InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Seeks Reconsideration of Order Requiring Disclosure of Non-Public Documents related to Bank's AML/CTF Compliance
On April 24, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed an order that would have required a bank to disclose non-public supervisory information subject to the bank examination privilege. Wultz v. Bank of China, No. 11-1266 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2013). The case was brought by the family of victims of a suicide bombing attack who claim that failures in the bank’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing compliance program aided and abetted international terrorism. On April 9, 2013, the court compelled the bank and the OCC to produce various investigative files and regulatory communications over their objection that the bank examination privilege protected such production. The court relied in part on a recent and unrelated Senate investigative report’s description of the OCC oversight process. The court reasoned that the OCC’s ideal supervision process, on which it based its claim of privilege, diverges from the actual process described in the Senate report, and that the actual process undermines assumptions on which other courts have relied about the likely effects of overriding the bank examination privilege. The court added that “the OCC’s supervisory mission might in some cases be helped as much as hindered by the intervention of private litigants.” In support of its motion to reconsider, the OCC argued that the court failed to properly weigh long-standing principles and that its decision “will be construed as an erosion of the bank examination privilege that ultimately will undermine the bank supervisory process.” The OCC also asserted that it never waived the privilege and appropriately and in good faith relied upon the procedures set forth under its Touhy regulation, which is designed to provide the OCC with the opportunity to review non-public OCC information in the possession of regulated entities prior to production. The OCC asked the court to vacate its prior order and order the plaintiffs to submit a Touhy request for all materials withheld on the groups of bank examination privilege. The court agreed to stay its prior order and established a briefing schedule on the motion for reconsideration, which will be completed by May 10, 2013.
CFPB Introduces Regional Directors
On March 12, the CFPB publicly introduced its four regional directors. Edwin Chow heads the West Region. He joined the CFPB in September 2010, bringing 26 years of experience with the Office of Thrift Supervision and its predecessor. The Midwest Region is led by Anthony Gibbs, who recently joined the CFPB after 19 years with a major bank. Steve Kaplan, a former Pennsylvania Secretary of Banking, leads the Northeast Region, and Jim Carley, previously at the division of banking regulation at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, heads the Southeast Region. The CFPB announced the directors as part of its push to hire more examiners for its field offices.
Federal Reserve Board Inspector General Reviewing CFPB's Use of Enforcement Attorneys During Examinations
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which also serves as the OIG for the CFPB, released an updated Work Plan. The Work Plan includes as a “work in progress,” an evaluation of the CFPB’s integration of enforcement attorneys into its examinations of financial institutions. According to the Plan, the OIG is assessing (i) the potential risks associated with this examination approach and (ii) the effectiveness of any safeguards that the CFPB has adopted to mitigate the potential risks associated with this approach. Banks and nonbanks have previously expressed concern with the CFPB’s approach, which differs from the traditional approach taken by other federal regulators. In fact, in November 2012, the CFPB Ombudsman recommended that the CFPB review its implementation of the policy. The Work Plan states that the OIG expects to complete its review during the second quarter of 2013.
SEC National Examination Program Publishes 2013 Examination Priorities
On February 21, the NEP published its examination priorities for 2013. The NEP’s market-wide priorities include (i) fraud detection and prevention, (ii) corporate governance and enterprise risk management, (iii) conflicts of interest, and (iv) technology. The NEP also identifies priorities for its (i) investment advisers and investment companies, (ii) broker-dealers, (iii) clearing and transfer agents, and (iv) market oversight program areas. For example, for the investment advisers and investment companies program area, the NEP plans to focus on certain ongoing risks including (i) safety of assets, (ii) marketing and performance advertising, and (iii) fund governance, as well as certain new and emerging risks.
President Signs ATM Disclosure Bill and CFPB Privilege Bill
On December 20, President Obama signed two bills impacting bank supervision and compliance. These bills were sent to the President after the Senate approved both measures on December 11. The first, H.R.4014, amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to protect information submitted to the CFPB as part of its supervisory process. For more information about these issues, please see our recent Special Alert. The second bill, H.R. 4367, amends the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to remove the requirement that ATMs have an attached placard disclosing fees. The amended law requires only that fees be disclosed on the ATM screen.
Special Alert: Congress Passes Bill Extending Privilege Waiver Protections to CFPB
Yesterday, the Senate passed H.R. 4014, an important bill that clarifies that privileged materials produced to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) retain their privileged character as to third parties. Because the House passed the same bill in March, the measure will now go to President Obama, who is expected to sign it.
The bill amends 12 U.S.C. § 1828(x) to place the Bureau on equal footing with the banking agencies—a so-called “legislative fix” that many observers have called for to address concerns that the Dodd-Frank Act did not provide clear guidance with respect to the status of privileged material provided to the CFPB. The amended statutory provision would read:
The submission by any person of any information to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, any Federal banking agency, State bank supervisor, or foreign banking authority for any purpose in the course of any supervisory or regulatory process of such Bureau, agency, supervisor, or authority shall not be construed as waiving, destroying, or otherwise affecting any privilege such person may claim with respect to such information under Federal or State law as to any person or entity other than such Bureau, agency, supervisor, or authority.
