InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Data breach exposes SBA Emergency Injury Disaster Loan program applicants
On April 21, according to reports, the Small Business Association (SBA) acknowledged that it notified almost 8,000 applicants of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program that their information may have been exposed as part of a data breach. Specifically, the agency stated that on March 25, the personal information of business owners applying for the EIDL program was potentially exposed to other applicants on the SBA’s website. The information exposed included names, social security numbers, birth dates, certain financial information, email addresses, and phone numbers. According to the SBA, there is no evidence that the exposed information has been misused. Notably, the breach only effected the applicants of the EIDL program, not the Paycheck Protection Program, which did not begin accepting applications until April 3.
CFPB video instructs non-tax filers how to receive stimulus payments
On April 21, the CFPB announced the release of a video—aimed at consumers who do not file taxes—that describes the steps those consumers should take in order to receive their economic impact payments. The video explains that most Americans will automatically receive their economic stimulus payments from the IRS, but those who do not may need to submit their information and specify how they would like to receive their payments. Consumers are informed that if they do not submit their information, they will be mailed paper checks, which will take longer to receive than a direct deposit. In the announcement, Bureau Director Kathleen Kraninger states that the video “is intended to help consumers navigate the economic impact payments as well as helping them avoid scams related to the payments.” The announcement also provides eligibility guidelines for the stimulus payments, a link to frequently asked questions about the payments, and a link to additional Bureau information related to Covid-19.
Banks face class actions for prioritizing large customers for PPP loans
On April 20, five class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against six of the nation’s largest banks, alleging that the banks prioritized existing, large customers over smaller businesses for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA's) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. The suits claim that the banks submitted PPP applications for existing large customers first, failing to process applications in the order they were received. Moreover, pursuant to the CARES Act, the SBA provided PPP lenders with origination fees on a sliding scale, from 1 percent to 5 percent, based on the amount of each loan. The complaints allege that higher origination fees provided incentive for the banks to process higher dollar loans ahead of smaller dollar loans. See the complaints here, here, here, here, and here.
Fed provides FAQs on PPP liquidity facility
On April 20, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released a series of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and answers relating to the agency’s newly launched Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the PPPLF was up and running on April 16 to provide liquidity to banks making loans to small businesses pursuant to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The SBA-guaranteed PPP loans are used as collateral for term financing provided by the PPPLF. The PPPLF extends credit to financial institutions participating in the PPP at a fixed rate of 35 basis points. Additional information regarding the PPPLF, including a term sheet, borrowing documentation, and operational documentation including samples can be found on the Fed website here.
OCC bulletin highlights Covid-19 assistance to businesses, consumers, and governments through Fed facilities
On April 20, the OCC issued a bulletin to spotlight the many Federal Reserve (Fed) lending programs established to provide relief from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and to highlight how the programs benefit consumers, businesses, and state and local governments. The Fed has supported the economy in a number of ways, particularly through establishing or expanding loan, credit, and liquidity facilities including (i) the Paycheck Protection Liquidity Facility (PPPLF); (ii) the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF); (iii) the Primary and Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facilities (PMCCF) and (SMCCF); (iv) the Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF); and (v) the new Main Street Facility. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the PPPLF provides liquidity to banks to enable them to lend to small business owners so they can keep their businesses running and pay their employees. The TALF, PMCCF, and SMCCF ensure the flow of credit to consumers and businesses for things such as auto loans, credit card loans, and student loans. The MLF facilitates the flow of cash into states, counties, and cities so that their governments may continue to provide services to residents. Finally, the Main Street Facility—like the PPPLF—supports lending to businesses, in which banks originate Main Street Lending Program loans to small and medium-sized businesses by selling the majority of the loans to the Main Street Facility. Further details about the Main Street Facility can be found in a Buckley Special Alert here.
OFAC advises risk-based compliance approach during Covid-19 crisis
On April 20, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a statement reminding businesses—including financial institutions—to adhere to a risk-based administration of their sanctions compliance plans. The release notes that, in light of Covid-19, businesses may need to reassign resources otherwise dedicated to sanctions compliance to other areas. If apparent violations are made due to this reallocation of resources, OFAC asserts that it will take this into consideration when determining the appropriate response to the business. Also, businesses and persons subject to OFAC regulatory authority are urged to contact OFAC if the businesses anticipate any delays in satisfying deadlines or in filing required submissions and reports, including meeting the 10-day deadline for filing reject reports. The statement provides OFAC contact information appropriate to a number of situations, including matters related to reject reports, subpoenas, license reports, requests for reconsideration, and self-disclosures.
Debt collection trade association claims Massachusetts emergency regulation is unconstitutional
On April 20, a debt collection trade association filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Massachusetts attorney general, challenging the state’s emergency regulation issued in March, which makes numerous standard debt collection actions an unfair and deceptive act or practice during the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the emergency regulation includes provisions that prohibit both creditors and debt collectors from (i) initiating, filing, or threatening to file debt collection lawsuits; (ii) garnishing wages and repossessing vehicles; and (iii) initiating phone calls with debtors, unless necessary to discuss a rescheduled court appearance or at the request of the debtor. Alleging violations of both state and federal law, including the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the separation of powers, the trade association argues that the emergency regulations are a content-based restriction on free speech and unconstitutional because they, among other things, exclude six classes of collectors from the prohibition on placing collection calls, and do not treat all “communications” equally by excluding certain types of collections communications. The trade association also contends that the restrictions block members from providing consumers with possible resolutions, such as “temporary hardship repayment plans that may provide a variety of options for deferring payments or determining longer-term payment plans tailored to individual consumer situations where income has been interrupted for any reason.” The complaint also cites examples from debt collectors in the state that detail the negative impact the emergency regulation has had on their businesses. The trade association filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the regulation.
NCUA announces Covid-19 relief measures for credit unions
On April 17, the NCUA released a letter to federally insured credit unions to address temporary relief available as a result of Covid-19. The letter covers a number of matters discussed at the NCUA board’s open meeting held on April 16, including an interim final rule (IFR) issued on April 13 (covered by InfoBytes here) that permits credit unions to access the NCUA’s Central Liquidity Facility with no waiting period for advances. The letter also provides details on two real estate appraisal rules approved by the Board to provide regulatory relief for credit unions: (i) an IFR “that temporarily defers real estate-related appraisals and evaluations” for up to 120 days; and (ii) a final rule that increases the threshold amount for which a transaction involving real estate requires an appraisal from $250,000 to $400,000. Both the IFR and the final rule take effect upon publication in the Federal Register and expire on December 31. In addition, the board approved a final rule which (i) increases the maximum aggregate amount of loans a credit union can purchase from one lender without a waiver to “the greater of $5 million or 200 percent of a federally insured credit union’s net worth”; (ii) temporarily suspends the limit “on the eligible obligations that a federal credit union may purchase and hold”; and (iii) also suspends “the required timeframes for the occupancy or disposal of properties not being used to conduct business or that have been abandoned.”
Fed issues rule to temporarily allow bank insiders access to PPP
On April 17, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an interim final rule to allow “certain bank directors and shareholders” to apply for loans from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The rule will temporarily suspend some of the requirements of Federal Reserve Act Section 22(h) and Regulation O, to permit banks to extend credit to bank insiders, but only for PPP loans. This announcement comes after the SBA recently issued its own interim final rule regarding eligibility of directors and shareholders to apply for PPP loans for their own small businesses. The Fed’s interim final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register and comments must be received within 45 days of publication.
FTC seeks injunction against company posing as SBA lender
On April 17, the FTC filed a complaint against a Rhode Island-based company and its owner (defendants) for allegedly violating the FTC Act by claiming to be an approved lender for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) even though the defendants are neither affiliated with the SBA nor are they an SBA-authorized lender. The FTC alleges in its complaint that the defendants made deceptive statements on their websites, such as “WE ARE A DIRECT LENDER FOR THE PPP PROGRAM,” and directly contacted small businesses claiming to be representing the SBA in order to solicit loan applications on behalf of the businesses’ banks. The FTC states that the defendants have received hundreds, if not thousands, of loan applications from businesses and continue to claim they can make PPP loans despite receiving a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month from the SBA. The FTC seeks injunctive relief to prevent the defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful acts and practices, as well as “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief” that the court deems necessary to redress any consumer harm, and an award of the costs for bringing the action.