InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
U.S.-UK Financial Innovation Partnership reports on progress
On June 24, the U.S. Treasury Department provided an overview of recent meetings of the U.S.-UK Financial Innovation Partnership (FIP) where Regulatory and Commercial Pillars participants exchanged views on “topics of mutual interest in the U.S. and UK FinTech ecosystems and [sought to] deepen ties between U.S. and UK financial authorities.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FIP was created in 2019 as a way to expand bilateral financial services collaborative efforts, study emerging fintech innovation trends, and share information and expertise on regulatory practices. The first meeting of the FIP took place in August 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here). Topics discussed in the most recent meeting included digital payments, central bank digital currencies, regulatory and supervisory technology, innovative financial service testing, and the upcoming U.S.-UK Financial Regulatory Working Group meeting. Participants acknowledged “the continued importance of the ongoing partnership on global financial innovation as an integral component of U.S.-UK financial services cooperation.”
FHA extends Covid-19 foreclosure moratorium and other flexibilities
On June 25, FHA announced the extension of several Covid-19-related flexibilities in Mortgagee Letter 2021-15, which extends the foreclosure and eviction moratorium in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic, expands the Covid-19 forbearance and the home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) extension, and establishes the Covid-19 advance loan modification (Covid-19 ALM). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, FHA first extended its foreclosure and eviction moratorium through February 28. In the most recent extension, FHA further extended its foreclosure and eviction moratorium for all FHA-insured single family mortgages, excluding vacant or abandoned properties, through July 31. For FHA’s Covid-19 forbearance policy, FHA expanded the date to request an initial Covid-19 forbearance from June 30 to September 30 and provided an additional three-month extension to the forbearance for borrowers who began their initial forbearance between July 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020. FHA also established the Covid-19 ALM, which, among other things, “offers borrowers who are currently 90 or more days delinquent, or at the end of their COVID-19 forbearance, the opportunity for a 30-year rate and term mortgage modification that will bring their mortgage current and reduce the principal and interest portion of their monthly mortgage payment by at least 25 percent” and establishes a Default Code. FHA also expanded the HECM Covid-19 extensions by “providing an additional three-month extension to HECM borrowers, where an initial HECM extension period began between July 1, 2020, and September 30, 2020.”
Fed extends PPP Liquidity Facility for a final time
On June 25, the Federal Reserve Board announced the extension of the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) for a final time to July 30. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the PPPLF was rolled out last year to provide liquidity to banks making loans to small businesses pursuant to the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. In March, the Fed extended the PPPLF to June 30 (covered by InfoBytes here). The Fed noted that the most recent extension is being made as an “operational accommodation” for banks, community development financial institutions, and other financial institutions.
VA issues circular on pandemic-affected borrowers
On June 25, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued Circular 26-21-10, which provides an update for servicers on assisting borrowers who are affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the circular, servicers should continue reporting the Electronic Default Notification with “National Emergency Declaration” as the default reason in cases that involve borrowers who are financially affected by the pandemic. In addition, “servicers are to continue to make every reasonable effort to assist borrowers who are experiencing financial difficulties due to the national emergency.” These efforts must be documented in servicers’ loan systems and are to include a servicer review of relevant loan files and consideration of all possible home retention options and alternatives to foreclosure. For borrowers who have not received a Covid-related forbearance, servicers should allow these borrowers to receive a such forbearance if the borrower makes the request by September 30. The circular also establishes that all properties securing VA-guaranteed loans are subject to moratoriums on foreclosures and evictions through July 31, 2021. excluding vacant or abandoned properties. The circular is rescinded effective July 1, 2023.
House votes to repeal OCC’s “true lender” rule
On June 24, the U.S. House passed S.J. Res. 15 by a vote of 218 - 208 to repeal the OCC’s “true lender” rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. Senate passed S.J. Res. 15 last month by vote of 52-47 to invoke the Congressional Review Act and provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the final rule. The measure now heads to President Biden who is expected to sign it. Issued last year, the final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement, or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu issued a statement after the vote saying the OCC respects Congress’ role in reviewing regulations under the Congressional Review Act. He reaffirmed the OCC’s position that predatory lending has no place in the federal banking system and noted that moving forward the OCC “will consider policy options, consistent with the Congressional Review Act, that protect consumers while expanding financial inclusion.”
