InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Second Circuit Cites Escobar, Vacates and Remands FCA Suit
On September 7, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order concerning a False Claims Act (FCA) case on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In its order, the three-judge panel determined that the FCA complaint should be reviewed under the higher court’s Escobar standard, which “set out a materiality standard for FCA claims that has not been applied in the present case.” See Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016). As previously discussed in InfoBytes, Escobar holds that a misrepresentation must be material to the government’s payment decision to be actionable under the FCA and that the implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability under the FCA.
In issuing the order, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the relators’ complaint (which it had affirmed the first time around) and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the bank’s certification was materially false. At issue is a qui tam suit filed against a national bank, in which plaintiffs claimed the bank violated the FCA when it certified to the Federal Reserve that the bank and its predecessors were obeying the law in order to “borrow money at favorable rates” during the financial crisis. The decision originally relied upon two requirements cited in a case overturned by Escobar—“the express-designation requirement for implied false certification claims and the particularity requirement for express false certification claims.”
CFPB, Federal and State Banking Agencies Issue Guidance for Financial Institutions on Providing Disaster Relief to Consumers
As previously reported in InfoBytes, several federal banking agencies have already issued guidance and resources for national banks and federal savings associations aiding consumers affected by recent disasters. On September 1, the CFPB issued a statement for CFPB-supervised entities on ways to provide assistance to consumers who may be at financial risk. The list includes:
- offering penalty-free forbearance or repayment periods with disclosed terms;
- limiting or waiving fees and charges, including overdraft fees, ATM fees, or late fees;
- restructuring or refinancing existing debt, including extending repayment terms;
- easing documentation or credit-extension requirements;
- increasing capacity for customer service hotlines, particularly those that serve consumers in languages other than English; and
- increasing ATM daily cash withdrawal limits.
The statement further suggests that supervised entities should utilize existing regulatory flexibility if doing so would benefit affected consumers. Included are examples from Regulations B, X, and Z. Additionally, the Bureau stated it will “consider the circumstances that supervised entities may face following a major disaster and will be sensitive to good faith efforts to assist consumers.”
The CFPB separately published a blog post for consumers containing a financial toolkit that includes links to disaster relief organizations, ways to secure financial needs, and information on forbearance options, insurance settlements, and contractor evaluations. The CFPB also issued a warning to consumers of the increased risk of scams and fraud.
In related news, on September 6, the Federal Reserve Board, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, FDIC, and OCC issued a joint press release for financial institutions that may be impacted by Hurricane Irma. The agencies encouraged constructive cooperation with borrowers, noting that “prudent efforts to adjust or alter terms on existing loans in affected areas should not be subject to examiner criticism.” Guidance was also issued on matters concerning Community Reinvestment Act considerations, investments, regulatory reporting requirements, publishing requirements, and temporary banking facilities.
Banking Agencies Offer Guidance Regarding Harvey Response
On August 29, the OCC and FDIC each issued guidance and resources for national banks and federal savings associations aiding consumers affected by recent natural disasters.
OCC Bulletin 2012-28. The OCC bulletin rescinds and replaces previously issued natural disaster guidance and encourages banks serving affected customers to consider the following: (i) “waiving or reducing ATM fees”; (ii) “temporarily waiving late payment fees or penalties for early withdrawal of savings”; (iii) assisting borrowers based on individual situations, when appropriate, by restructuring debt obligations or adjusting payment terms—not to generally exceed 90 days; (iv) “expediting lending decisions when possible”; (v) “originating or participating in sound loans to rebuild damaged property”; and (vi) communicating with state and federal agencies to help mitigate the effects. “Examiners will not criticize these types of responses as long as the actions are taken in a manner consistent with sound banking practices,” the OCC announced. The bulletin also provides additional resources on accounting and reporting issues and Qualified Thrift Lender requirements, among other things.
