s director of finance unlawfully diverted the money in contravention of state law and the settlement’s terms only makes for a “more compelling case” that the Superior Court should have issued a writ.
NYDFS recommends online lenders be subject to state licensure and usury limits in new report
On July 11, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS or the Department) released a study of online lending in New York, as required by AB 8938. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) In addition to reporting the results of its survey of institutions believed to be engaging in online lending activities in New York, NYDFS makes a series of recommendations that would expand the application of New York usury and other statutes and regulations to online loans made to New York residents, including loans made through partnerships between online lender and banks where, in the Department’s view, the online lender is the “true lender.”
In particular, NYDFS recommends, “[a]ll New York lenders should operate under the same set of rules and be subject to consistent enforcement of those rules to achieve a level playing field for all market participants….” Elsewhere in the report, the Department states that it “disagrees with [the] position” that online lenders are exempt from New York law if they partner with a federally-chartered or FDIC-insured bank that extends credit to New York residents. NYDFS criticizes these arrangements, stating its view that “the online lender is, in many cases, the true lender” because the online lender is “typically … the entity that is engaged in marketing, solicitation, and processing of applications, and dealing with the applicants” and may also purchase, resell, and/or service the loan.
NYDFS also noted that it opposed pending federal legislation that would reverse the Second Circuit’s decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which held that federal preemption of New York’s usury laws ceased to apply when a loan was transferred from a national bank to a non-bank. The Department expressed concern that, if passed, the bill “could result in ‘rent-a-bank charter’ arrangements between banks and online lender that are designed to circumvent state licensing and usury laws.”
Noting that many online lenders remain unlicensed in New York, the Department states that “[d]irect supervision and oversight is the only way to ensure that New York’s consumers and small business owners receive the same protections irrespective of the channel of delivery….” To this end, NYDFS recommended lowering the interest rate threshold for licensure from 16 percent to 7 percent.
Although NYDFS stressed that its survey results may be unreliable due to uneven response rates, it reported that, for respondents, the average median APR for online loans to businesses was 25.9%, the average median APR for online loans to individuals for personal use was 14.8%, and the average median APR for the underbanked customers was 19.6% (New York currently caps interest for civil liability at 16% and at 25% for criminal liability).
Overall, the report appears to forecast a more difficult regulatory and enforcement environment in New York for online lenders, as has been the case in West Virginia and Colorado.
New York Attorney General announces settlement with auto dealership over deceptive practices targeting non-English speakers
On July 5, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement with an auto dealership to resolve allegations that it engaged in deceptive practices targeted towards non-English speakers. The auto dealership allegedly misled consumers about the actual cost of their purchases and offered false refinancing promises. According to the announcement, the dealership allegedly (i) provided English documents to non-English speaking consumers containing loan terms and aftermarket items different from those discussed during the actual sale, including “supplemental service contracts, gap insurance policies, or special protections for tires, fabric, glass, or paint that added thousands of dollars to the auto sale or lease contracts”; and (ii) told consumers it would refinance their loans at a lower rate after receiving complaints of overcharges and unwanted aftermarket items. However, the Attorney General asserts that the dealership failed to honor the refinancing promises. Under the terms of the settlement, the dealership is required to reform its business practices, refrain from engaging in the alleged deceptive business practices, modify its employee training and complaint handling process, and produce sales and lending documents in languages for non-English speakers prior to the signing of any documentation in English. The dealership must also pay over $423,000 to cover restitution, penalties, fees, and costs to the state.
Florida Supreme Court: Lender may file second suit for deficiency claim provided foreclosure court has not adjudicated the claim
On July 5, the Florida Supreme Court held that Section 702.06, Florida Statutes (2014), allows a lender pursuing a deficiency claim in a foreclosure action in one court to bring a separate action against the homeowner in another court provided the foreclosure court that has reserved jurisdiction has not yet adjudicated the deficiency claim. Section 702.06 provides in part that, “In all suits for the foreclosure of mortgages . . . . [t]he complainant shall also have the right to sue at common law to recover for such deficiency, unless the court in the foreclosure action has granted or denied a claim for a deficiency judgment.” At issue was a residential property that was foreclosed by final judgment. In the judgment, the foreclosure court expressly reserved jurisdiction to rule on any future deficiency claim, although no one tried to adjudicate the claim in that forum. The mortgage loan purchaser filed a separate action against the homeowner in a different court and obtained a deficiency judgment. On appeal from that action, the First District Court of Appeal disagreed with several other Florida appellate courts and concluded that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the original foreclosure court had previously reserved jurisdiction. The high court unanimously disagreed, holding that a “reservation of jurisdiction is not a grant or denial of the claim. The foreclosure court would have only ‘granted or denied’ the deficiency judgment if it had adjudicated the claim. Therefore, [§ 702.06, Fla. Stat.] plainly precludes the separate action only where the foreclosure court has actually ruled on the claim—as held by the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth District Courts of Appeal.” In issuing its ruling, the high court quashed the decision of the First District Court of Appeal and approved the certified conflict decisions of the four other appellate courts.
NYDFS encourages New York state chartered financial institutions to establish relationships with medical marijuana businesses
On July 3, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), at the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, released guidance encouraging New York state chartered banks and credit unions to consider establishing relationships with regulated and compliant medical marijuana and industrial hemp-related businesses operating in New York. According to the guidance, these businesses often rely solely on cash to conduct transactions, because of a lack of access to traditional financial services. The press release announcing the guidance cites to the New York Compassionate Care Act, enacted in 2014, which provides medical patients suffering from “debilitating symptoms and diseases” access to, under strict requirements, medical marijuana. NYDFS is encouraging New York financial institutions to form appropriate banking relationships with these business, because “[p]roviding access to regulated banking services is an essential part of taking the legal cannabis industry out of the shadows and establishing it as a transparent, regulated, tax-paying part of our economy, and a necessary part of fulfilling the goal of relieving the suffering of seriously ill patients.”
NYDFS will not impose any regulatory action on a New York financial institution that establishes a business relationship with legal medical marijuana and industrial hemp-related businesses, as long as the institution also complies with other applicable guidance and regulations, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s 2014 guidance—which clarifies expectations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for financial institutions providing services to these businesses.
International bank settles with Illinois Attorney General for $20 million for alleged RMBS misconduct
On July 3, the Illinois Attorney General announced a settlement with an international bank to resolve allegations of misconduct in the bank’s marketing and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. According to the press release, the bank allegedly failed to disclose accurately the risk of the RMBS investments when selling the securities. Under the terms of the settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $20 million to the state, which will be divided between three state retirement systems. This settlement follows several other RMBS-related actions taken by the Attorney General.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, earlier in March, the bank reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General to resolve similar allegations.
Buckley Special Alert: California governor signs significant data privacy bill into law
On June 28, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “Consumer Privacy Act” or the “Act”) into law. The Act was enacted largely in response to a more restrictive ballot initiative (“Ballot Initiative”) that appeared to have gained a sufficient number of signatures to appear on the November 2018 ballot in the state. Both the Act and the Ballot Initiative were a reaction to high-profile news stories involving large-scale consumer data collection and sharing by online companies, often done without notice to or consent from consumers.
The Ballot Initiative, driven and funded by a coalition of privacy advocates, proposed both expanding consumer privacy rights under existing state laws such as the California Online Privacy Protection Act and the “Shine the Light” law, and giving new consumer rights with regard to information sharing. The Ballot Initiative, which was withdrawn in response to the enactment of the Act, would have provided state residents with increased rights regarding the types of information online companies possess about them, the purposes for which the information is used, and the entities with which the information is shared. Consumers would also have been given the right to stop certain sharing of their personal information. Critics asserted that the Ballot Initiative was poorly crafted and would stifle innovation in data services. Last minute revisions to the language of the Act, which generally follows the requirements of the Ballot Initiative, sought to address some of these concerns and several industry groups that had opposed the Ballot Initiative did not lobby against the quick passage of the Act.
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have questions about the act or other related issues, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security practice page, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.