Biden announces key nominations
On June 24, President Biden announced his intent to nominate seven individuals to serve in key roles, including two nominations to positions in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Among them is Dave Uejio, the current acting Director of the CFPB, as the nominee for Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development. As previously covered by Infobytes, Uejio has been with the CFPB since 2012, and from 2015 to his appointment as acting director to replace Kathy Kraninger, he served as the Bureau’s Chief Strategy Officer. According to the announcement, Uejio also co-chairs the Federal Innovation Council, “a leading federal government interagency body [driving] public sector innovation.” In January, President Biden officially nominated FTC Democratic Commissioner Rohit Chopra as the permanent director of the CFPB (covered by InfoBytes here). He is currently awaiting a Senate confirmation vote on his nomination to serve as the Bureau’s Director. President Biden also announced Julia Gordon, who is the National Community Stabilization Trust President, as the nominee for Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Supreme Court says FHFA unconstitutionally structured, leaves net worth sweep intact
On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a split opinion in Collins v. Yellen (previously Collins v. Mnuchin), holding that FHFA’s leadership structure, which only allows the president to fire the FHFA director for cause, is unconstitutional. The Court’s determination follows its decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), in which the Court held that a similar clause in the Dodd-Frank Act that requires cause to remove the director of the CFPB violates the constitutional separation of powers. In Collins, the Court stated, “[a] straightforward application of our reasoning in Seila Law dictates the result here. The FHFA (like the CFPB) is an agency led by a single Director, and the [Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Recovery Act)] (like the Dodd-Frank Act) restricts the President’s removal power.”
Last July, the Court agreed to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s en banc decision (covered by InfoBytes here) issued in a 2016 lawsuit brought by a group of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) shareholders against the U.S. Treasury Department and FHFA. The shareholders claimed that the Recovery Act, which created the agency, violated the separation of powers principal because it only allowed the president to fire the FHFA director “for cause,” and that FHFA acted outside its statutory authority when it adopted a third amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, which replaced a fixed-rate dividend formula with a variable one requiring the GSEs to pay quarterly dividends equal to their entire net worth minus a specified capital reserve amount to the Treasury Department (known as the “net worth sweep”). Following the en banc rehearing, the appellate court reaffirmed its earlier decision that FHFA’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers requirements. However, the opinions differed on the appropriate remedy, with nine judges concluding that the remedy should be severance of the for-cause provision, not prospective relief invalidating the net worth sweep, stating that “the Shareholders’ ongoing injury, if indeed there is one, is remedied by a declaration that the “for cause” restriction is declared removed. We go no further.”
While the split Court agreed with the 5th Circuit that the agency’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, the justices left intact the net worth sweep. “Although the statute unconstitutionally limited the President’s authority to remove the confirmed Directors, there was no constitutional defect in the statutorily prescribed method of appointment to that office. As a result, there is no reason to regard any of the actions taken by the FHFA in relation to the third amendment as void,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “It is not necessary for us to decide—and we do not decide—whether the FHFA made the best, or even a particularly good, business decision when it adopted the third amendment,” the Court added. “[W]e conclude only that under the terms of the Recovery Act, the FHFA did not exceed its authority as a conservator, and therefore the anti-injunction clause bars the shareholders’ statutory claim.” The Court remanded the case to determine “what remedy, if any, the shareholders are entitled to receive on their constitutional claim.”
Various concurring and dissenting opinions were issued as well. While concurring, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “[s]tare decisis compels the conclusion that the FHFA’s for-cause removal provision violates the Constitution. But the majority’s opinion rests on faulty theoretical premises and goes further than it needs to.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, writing: “[t]he Court has proved far too eager in recent years to insert itself into questions of agency structure best left to Congress. In striking down the independence of the FHFA Director, the Court reaches further than ever before, refusing tenure protections to an Agency head who neither wields significant executive power nor regulates private individuals.”
