InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Issues Guidance on "De-Risking" in Foreign Correspondent Banking Relationships
On October 5, the OCC issued Bulletin 2016-32 to provide highly anticipated guidance regarding “de-risking” in foreign correspondent banking relationships. Last week, Comptroller Curry stated that the OCC intended to issue guidance that would reiterate the agency’s “risk management expectations for banks to establish and follow policies and procedures for regularly conducting risk evaluations of their foreign correspondent portfolios.” The guidance outlines “best practices” for banks to use when “conducting periodic reevaluations of the risks related to foreign correspondent accounts and making account retention or termination decisions.” As expected and as previously summarized in BuckleySandler’s Special Alert, these best practices include, but are not limited to, (i) establishing effective governance for overseeing how banks reevaluate risk and monitor recommendations for retaining or terminating foreign correspondent accounts; (ii) communicating regularly to senior management about decisions to retain or terminate foreign correspondent accounts, giving consideration to any adverse impact that closures may have on access to financial services for an entire group of customers or an entire region; (iii) establishing lines of communication with foreign correspondent customers in the context of determining whether to withdraw from a relationship; (iv) considering specific information these customers may provide that may mitigate risks they present; (v) when decisions are made to terminate accounts, providing sufficient time for customers to establish alternative banking relationships, unless any delay would create additional risk; and (vi) maintaining clear audit trails documenting the reasons and methods used for considering account closure.
FCC Releases Revised Proposed Privacy Rules for Broadband Providers
On October 6, the FCC issued a fact sheet on revised privacy rules related to broadband internet services. According to the fact sheet, the proposed rules “are designed to evolve with changing technologies and encourage innovation, and are in harmony with other key privacy frameworks and principles – including those outlined by the [FTC] and the Administration’s Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.” The FCC first issued a set of privacy rules concerning consumer rights in relation to broadband internet service providers (ISPs) in March. In Chairman Tom Wheeler’s October 6 blog post regarding the recent revisions, he noted that the revised proposal “provide[s] consumers increased choice, transparency and security online.” The proposed rules, among other things, would require ISPs to (i) let consumers know the type of information they are collecting, specify how and the extent to which the information can be used and shared, and identify with whom the information is shared; (ii) obtain consumers’ opt-in consent to use sensitive information, including, among other things, geo-location, social security numbers, and web browsing history; and (iii) provide an opt-out option, consistent with customer expectations, for the use and sharing of non-sensitive information. Notably, the proposed rules “do not apply to the privacy practices of websites or apps, over which the [FTC] has authority…even when a website or app is owned by a broadband provider.” The Commission is scheduled to vote on the proposal on October 27.
DOJ Issues Two Declination Letters Requiring Disgorgement
On September 29, the DOJ issued two declination letters concerning suspected FCPA violations, closing their investigations of two Texas-based corporations. The DOJ claims that its investigation of one of the corporations found that the company’s employees paid approximately $500,000 in bribes to Venezuela and China government officials in order to influence those officials’ purchasing decisions and thereby secure approximately $2.7 million in profits. With respect to its investigation of the second corporation, DOJ claims that the company’s China subsidiary provided approximately $45,000 worth of benefits to China government officials to obtain sales which generated profits of approximately $335,000. In connection with the issuance of the declination letters, the companies agreed to the disgorgement of their profits from the sales associated with their purportedly illegal conduct.
The declinations were made pursuant to the FCPA Pilot Program, a one-year program launched in April 2016 to encourage companies to voluntarily self-disclose FCPA-related misconduct, cooperate with DOJ, and make appropriate remediation efforts. The DOJ’s decision to close the investigations was based on a number of factors including the companies’ (i) voluntary disclosures; (ii) thorough internal investigations; (iii) full cooperation in providing DOJ with information about the individuals responsible for the purported misconduct; (iv) agreement to disgorge all profits made from the purported misconduct; (v) enhancement of compliance programs and internal accounting controls; and (vi) remediation in the form of terminating or sanctioning employees responsible for the purported misconduct. These are the fourth and fifth declination letters issued under the Pilot Program.
The disgorgement of profits in connection with the declination letters to the two corporations raises the question of whether such disgorgement may be a prerequisite to obtaining a declination letter under the Pilot Program. Companies that previously received declination letters under the Pilot Program were required to disgorge profits as part of settling related SEC enforcement actions. Past FCPA Scorecard coverage of the Pilot Program and associated declination letters may be found here.
Personal Care and Dietary Supplement Company Settles FCPA Charges Arising from Charitable Donation
On September 21, 2016, the SEC reached a $766,000 settlement with a personal care and dietary supplement company over charges that it violated the internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA. The SEC alleged that the company’s China subsidiary made a $150,000 payment to a charity chosen by a Chinese Communist party official in order to obtain that official’s assistance in terminating an on-going provisional agency investigation into the company’s compliance with local rules for direct selling.
