InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC cites preemption decision in valid-when-made rule challenge
On August 24, the OCC filed a statement of recent decision in support of its motion for summary judgment in an action brought against the agency by several state attorneys general challenging the OCC’s final rule on “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred” (known also as the valid-when-made rule). The final rule was designed to effectively reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision and provide that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. § 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) The states’ challenge argued that the rule “impermissibly preempts state law,” is “contrary to the plain language” of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)), and “contravenes the judgment of Congress,” which declined to extend preemption to non-banks. Moreover, the states contended that the OCC “failed to give meaningful consideration” to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Both parties sought summary judgment, with the OCC arguing that the final rule validly interprets the National Bank Act (NBA) and that not only does the final rule reasonably interpret the “gap” in section 85, it is consistent with section 85’s “purpose of facilitating national banks’ ability to operate their nationwide lending programs.” Moreover, the OCC asserted that 12 U.S.C. § 25b’s preemption standards do not apply to the final rule, because, among other things, the OCC “has not concluded that a state consumer financial law is being preempted.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
In its August 24 filing, the OCC brought to the court’s attention a recent order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Wisconsin court reviewed claims under the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) against a debt-purchasing company and a law firm hired by the company to recover outstanding debt and purported late fees on the plaintiff’s account in a separate state-court action. Among other things, the court examined whether the state law’s notice and right-to-cure provisions were federally preempted by the NBA, as the original creditor’s rights and duties were assigned to the debt-purchasing company when the account was sold. The court ultimately concluded that the WCA provisions “are inapplicable to national banks by reason of federal preemption,” and, as such, the court found “that a debt collector assigned a debt from a national bank is likewise exempt from those requirements” and was not required to send the plaintiff a right-to-cure letter “as a precondition to accelerating his debt or filing suit against him.”
Virginia announces consent judgment against investment firm
On August 24, the Virginia attorney general announced a consent judgment entered on August 16 against a Virginia-based investment company and its managing member (collectively, "defendants") to resolve allegations that they violated Virginia’s consumer finance statutes. The consent judgment settled a lawsuit in which the AG alleged that defendants “made loans to distressed homeowners and charged interest or other compensation greatly exceeding an effective annual interest rate of 12 percent, without being licensed as a consumer finance company or coming within another exemption to Virginia’s usury laws.” According to the AG, the complaint alleged that a representative of the defendant investment company approached a Virginia Beach homeowner facing foreclosure and presented her with an agreement in which the defendants would provide the amount needed to stop the foreclosure in exchange for permission to list and sell the homeowner’s separate Virginia Beach property at an above-market commission rate or, if the sale did not occur, to purchase that property at a significantly below market price. Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendants, among other things are: (i) permanently enjoined from violating specific consumer finance statutes, including by “making any loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase to Virginia consumers”; (ii) required to pay $11,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (iii) required to provide certain restitution and/or forbearance relief to consumers identified by the defendants pursuant to the consent judgment as well as “to any Virginia consumer who comes forward within two (2) years after entry of the Consent Judgment with evidence establishing that he or she received a loan requiring a collateral sale and/or purchase from [defendants]” during the period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
DFPI addresses MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released several new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to virtual currency and agent of payee rules. Highlights from the redacted letters include:
- Agent of Payee – Fund Transfers in Connection with Real Estate Closing Transactions. The redacted opinion letter reviewed whether a company—licensed as a money transmitter in several states, including California, and registered with FinCEN as a money services business—is eligible for the agent-of-payee exemption under the MTA. The company proposes to “facilitate fund transfers in connection with real estate closing transactions” during which it “will be authorized to receive real estate closing funds on behalf of its customer (the seller of real estate).” The payment funds will first flow from the buyer of real estate to the company via the buyer’s lawyer or title company, and then from the company to the seller after the company converts the funds from U.S. dollars to another currency. By providing these services, the company, as the seller’s agent, will receive money from the buyer pursuant to a preexisting written contract between the company and the seller. DFPI concluded that “[t]o the extent these fund transfers take place in California or are with, to, or from persons located in California, [the company’s] services constitute “receiving money for transmission” because [the company] receives money from the buyer for transfer to the seller.” However, DFPI noted that a provision in the written contract, which appoints the company as the agent of the seller when the seller is located in California, allows the company’s services to satisfy the requirements of the agent-of-payee exemption in Financial Code section 2010, subdivision (l). The agent-of-payee exemption, DFPI stressed though, does not apply to sellers outside of California.