Shortly after the ruling, President Biden appointed Sandra L. Thompson as acting FHFA Director, effective immediately. Thompson has served at FHFA since March 2013 as Deputy Director of the Division of Housing Mission and Goals where she oversaw FHFA’s housing and regulatory policy, capital policy, financial analysis, fair lending, as well as all mission activities for the GSEs and the Federal Home Loan Banks. Former Director Mark Calabria issued a statement noting his respect for the Court’s decision and the authority of the president to remove the FHFA director.
District Court stays CSBS’s fintech charter challenge while OCC reviews framework
On June 16, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order staying litigation in a lawsuit filed by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) challenging the OCC’s authority to issue Special Purpose National Bank Charters (SPNB). (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Earlier this year, the OCC responded to CSBS’s opposition to the agency’s alleged impending approval of an SPNB for a financial services provider (proposed bank), in which CSBS argued that the OCC was exceeding its chartering authority (covered by InfoBytes here). The OCC countered that the same fatal flaws that pervaded CSBS’s prior challenges, i.e., that its challenge is unripe and CSBS lacks standing, still remain (covered by InfoBytes here). Moreover, the agency argued, among other things, that the cited application (purportedly curing CSBS’s prior ripeness issues) is not for an SPNB (the proposed bank that has applied for the charter would conduct a full range of services, including deposit taking), but that even it if was an application for an SPNB charter, there are multiple additional steps that need to occur prior to the OCC issuing the charter, which made the challenge unripe.
According to CSBS’s unopposed motion to stay litigation, a “90-day stay would conserve the [p]arties’ and the [c]ourt’s resources by avoiding potentially unnecessary briefing and oral argument.” Further, in referring to acting Comptroller Michael Hsu’s testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives—in which he stated that “the OCC is currently reviewing various regulatory standards and pending actions, including the OCC’s framework for chartering national banks”—CSBS noted that the OCC has represented that it anticipates this review period will take approximately 90 days and that it does not intend to take any action towards granting a charter to the proposed bank during this period. Following the conclusion of the 90-day stay, the parties agreed to confer and submit to the court a joint status report on or before September 27 “addressing the status of the OCC’s plans with respect to processing applications for uninsured national bank charters, including the [proposed bank’s] charter application, and the [p]arties’ proposed schedule for proceeding with or resolving the present case.”
Certain FHA Covid-19 guidance to expire June 30
On June 22, FHA published an announcement with a reminder that certain relaxed Covid-19-related standards that had allowed for single-family lenders and servicers to limit face-to-face contact as part of the mortgage origination process for FHA loans would expire as intended on June 30. The temporary guidance, which was first announced last March to provide flexibility related to the re-verification of employment guidance and the exterior-only appraisal scope of work option, was extended several times during the pandemic (covered by InfoBytes here). FHA noted that due to low usage it believes that the expiration of the guidance will have minimal impact on the industry.
FTC settles with fertility-tracking app
On June 22, the FTC issued a decision and order against a company operating a fertility-tracking mobile app. The order resolved claims that the company shared user’s sensitive health data with various marketing and analytics service providers to the company. The FTC filed a complaint in January claiming, among other things, that the company repeatedly promised to protect users’ personal health data but instead disclosed the data to third parties for years and did not contractually limit how those third parties could use the data. These actions, the FTC claimed, violated the FTC Act as well as frameworks under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield, which the company represented to users that it participated in, and require companies to provide notice, choice, and accountability for the transfer of personal data to third parties. Under the terms of the decision and order, the company is required to provide notice to users about the disclosure of their health data, obtain users’ affirmative express consent to share the information, and instruct any third party that received users’ health information to destroy the data. Additionally, the company is prohibited from misrepresenting: (i) the purposes for which it (or any entity to whom it discloses personal data) collects, maintains, uses, or discloses the data; (ii) the extent to which consumers can control the use of the data; (iii) its adherence to any privacy, security, or compliance program; and (iv) the extent to which it “collects, maintains, uses, discloses, deletes, or permits or denies access to any” users’ personal information. The FTC further noted in its announcement that it is “currently undertaking a review of the Health Breach Notification Rule and is actively considering public comments regarding the application of the Rule to mobile applications and other direct-to-consumer technologies that handle consumers’ sensitive health information.”