InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC files amicus brief in support of rehearing in 9th circuit preemption decision
On April 24, the OCC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of an en banc rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s March decision, which held that a California law that requires the bank to pay interest on escrow funds is not preempted by federal law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 9th Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2011 (Dodd-Frank) essentially codified the existing National Bank Act (NBA) preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson.
In a strongly worded brief, the OCC states that the court “errs in matters of fundamental importance to the national banking system” and “comprehensively misinterpreted” Barnett Bank and the cases upon which that decision rests. The OCC specifically argues that the court misinterpreted the legal standard for preemption articulated by Barnett Bank, ignored applicable Supreme Court standards prescribing a test for reviewing preemptive regulations, improperly created a burden of proof on national banks to demonstrate Congressional intent as to preemption, and inappropriately imposed a higher bar for “large corporate banks” to show state law interference. The OCC also argues that the court’s reliance on the effective dates of the Dodd-Frank provisions relied upon by the Court pre-date the transactions that were at issue in the case, and would therefore have no application to the facts of the case.
This filing supports the national bank’s petition for en banc rehearing filed April 13 and previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Illinois Attorney General sues online “pension sale” installment lender
On April 19, the Illinois Attorney General announced a lawsuit against a Nevada-based installment loan company alleging the company made illegal installment loans without a license. According to the press release, the Illinois Attorney General alleges that the company markets high rate installment loans in exchange for payments from a consumer’s pension benefits in violation of Illinois law. In addition, the Attorney General claims that the company illegally advertised its loans and concealed high finance charges from consumers and, in some instances, continued to withdraw money from accounts after consumers attempted to cancel the agreement. The Attorney General is seeking the contracts to be voided, an injunction against the behavior, restitution for consumers, and civil money penalties.
New Mexico Attorney General announces settlement with payment card companies to resolve excessive interchange fees
On April 18, the New Mexico Attorney General’s office announced a $3.4 million settlement with the country’s two largest payment card networks to resolve allegations that the companies charged excessive interchange fees during credit and debit card transactions. In 2014, the state filed a lawsuit claiming that the companies’ conduct violated New Mexico’s Antitrust Act and Unfair Practices Act along with various common law theories, including unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. According to the terms of the settlement, the companies are required to pay a total of $3.4 million into the state’s settlement fund for “law enforcement efforts to prevent and prosecute financial fraud or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including anti-competitive behavior, and to investigate, enforce, and prosecute other illegal conduct related to financial services or consumer protection and antitrust laws.” In agreeing to the terms of the settlement, the companies did not admit any liability or wrongdoing, did not admit the truth of any allegations or circumstances, and did not waive any defenses.
Wisconsin repeals mortgage escrow interest requirement
On April 17, the Wisconsin governor signed AB 822, which eliminates the requirement that financial institutions pay interest on certain residential mortgage loan escrow accounts. Previously, Wisconsin required institutions to pay interest on escrow accounts at a rate of no less than 5.25 percent if the loan was originated between February 1984 and December 1993, or at a variable rate if the loan was originated on or after January 1, 1994. Effective April 17, financial institutions are not required to pay interest on escrow accounts for residential mortgage loans originated on or after the effective date.
NYDFS encourages financial institutions and insurers to review relationship with NRA
On April 19, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), at the direction of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, issued guidance to all NYDFS–regulated insurers and NYDFS-regulated financial institutions encouraging them to review ties to the National Rifle Association (NRA) (available here and here) and similar gun promotion organizations. According to the announcement, the NYDFS is encouraging regulated entities to consider reputational risk and public safety in connection with their relationship with gun promotion organizations. The letters reference recent school violence in Parkland, Florida and note that financial institutions and insurers can play a significant role in public health and safety, and in light of recent events, should manage reputational and other risks associated with dealings with the NRA or other similar gun promotion organizations. The letters conclude by encouraging regulated institutions to take “prompt actions” regarding these concerns.
New York Attorney General launches cryptocurrency integrity initiative
On April 18, the New York Attorney General’s office announced the launch of an initiative designed to protect virtual currency investors and increase transparency and accountability within the cryptocurrency industry. Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman sent questionnaires to 13 virtual currency trading platforms, requesting information on their operations, policies, and internal controls as part of a “fact-finding inquiry.” “[T]oo often, consumers don't have the basic facts they need to assess the fairness, integrity, and security of these trading platforms,” the Attorney General stated. The Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative asks the trading platforms to disclose several categories of information, including ownership and control information, operation and fees, trading policies and procedures, internal controls, and privacy and money laundering risks and safeguards. Responses will be analyzed, compared across platforms, and presented to the public. Questionnaires are due May 1.
States pass legislation updating security freeze laws
On April 12, the Kansas governor signed HB 2580, which amends existing law to prohibit consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) from charging a fee to a consumer for placing, temporarily lifting, or removing a security freeze on his or her credit report. Moreover, it prevents CRAs from charging fees for replacing a previously requested personal identification number. The law is effective July 1.
Additionally, on April 10, the Iowa governor signed SF 2177, which updates the state’s security freeze law to prohibit CRAs from charging a fee to a consumer for placing, temporarily lifting, removing, or reinstating a security freeze on his or her credit report. Additionally, among other things, the law (i) expands the methods a consumer may use to submit a request for a security freeze; (ii) reduces the number of days CRAs must commence a security freeze after receiving a request from five to three business days; (iii) requires CRAs to send written confirmation within three business days to a consumer after placing a security freeze; and (iv) states that if a consumer requests a security freeze from a CRA that “compiles and maintains files on a nationwide basis,” the CRA must attempt to identify other CRAs that also maintain nationwide files so that the consumer may request additional security freezes. The amendments generally take effect July 1, with the exception of certain provisions that take effect January 1, 2019.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on states that have recently enacted similar prohibitions.
NYDFS announces investigation into rent-to-own as predatory lending
On April 16, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced an investigation into whether rent-to-own and land installment home purchase agreements constitute unlicensed, predatory mortgage lending in New York. NYDFS acknowledged the ongoing investigation while releasing a consumer alert to New Yorkers about rent-to-own and land installment contract pitfalls. The alert notifies consumers that the agreements may violate certain New York laws and regulations governing fair lending, mortgage protection, interest rates, habitability, and property condition. NYDFS encourages consumers to consider a traditional leasing option and be aware of the state of disrepair the property may be in before signing the agreement.
Bank petitions for rehearing of 9th Circuit preemption decision; OCC to file amicus brief in support of bank
On April 13, a national bank filed a petition for an en banc rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s March decision, which held that a California law that requires the bank to pay interest on escrow funds is not preempted by federal law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 9th Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2011 (Dodd-Frank) essentially codified the existing National Bank Act (NBA) preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson. The panel cited to Section 1639d(g)(3) of Dodd-Frank, which, according to the opinion, expresses Congress’ view that the type of law at issue does not “prevent or significantly interfere with a national bank’s operations” because the law does not “prevent or significantly interfere” with the national bank’s exercise of its power. Additionally, the 9th Circuit concluded that the OCC’s 2004 preemption regulation had no effect on the preemption standard.
In its petition for rehearing, the bank argues that the 9th Circuit’s decision, if allowed to stand, “will create confusion regarding which state laws apply to national banks and restrict the terms on which they may extend credit” because the decision conflicts with previous decisions by the same court, the Supreme Court, and other circuits. The bank also acknowledges the OCC’s intent to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition no later than April 23.
FTC and Florida Attorney General settle with debt relief scammers
On April 12, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General announced an $85 million settlement with three individuals who allegedly sold fake debt relief services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May 2017, the FTC and the Florida Attorney General filed a complaint against the individuals for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, consumers, after collectively paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for promised debt-consolidation services marketed by the individuals, discovered their debts were unpaid, their accounts had defaulted, and their credit scores damaged. Under the proposed orders (here and here), all three marketers are restrained and enjoined from “advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, selling” credit repair products and services, debt relief products and services, and financial products and services. The $85 million judgment is held jointly and severally against each of the individuals with a suspended judgment for two if all material assets are surrendered. The judgment for the third individual, considered the ringleader of the operation, is not suspended and the individual is still required to surrender all material assets.