Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On November 8, the DOJ announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against an international bank and several of its U.S. affiliates for allegedly defrauding investors in connection with the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) from 2006 through 2007. Specifically, the DOJ alleges the bank violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) based on mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and other misconduct by “knowingly and repeatedly” making false and fraudulent representations to investors about the quality of the loans backing 40 RMBS deals. The DOJ is seeking an unspecified amount of civil money penalties under five FIRREA claims.
In response to the filing, the international bank issued a statement indicating that it intends to “contest the complaint vigorously,” arguing, among other things, that the risks of RMBS investments were clearly disclosed to investors and that the bank suffered its own losses from investing in the RMBS referred to in the DOJ complaint.
On November 6, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted two payday loan trade groups’ request to reconsider the court’s June decision to deny a stay of the compliance date (August 19, 2019) of the Bureau’s final rule on payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other installment loans (Rule). The court styed the compliance date until further order of the court. The court previously (twice) denied requests to stay the compliance date (covered by InfoBytes here and here). However, the court reconsidered its decision after an October 26 status update, in which the Bureau informed the court of its intention to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in January 2019 to reconsider parts of the Rule and the compliance date (covered by InfoBytes here).
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the payday loan trade groups filed a lawsuit against the Bureau in April asking the court to set aside the Rule on the grounds that, among other reasons, the Bureau is unconstitutional and the rulemaking failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.
On November 8, the FHFA and the CFPB announced the release of a new loan-level dataset that was collected through the National Survey of Mortgage Originations (NSMO). Since 2014, in each quarter, FHFA and the CFPB send the NSMO survey to borrowers who recently obtained a mortgage to gather feedback on their experiences, perceptions, and future expectations of the mortgage market. This is the first public release of the compiled NSMO data. The NSMO is a component of the National Mortgage Database, which the FHFA and the CFPB launched in 2012 to help regulators better understanding mortgage market trends to support policymaking and research efforts and to fulfill the mortgage survey and mortgage market monitoring requirements of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) and the Dodd Frank Act.
On November 7, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2018-20 (Bulletin) to announce temporary selling requirements for certain mortgages secured by properties that Hurricane Michael impacted, and borrowers whose properties or places of employment Hurricane Michael impacted. For properties located in eligible disaster areas that Hurricane Michael affected on or after October 11, the Bulletin, among other things, provides (i) age of documentation requirements that will remain in effect for six months; (ii) specific collateral requirements and guidance; and (iii) for reimbursement of property inspections completed on and before April 11, 2019, for sellers that meet certain requirements. The Bulletin notes that Freddie Mac will not update the Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide to include the temporary requirements that the Bulletin announces, and advises sellers to retain a copy of the Bulletin to ensure compliance with these requirements.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
On November 6, the FCC announced that it sent letters to voice providers urging them to participate in “traceback” efforts to help the FCC identify the source of illegal spoofed robocalls. The FCC released copies of the letters that it sent to eight voice providers that are not currently assisting with the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group’s program, which seeks to trace the robocalls that pass through the voice providers’ networks to the originating provider.
In the announcement, the FCC notes that: (i) traceback efforts assist the FCC in identifying the source of illegal calls; and (ii) the FCC receives more complaints from consumers regarding unwanted calls—including scam calls that use spoofing to trick consumers—than any other subject. The FCC emphasizes that “consistent participation of all network operators is critical for helping consumers and enforcing the law.”
The results are in: Party control of the U.S. House of Representatives will change for the third time in 12 years, leaving legions of pundits to speculate about what happens next. Prospects for a fundamental change in the way Congress and Washington operate are dim, particularly given that the U.S. Senate remains under Republican control. With new legislation most likely dead on arrival due to the political stalemate on Capitol Hill, the Democrats’ most reliable opportunity to exert their will is almost certainly through congressional oversight and investigations. The last time the Democrats controlled the House during a Republican presidency, following the 2006 midterms, Rep. Henry Waxman remarked that Congress’s oversight powers are “just as important, if not more important than legislation.”
While it is tempting to dismiss congressional oversight, and the attendant theatrical hearings and testimony as nothing but sound and fury, the reality for companies, executives, and others under the microscope is far less anodyne. Lack of preparation and ill-conceived strategy in responding to congressional investigations heightens the prospect of reputational harm that, unchecked, will frustrate business goals, damage shareholders, and derail — or end — careers.