- Bitcoin ATM Kiosk. Two redacted opinion letters (see here and here) examined whether the sale and purchase of bitcoin through ATMs/kiosks described by the companies is subject to licensure under the MTA. In each instance, the transaction will only be between the consumer using the ATM/kiosk and the company, the transaction will be completed instantly without involving third parties, and any bitcoin sold will be provided from the company’s own inventory. Moreover, the letters state that the companies do not hold virtual currency on behalf of customers nor do they act in a fiduciary capacity. Because the companies’ activities are limited to selling bitcoin, DFPI determined that an MTA license is not required because the activities “do[] not involve the sale or issuance of a payment instrument, the sale or issuance of stored value, or receiving money for transmission.” DFPI reminded the companies that its determination is limited to the activities specified in the letters and does not relieve them from any FinCEN, federal, or state regulatory obligations.
DFPI’s CFL final regulations take effect October 1
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) reminded licensees and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program administrators that new final regulations under the California Financing Law (CFL) will take effect October 1. According to DFPI’s final statement of reasons, the regulations, among other things, amend existing licensing rules to transition all licensees under the CFL to registration through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS). New CFL license applications must be submitted through the NMLS on or after October 1, while existing licensees not yet on the NMLS must transition to the system by December 31. Additionally, the final regulations implement AB 1284, which was signed into law in 2017 and, among other things, requires a private entity that administers a PACE program on behalf of a public agency to be licensed under the CFL (covered by InfoBytes here). These private PACE program administrators must also comply with several new regulatory provisions, including those related to advertising standards and disclosures. Additional information for licensees transitioning to NMLS can be accessed through DFPI’s FAQs.
CSBS responds to Waters on state supervisory activities
On August 26, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) sent a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) detailing information on CSBS' response to the Covid-19 pandemic related to supervisory efforts, policy initiatives, and mortgage servicing plans. The letter is in response to an August 5th letter from Chairwoman Waters to CSBS, CFPB, OCC, NCUA, FDIC, and Fed asking the agencies, among other things, to immediately update the “Joint Statement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Mortgage Servicing Rules in Response to the COVID-19 Emergency and the CARES Act dated April 3, 2020,” and to take other steps to “provide vigorous oversight and encourage mortgage servicers to work with borrowers to avoid unnecessary foreclosures.”
The letter from the CSBS detailed the consumer protection and supervision efforts of state regulators during the Covid-19 pandemic, noting that they have “monitored the activities of mortgage originators and servicers … and have acted responsively and decisively with expanded examination approaches, new policy, and public guidance.” The letter expanded on these actions by setting forth its efforts in “three very broad categories”: networked supervision, direct supervision, and supervision policy. In the latter two categories, CSBS noted the steps it has taken during the pandemic to “remain vigilant to signs of unwarranted foreclosure activity or other consumer harm.” The letter also agreed that the “states’ dual mandate to protect consumers and ensure a healthy economic environment has been the appropriate approach” during Covid-19.
New York limits overdraft practices for state-chartered banks
On August 20, the New York governor signed S1465, which requires New York-chartered banks to either process checks in the order they are received or from the smallest to largest dollar amount for each business day’s transactions in order to help curb overdraft fees. The act also provides that while banks may dishonor checks for insufficient funds, they must make payments on any subsequent smaller transactions that may be covered by funds in the account. Under current law, if a check is presented that exceeds the available funds, the check is dishonored, as are all subsequent checks received by the bank, even if the account has sufficient funds to honor one or more of the smaller, subsequent checks. Banks are also required to disclose in writing to consumers the order in which checks are drawn at the time an account is opened and before any change is made to such policy. The act takes effect January 1.
DFPI requests comments on proposed CCFPL consumer complaint rules
On August 18, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new invitation for comments on proposed rulemaking to implement the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). As previously covered by InfoBytes, last September the California governor signed AB 1864, which enacts the CCFPL and authorizes DFPI to establish rules relating to the covered persons, service providers, and consumer financial products or services outlined in the law. The newest invitation for comments builds on responses to initial comments received from a request for comments made in February (covered by InfoBytes here), and seeks comments on draft language implementing certain subdivisions of section 90008 related to consumer complaint regulations.