The language “any person” makes clear that the bill applies to submissions by banks, non-banks, and individuals. The bill also amends 12 U.S.C. § 1821(t)(2)(A) to allow the Bureau to share information with other federal agencies without waiving “any privilege applicable” to that information.
Once it receives the President’s signature, the bill will partly resolve some long-standing debates over the effect of producing privileged information to the CFPB. In a January 2012 bulletin, the Bureau first argued that the production of privileged information to the agency would not waive any applicable privileges. Many supervised entities were skeptical, given the absence of any non-waiver statute or regulation applicable to the CFPB. Just a few months later, the agency finalized a regulation that also purported to preserve such privileges. But again, several groups remained concerned that the CFPB’s assurances were not enough to avoid waiver.
H.R. 4014 now offers some measure of comfort to CFPB-supervised entities, but a number of questions remain. For instance:
- Although the amendment to Section 1821(t) explains how privileges are affected when the CFPB shares information with federal agencies, it does not say how privileges will be affected if the CFPB shares such information with state and local authorities—as it has said it intends to do and it has agreed to do in various compacts with state regulatory agencies and enforcement officials.
- The bill does not speak at all to the question of whether, as the CFPB has maintained, it is entitled to obtain privileged material in the first place. The bill only provides that the transmitter may still assert privilege as to third parties if such material is transmitted to the CFPB. The CFPB to date has aggressively sought privileged and attorney work product material relating to institutions’ fair lending compliance efforts. Where institutions turn that material over, the bill would provide no protection against the CFPB’s use of the material to prosecute the institution.
- It is not clear whether the newly-amended Section 1828(x) will apply retroactively to protect confidential information that has already been submitted to the CFPB.
BuckleySandler will continue to monitor these issues. In the meantime, questions regarding the matters discussed in this alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
CFPB Ombudsman Issues First Annual Report, Makes Recommendation Regarding CFPB Supervisory Examination Process
On November 30, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office submitted its first annual report to the Director of the CFPB. It describes the establishment of the office and highlights the office’s activities from July 2011 through September 30, 2012. The report also identifies two “systemic issues” that the Ombudsman reviewed: (i) consumer understanding of the CFPB complaint process and (ii) the presence of enforcement attorneys at supervisory examinations. Almost 40 percent of the questions the Ombudsman received from consumers related to the CFPB complaint process, so the Ombudsman recommended that the CFPB provide more information to the public about the complaint process using multiple methods to communicate that information. The Ombudsman also heard concerns regarding the CFPB’s policy that enforcement attorneys participate in supervisory examinations. After conducting her own review, the Ombudsman recommended that the CFPB review its implementation of the policy, and until that review is complete, establish ways to clarify the enforcement attorney role at the supervisory examination.
NCUA Releases New National Supervision Policy Manual
On November 2, the NCUA released a public version of its new National Supervision Policy Manual, which describes the agency’s internal operations and procedures for supervisory staff. Certain sensitive portions of the Manual remain confidential. The release completes a two-year process to create uniform national procedures for NCUA’s supervisory staff that are expected to improve examination consistency.
CFPB Reports Examination Findings, Updates Examination Manual, and Details Supervisory Appeals Process
The CFPB today released its first periodic Supervisory Highlights publication, along with an updated examination manual and a bulletin about the Bureau’s examination appeals process.
The Supervisory Highlights report describes the CFPB’s supervisory activity from July 2011 through September 2012, including with regard to credit cards, credit reporting, and mortgages, and “signal[s] to all institutions the kinds of activities that should be carefully scrutinized.” During its first year of conducting exams, the CFPB states that it has found compliance management system deficiencies, including with regard to fair lending compliance programs and oversight of affiliate and third-party service providers. The report also reviews nonpublic actions taken to enforce compliance with the CARD Act and FCRA, and identifies several areas of concern for mortgage originators.
Bulletin 2012-07 details the CFPB supervisory appeals process, and addresses confidentiality and the role of the CFPB Ombudsman. Finally, the updated Supervision and Examination Manual incorporates the various procedures issued since the manual first was published in October 2011, e.g. the payday lending and consumer reporting exam procedures. The updated manual also includes new references to the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the republishing of federal consumer finance law regulations under the CFPB’s authority.
OCC Refines Consideration of BSA/AML Examination Findings
On September 28, the OCC issued Bulletin 2012-30 to refine how examiners consider Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) examination findings in the FFIEC Uniform Ratings System and the OCC’s risk assessment system for national banks and federal savings associations, and in the Risk Management, Operational Controls, Compliance, and Asset Quality ratings and risk assessment system for federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations. To align OCC practices with those of other federal regulators, OCC examiners no longer consider BSA/AML findings when assigning consumer compliance ratings. However, the findings still are considered when assessing overall compliance risk. Additionally, the current practice of considering such findings in the safety and soundness context will continue, and serious compliance deficiencies create a presumption that a bank’s management component rating will be hurt. Similarly, current practices regarding consideration of findings with regard to foreign banks remain applicable.