The settlement reveals important lessons for U.S. companies regarding oversight of charitable contributions made by their foreign-based subsidiaries. According to the Order, the company’s China subsidiary had informed its U.S. counterpart of the donation but omitted the relationship between the donation, foreign official, and provisional agency investigation. While the U.S. company flagged the FCPA risks a large donation in China may raise, and advised its China subsidiary to consult with outside U.S. legal counsel to assure compliance, the counsel’s advice was ultimately ignored by the subsidiary. The SEC concluded that the company failed to maintain necessary internal controls, specifically with respect to due diligence conducted by its China subsidiary regarding charitable contributions and accounting for such donations.
Notably, this is the second time that the government has charged a company with violating the FCPA based only on a charitable donation to purportedly buy the influence of a foreign official. The settlement illustrates the SEC’s increasing focus on charitable donations in high risk markets.
British Pharmaceutical Company Ordered to Pay $20 Million for Alleged Bribery in China
On September 30, 2016, the SEC reached a $20 million settlement with a British pharmaceutical company arising from the company’s business in China. The SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2013, sales and marketing managers of the company’s China subsidiary made corrupt payments to medical professionals to encourage more prescriptions for the company’s products. The purported corrupt payments included gifts, travel, entertainment, shopping, and cash but were recorded in the company’s books and records as legitimate marketing expenses, speaker fees, medical association payments, and travel and entertainment expenses. Because the medical professionals worked in government-owned hospitals, the SEC considered them to be foreign government officials under the FCPA, and charged the company with violations of the internal controls and recordkeeping provisions of the FCPA.
The $20 million dollar settlement with the SEC follows an almost $490 million sanction ordered in 2014 by a Chinese Court against the company’s Chinese subsidiary based on the same alleged bribery scheme. Five of the company’s managers were also convicted in that action in China and its former country manager was deported. FCPA Scorecard coverage of the Chinese Court order can be found here.
OCC Issues Large Bank Recovery Guidelines
On September 29, the OCC released final guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning for large OCC-regulated institutions. The guidelines, which are not applicable to community banks, are designed to provide “a comprehensive framework for evaluating the financial effects of severe stress that may affect a covered institution and options it may take to remain viable under such stress.” Pursuant to the guidelines, an institution “should develop and maintain a recovery plan that is specific to that covered bank and appropriate for its individual size, risk profile, activities, and complexity, including the complexity of its organizational and legal entity structure.” OCC examiners will begin to assess an institution’s recovery plan for appropriateness and adequacy. The guidelines, which contain various compliance dates, become effective January 1, 2017.
FTC Announces $1.3 Billion Judgment Against Payday Lenders
On October 4, the FTC announced a $1.3 billion judgment against defendants responsible for operating an allegedly deceptive payday lending scheme. The judgment is the result of 2012 complaint in which the FTC alleged that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by making false and misleading representations about costs and payment of the loans. According to the FTC, the defendants claimed that they would charge consumers the loan amount and a one-time finance fee. However, the court found that the defendants “made multiple withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts and assessed a new finance fee each time, without disclosing the true costs of the loan.” The $1.3 billion order is the largest litigated judgment the FTC has obtained to date.
CFPB Settles With Online Lender
On September 27, the CFPB entered into a consent agreement with a California-based online lender for allegedly misrepresenting, among other things, the fees charged, the loan products that were available to consumers, and whether the loans would be reported to credit reporting companies. As part of the agreement, the CFPB indicated that the lender would be required to include the correct finance charge and annual percentage rate in all of its online disclosures, and must test those disclosures annually to ensure accuracy and compliance with the Truth in Lending Act. As a result, the lender will be required to pay $1.83 million in consumer redress as well as $1.8 million as a civil penalty.
CFPB Reaches Agreement With Title Lender
On September 26, the CFPB entered into a consent agreement with a Georgia-based automobile-title lender and its affiliates, based on allegations that the lender violated the Unfair and Abusive prongs of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The CFPB alleged that the lender “lur[ed] consumers into costly loan renewals by presenting them with misleading information about the deals’ terms and costs.” The CFPB specifically indicated the lender’s use of a “Payback Guide” that focused the consumer’s attention on the monthly payment, and not on the total cost of the transaction, including the costs to roll over the loan to an additional period, materially interferes with the consumer’s ability to understand the terms of the transaction. The CFPB also alleged that the lender committed unfair debt-collection practices by visiting consumers’ homes, references, and places of employment, and revealing information about past-due debt to third parties, including neighbors, roommates, family members, supervisors, and co-workers. Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is prohibited from using the Payback Guide and from encouraging consumers to exceed the original term of repayment. The order also prohibits the lender from making in-person visits to collect payments. Under the agreement, the lender must pay $9 million as a civil penalty to the CFPB.
CFPB Sues Credit Repair Company in Federal Court
On September 22, the CFPB filed a complaint in federal district court against a credit repair company, claiming that the company charged consumers a series of illegal fees, including a fee to access the consumer’s credit report, a fee to set up the consumer’s account, and a monthly fee that continues to accrue until the consumer affirmatively cancels the service. The CFPB also alleged that the company misrepresented the cost and effectiveness of its services, stating that it could “remove virtually any negative information from a consumer’s credit report,” and that it raises customer’s credit scores by an average of more than 100 points, without proper substantiation for either claim. The CFPB alleged that the company’s actions violate the Telephone Sales Rule, and the deceptive prong of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.