Among other things, the draft regulations would (i) require covered persons to create a complaint form accessible via their website and at each physical location, as well as maintain a toll-free number for consumers to orally file complaints; (ii) outline instructions for how covered persons must investigate and respond to complaints, including tracking complaints and communicating with consumers (covered persons will be required to provide written decisions to consumers within 15 calendar days of receiving a complaint); (iii) require covered persons to maintain a written record of each complaint for a minimum of five years from the date the complaint was initially filed; (iv) prohibit discrimination during the complaint process on any basis prohibited by law; (v) require complaint reports to be filed quarterly with DFPI describing the volume and types of complaints; (vi) outline requirements for determining whether a consumer inquiry should be handled as a complaint; and (viii) define nonpublic or confidential information. Comments on the draft regulations must be received by September 17.
Illinois amends state Human Rights Act
On August 13, the Illinois governor signed SB 1561, which amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to include provisions regarding third-party loan modification service providers. According to the bill, it is a civil rights violation for a third-party loan modification service provider because of unlawful discrimination, familial status, or an arrest record, to (i) refuse to engage in loan modification services or to discriminate in making such services available; or (ii) alter the terms, conditions, or privileges of such services. The bill also clarifies that a third-party loan modification service provider is a person or entity, licensed or unlicensed, that “provides assistance or services to a loan borrower to obtain a modification to a term of an existing real estate loan or to obtain foreclosure relief,” but does not include lenders, brokers or appraisers of mortgage loans, or the servicers, subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents of the lender. Among other things, the bill provides that, in relation to real estate transactions, the failure of the Department to notify a complainant or respondent in writing for not completing an investigation on the allegations set forth in a charge within 100 days shall not deprive the Department of jurisdiction over the charge. This bill is effective January 1, 2022.
Maryland affirms penalties of over $3 million against auto lender
On August 11, the Maryland attorney general announced that a circuit court in Maryland affirmed that an auto-lending company’s transactions were illegal loans, not pawn transactions, and upheld the Consumer Protection Division’s imposition of $2.2 million in restitution and a $1.2 million penalty. In its press release, the AG alleged that the company “made predatory loans at outrageous interest rates, illegally repossessed cars, and preyed on Maryland consumers,” in violation of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, the Maryland Interest and Usury Law, and the Installment Loan-Licensing Provision. According to the memorandum of the court, the loans issued by the company were not considered to be title pawn transactions, but were instead illegal consumer loans which “violated the consumer protection statutes as respondents were not licensed to make loans in Maryland, failed to make the required disclosures to the consumer, engaged in unfair trade practices, exceeded the statutory interest rate caps, took unpermitted security interests for loans of less than $700.00 and engaged in illegal repossession activities.”
DFPI again modifies draft regulations for commercial financing disclosures
On August 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a second draft of proposed regulations implementing the requirements of the commercial financing disclosures required by SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. In July 2019, California released the first draft of the proposed regulations, and last September, California initiated the formal rulemaking process with the Office of Administrative Law (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The second modifications to the proposed regulations follow a consideration of public comments received on the initial proposed text, as well as additional comments received on modifications made to the proposed text in April. Among other things, the proposed modifications (i) amend several terms including “approved advance limit,” “approved credit limit,” and “amount financed”; (ii) clarify the definition of “at the time of extending a specific commercial financing offer”; (iii) replace the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) with the Secured Overnight Financing Rate as one of the benchmark rate options; (iv) add several terms including “broker,” “recipient funds,” “average monthly cost,” “estimated monthly cost,” and “prepaid finance charge”; (v) provide that for disclosure purposes, “a provider shall assume that there are 30 days in every month and 360 days in a year” and specify that the annual percentage rate must be expressed to the nearest ten basis points; (vi) amend certain disclosure requirements and thresholds; (vii) clarify methods for estimating monthly sales, income, or receipt projections for sales-based financing; (viii) amend duties and requirements for financers and brokers; and (ix) clarify APR calculation requirements and tolerances and outline disclosure criteria for specifying the amount of funding a recipient will receive.
Comments on the second modifications must be received by August 24.