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
Please join us for a Dec. 5 webcast that will delve deeper into these topics and offer some thoughts on navigating the coming tide of congressional investigations. If you have questions about congressional investigations or other related issues, please visit our Congressional Investigations practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
On October 30, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) released Circular 26-18-25, which clarifies the effect on a veteran’s home loan entitlement when the VA pays a guaranty on a home loan terminated by foreclosure, short sale, or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Specifically, for loans originated on or after January 1, 1990, the circular clarifies that the VA no longer establishes debts against veterans after the VA pays a guaranty to reimburse a servicer for its loss. However, if the veteran wants to reuse the VA home loan benefit, then he or she is required to reimburse the VA for the loss amount. The loss only affects the veteran’s entitlement under the VA Home Loan Guaranty program and does not impact any other VA benefits. The veteran may choose to repay the loss to restore the full entitlement or use any of the remaining entitlement amount that may be available to the veteran. The circular is effective until October 1, 2020.
On November 2, the DOJ announced a $95,000 settlement with a credit union resolving allegations that the credit union violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing vehicles owned by servicemembers without first obtaining the required court orders. According to the complaint, which was filed on the same day the settlement was announced, the DOJ launched an investigation into the credit union’s repossession practices after learning of two private complaints filed against the credit union for alleged SCRA violations. Through the investigation, the DOJ discovered additional violations and that the credit union did not have policies and procedures that addressed non-judicial auto repossessions against servicemembers until August 2014. Under the terms of the settlement, the credit union is required to pay $65,000 to compensate affected servicemembers and a civil money penalty of $30,000. In addition, the company must submit its employee SCRA training materials for approval and complete reporting, record-keeping, and monitoring requirements.
On November 1, the FTC announced a proposed rule, which would implement the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act requirement for nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to provide free electronic credit monitoring services for active duty servicemembers. The proposal defines the term “electronic credit monitoring service” as a service through which the CRAs provide, at a minimum, electronic notification of material additions or modifications to a consumer’s file and requires CRAs to notify servicemembers within 24 hours of any material change. The proposal notes that CRAs may require that servicemembers provide contact information, proof of identity, and proof of active duty status in order to use the free service and outlines how a servicemember may prove active duty status, such as with a copy of active duty orders. Additionally, the proposal prohibits CRAs from requiring servicemembers to purchase a product in order to obtain the free service or requiring the servicemember to agree to terms and conditions. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On November 1, the FTC announced a joint action with the New York Attorney General against a New York-based debt collection company for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and New York state law by using false or deceptive tactics to collect money from consumers, sometimes resulting in the consumer paying more than what they allegedly owed. According to the complaint, the company’s employees threatened consumers with arrest or lawsuits while falsely posing as law enforcement officials or attorneys. Additionally, the employees allegedly added “more pressure” to consumers by telling them they owed more than the company’s records indicated they did, using forms to show a higher balance than the actual client balance—a practice known as “overbiffing.” On October 25, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted a temporary restraining order, halting the company’s allegedly illegal activity and freezing the company’s assets. The complaint seeks a (i) permanent injunction; (ii) consumer redress; and (iii) civil money penalties under New York law.
Interestingly, as covered by InfoBytes here, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a concurring statement in another recent FTC action, suggesting the FTC should seek to partner with other enforcement agencies that have the authority to obtain monetary settlements from FTC targets. In this complaint, the New York Attorney General is seeking civil money penalties against the debt collectors under New York General Business Law § 350-d.
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "Flood insurance basics" at the NAFCU Virtual Regulatory Compliance School
- H Joshua Kotin and Jessica M. Shannon to discuss "TILA/RESPA mortgage servicing rules" at the NAFCU Virtual Regulatory Compliance School
- Sasha Leonhardt to discuss "Privacy laws clarified" at the National Settlement Services Summit (NS3)
- Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss "New privacy legislation: Preparing for a major source of class action and enforcement activity going forward" at the American Conference Institute Consumer Finance Class Actions, Litigation & Government Enforcement Actions
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk and Lauren Frank to discuss "New CFPB interpretation on UDAAP" at a California Mortgage Bankers Association Mortgage Quality and Compliance Committee webinar
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "High standards: Best practices for banking marijuana-related businesses" at the ACAMS AML & Anti-Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Wait wait ... do tell me! Where the panelists answer to you" at the ACAMS AML & Anti-Financial Crime Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "The future of fair lending" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference