InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
States settle with company on fraudulent MLO certifications
On February 10, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, Maryland’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, and the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation have reached a settlement agreement with the owner of a California-based company for providing false certificates claiming that mortgage loan originators (MLOs) took mandatory eight-hour continuing education courses as required for licensure under state and federal law. The three state financial regulators brought separate enforcement actions alleging violations of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act) against the individual and his family (collectively, “respondents”) for their role in the “multi-state fraud scheme that involved hundreds of mortgage loan originators.” According to the announcement, the respondents have “agreed to fully cooperate and provide testimony against implicated mortgage loan originators,” and have “agreed to a lifetime restriction from direct and indirect involvement in businesses that provide mortgage lending-related education.” In addition to a $75,000 monetary penalty (which will be divided between the three states), the respondents have agreed to a non-compliance penalty of $15 million should they fail to fully comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The action follows a multistate $1.2 million settlement reached last month with 441 MLOs. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the enforcement action included the participation of 44 state agencies from 42 states, and required the settling MLOs to surrender their licenses for three months, pay a $1,000 fine to each state that is a signatory to the consent order in which the MLO holds a license, and take pre-licensing and continuing-education courses before petitioning or reapplying for an MLO endorsement or license.
D.C. reaches nearly $4 million settlement with online lender to resolve usury allegations
On February 8, the District of Columbia attorney general announced a nearly $4 million settlement with an online lender to resolve allegations that lender marketed high-costs loans carrying interest rates exceeding D.C.’s interest rate cap. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the AG filed a complaint in 2020, claiming the lender violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by offering two loan products to D.C. residents carrying annual percentage rates (APR) ranging between 99-149 percent and 129-251 percent. Interest rates in D.C., however, are capped at 24 percent for loans with the rate expressed in the contract (loans that do not state an express interest rate in the contract are capped at six percent), and licensed money lenders that exceed these limits are in violation of the CPPA. According to the AG, the lender—who allegedly never possessed a money lending license in D.C.—violated the CPPA by (i) unlawfully misrepresenting it was allowed to offer loans in D.C. and failing to disclose or adequately disclose that its loans contain APRs in excess of D.C. usury limits; (ii) engaging in unfair and unconscionable practices through misleading marketing efforts; and (iii) violating D.C. usury laws.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to (i) pay at least $3.3 million in restitution to refund alleged interest overcharges to D.C. borrowers; (ii) provide more than $300,000 in debt forgiveness to D.C. borrowers who would have paid future interest amounts in connection with an outstanding loan balance; and (iii) pay $450,000 to the District. According to the announcement, the company has also agreed that it “will not on its own, or working with third parties such as out of state banks, engage in any act or practice that violates the CPPA in its offer, servicing, advertisement, or provision of loans or lines of credit to District consumers.” The company is also prohibited from charging usurious interest rates, must delete negative credit information associated with its loans and lines of credit, and may not represent that it can offer loans or lines of credit in D.C. without first obtaining a D.C. money lender license.
Georgia reaches settlement with rent-to-own company over deceptive business practices
On February 8, the Georgia attorney general announced a settlement with a rent-to-own company accused of allegedly engaging in deceptive sales and marketing practices and violating the FDCPA. While the company did not admit to the allegations, it agreed to pay $145,590 in civil money penalties, with an additional $170,910 due if the company violates any of the settlement terms. The company is also required to (i) ensure its advertising, sales, and marketing practices comply with the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act and the Georgia Lease-purchase Agreement Act; (ii) refrain from engaging in harassing and unlawful debt collection practices; and (iii) verify debts are accurate before placing them with a third-party collection agency. “Our office takes seriously allegations of deceptive business practices, and companies that take advantage of our citizens will be held accountable,” the AG stated.
District Court approves class settlement in data breach
On January 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a plaintiffs’ motion for final approval in a class action settlement alleging an online support services provider (defendant) failed to adequately secure and safeguard the payment card data and other personally identifiable information that it collected while customers shopped and interacted with customer service websites. According to the order, four companies contracted with the defendant to provide sales software, customer service software, and voice and chat agent services for sales support for online shoppers. However, according to the plaintiff class, the defendant was allegedly negligent in securing customers’ data, which permitted hackers to access their names, addresses, and credit card information, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiff class also alleged that the defendant did not disclose the breach for a period of approximately six months after the breach was detected and fixed in October 2017. Under the terms of the settlement, class members are eligible to receive reimbursement from the defendant of up to $2,000 if documentation is provided to prove they incurred out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the intrusion, which includes unreimbursed bank fees, long distance calling charges and costs of credit reports or fraud reimbursement services purchased in the wake of the breach. Additionally, class members who assert that they spent three hours or less dealing with the breach can also separately receive compensation at a rate of $20 per hour for that lost time, and may claim an additional two hours of lost time “if they can provide adequate documentation of those additional two hours spent dealing with the [d]ata [i]ncident,” according to the order. The court also awarded class counsel $450,000 in attorney fees and litigation costs and expenses and $2,000 service awards to each of the three lead plaintiffs.
SEC: Taking remedial actions may help companies avoid penalties
On January 28, the SEC announced a settlement subject to court approval with a private technology company to resolve allegations that the company, through its former CEO, falsely inflated key financial metrics and doctored internal sales records. The complaint, which alleged violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claimed that the CEO significantly inflated the value of numerous customer deals, and then masked the inflation by creating fake invoices and altering real invoices to make it seem as if customers had been billed higher amounts. The company’s board of directors conducted an internal investigation, which led to the removal of the CEO, a revised company valuation, and remedial efforts including repaying investors. The company also hired new senior management, expanded its board, and implemented processes and procedures to ensure transparency and accuracy of deal reporting and associated revenues. While the company neither admitted nor denied the allegations, it agreed to be permanently enjoined from violations of the antifraud provisions. The SEC highlighted that the lack of a penalty in the settlement is significant, and demonstrates the Commission’s position that a company may receive credit if it makes significant remedial efforts in the wake of an internal investigation. “For companies wondering what types of remedial actions and cooperation might be credited by the Commission after a company uncovers fraud, this case offers an excellent example,” stated Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “[The company’s] remediation and cooperation included not just its internal investigation and revised valuation, but also repaying harmed investors and improving its governance—all of which were factors that counseled against the imposition of a penalty in this case.”
District Court grants final approval of $12 million class action settlement
On January 25, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted final approval to a $12 million class action settlement resolving allegations that a calculation error in a national bank’s (defendant’s) software wrongly assessed the plaintiffs’ eligibility for loan modifications. The settlement class, which includes the defendant’s customers who, between 2010 and 2018, allegedly qualified for a home loan modification or repayment plan as required by government-sponsored enterprises or other federal agency requirements, but did not receive an offer for those services from the defendant. The plaintiff class accused the defendant of failing to “adequately test, audit, and verify that its software was correctly calculating whether customers met threshold requirements for a mortgage modification.” Additionally, the plaintiff alleged the bank discovered the issues in 2013, but did not make the issue public until 2018. According to the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the deal will provide $9.1 million to class members with each class member receiving between $1,000 to $19,000, and 22.7 percent of the total settlement sum going towards attorney costs and fees.
FTC settles with remaining student debt relief defendants
On January 26, the FTC announced settlements with the remaining participants in a student loan debt relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against the defendants for allegedly using telemarketing calls, as well as media advertisements, to enroll consumers in student debt relief services in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The defendants allegedly misrepresented that they were affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and misrepresented “material aspects of their debt relief services,” including by promising to enroll consumers in repayment programs to reduce or eliminate payments and balances. Additionally, the defendants allegedly charged illegal upfront fees, and often placed the consumers’ loans into temporary forbearance or deferments with their student loan servicers, without the consumer’s authorization. A $43 million settlement was reached in 2020 with certain of the defendants that was partially suspended conditioned upon the surrender of at least $835,000, as well as additional assets.
The FTC entered two settlements against the remaining defendants. The first settlement imposes a roughly $7.5 million monetary judgment, which is partially suspended after the individual defendant pays $743,386. The second settlement includes a $22 million monetary judgment, which is also partially suspended based on the defendants’ inability to pay. The settlement also requires the defendants to forfeit all frozen funds held by the receiver. Monies recovered in the action will go towards consumer refunds. Additionally, the defendants are banned from providing any debt relief products and services in the future, and are prohibited from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of any products or services or from making any unsubstantiated claims. Defendants are also enjoined from violating the TSR.
District Court approves $75 million overdraft settlement
On January 21, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted final approval to a $75 million class action settlement to resolve allegations that a national bank improperly charged class members overdraft and insufficient fund fees (NSF). Class members include (i) individuals who held consumer checking and/or savings accounts at the bank who paid and were not refunded a retry transaction fee or one or more intrabank transaction fees; and (ii) checking and/or savings account holders who paid and were not refunded an overdraft or NSF fee on a transaction “that would not have been assessed if [the bank] had delayed the posting of previously assessed NSF/[overdraft] fees until the posting of a deposit that was sufficient to cover those fees, all outstanding debit transactions and any additional debit transactions made that day.” Under the terms of the settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $75 million into a settlement fund that will go towards class member payments, notice and administration costs, attorneys’ fee and expenses, and service awards. The bank must also stop assessing certain overdraft and NSF fees, improve its overdraft and NSF disclosures, and improve account disclosures and explanations related to circumstances where an account holder will incur an intrabank transaction fee, as well as disclosures for its fee accrual process.
District Court finalizes BIPA class action settlement
On January 24, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a nearly $877,000 class action settlement to resolve allegations that a food manufacturer’s fingerprint-based timekeeping system violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Class members (both direct employees and temporary staffing workers who worked for the defendant between June 2015 and the date of preliminary approval) alleged that the defendant (i) collected biometric fingerprint identifiers and information without receiving informed written consent from employees; (ii) processed these identifiers and information “without establishing and following a publicly available data retention schedule and destruction policy”; and (iii) disclosed the employees’ identifiers and information to its timekeeping vendor without consent. The defendant contended that since 2020 it has maintained BIPA consents and compliance policies, and “does not retain any finger scan data for separated Illinois employees.” While denying all liability and wrongdoing, the defendant has agreed to pay $876,750 to cover class member payments, attorney fees and costs, settlement administrator costs, and the class representative’s service award.
District Court approves $1.8 million overdraft settlement
On January 14, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to a $1.8 million class action settlement to resolve allegations that a credit union (defendant) improperly charged members overdraft and insufficient fund fees (NSF). The class members alleged they had wrongfully incurred more than one NSF fee on the same transaction when it was reprocessed again after initially being returned for insufficient funds. The class also alleged that the defendant’s contracts did not authorize such charges. The settlement allocated $715,500 to class members who were charged certain fees between May 2016 and October 2020, and $874,500 to class members who were charged certain fees between May 2016 and February 2020. The amount allocated to each class member is based on the former fees assessed against them. As part of the nearly $1.8 million settlement, the defendant must pay $1.59 million in cash, and must waive roughly $176,000 in uncollected at-issue fees.