FDIC FIL-38-2017. The FDIC financial institution letter (FIL) provides similar guidance for depository institutions assisting affected customers. FIL guidance includes the following suggestions: (i) “waiving ATM fees for customers and non-customers”; (ii) “increasing ATM daily cash withdrawal limits”; (iii) waiving items such as overdraft fees, time deposit early withdrawal penalties, availability restrictions on insurance checks, and credit card/loan balance late fees; (iv) “easing restrictions on cashing out-of-state and non-customer checks” as well as “easing credit card limits and credit terms for new loans”; (v) allowing borrowers to defer or skip some loan payments; and (vi) “delaying the submission of delinquency notices to the credit bureaus.” “Prudent efforts by depository institutions to meet customers' cash and financial needs generally will not be subject to examiner criticism,” the FIL noted. Also, the FDIC “encourages depository institutions to use non-documentary verification methods permitted by the Customer Identification Program requirement of the Bank Secrecy Act for affected customers who cannot provide standard identification documents.”The following agencies also issued guidance: Federal Reserve, Farm Credit Administration, and the National Credit Union Administration.
Federal Reserve Board Amends Policy on Payment System Risk
On August 25, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) published in the Federal Register an amendment to Part II of its Policy on Payment System Risk (PSR Policy) in order to “conform to enhancements to the Reserve Banks’ same-day automated clearinghouse (ACH) service.” Posting rules set forth in the PSR Policy govern the times that credits and debits are posted to institutions’ accounts at the Federal Reserve Banks and determine an institution’s intraday account balance and whether the institution has incurred a negative balance (i.e., a “daylight overdraft”).
Changes to the PSR Policy include the following:
- An ACH derived returns function to enable institutions to generate returns via FedLine Web using information from the forward ACH items received through FedACH. The function is intended for institutions that lack the ability to generate returns on their own. Because the derived returns function uses information not available until the day after the processing day for forward ACH items, the Reserve Banks will provide users of the function an interim solution: a same-day paper return option for same-day forward entries greater than $10,000.
- Clarification of posting times for paper returns and paper notifications of change of prior-dated items. Because these items are manually processed by Reserve Bank staff during normal business hours, the Board has announced that posting will now only occur at 5:00 p.m. The PSR Policy has been modified to remove the 8:30 a.m. posting time. However, depending on when the Reserve Banks receive FedLine Webs returns and FedLine Web notifications of change, these items will continue to be posted at 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Details regarding amendments to the “Procedures for Measuring Daylight Overdrafts,” including specific details corresponding to the 8:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. transaction posting times, are also included in the Board’s policy statement.
FFIEC Releases Guidelines on HMDA Data Testing and Resubmission Standards
Earlier this week the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued new FFIEC Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Examiner Transaction Testing Guidelines (guidelines). Examiners will use the new guidelines to assess the accuracy of the HMDA data recorded and reported by financial institutions and determine when an institution must correct and resubmit its HMDA Loan Application Register. The guidelines will apply to data collected beginning January 1, 2018. As further explained in a CFPB blog post issued the same day, this will be the first time all federal HMDA supervisory agencies—including the CFPB, FDIC, Federal Reserve, NCUA, and the OCC—will adopt uniform guidelines, which are designed to ensure HMDA data integrity (HMDA data includes certain information financial institutions are required to collect, record, and report about their home mortgage lending activity). The purpose for collecting the HMDA data is to evaluate housing trends and issues to monitor lending patterns, assist agencies with fair lending and Community Reinvestment Act examinations, and help identify discriminatory lending practices. According to a FDIC financial institution letter (FIL-36-2017) released on August 23, the highlights of the guidelines include, among other things, a data sampling process, error threshold levels, tolerance levels for minor errors, and the ability of examiners to direct a financial institution to make appropriate change to its compliance management system to prevent recurring HMDA data errors.
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, in 2016 the CFPB issued a request for public feedback on the resubmission of mortgage lending data reported under HMDA.
Federal Banking Regulators Issue Proposal to Simplify Capital Requirements to Provide Regulatory Relief to Community Banks
On August 22, the Federal Reserve, FDIC and OCC issued a proposed rule that capital requirements set to take effect in January 2018 would be suspended under a proposed rule for banking organizations not subject to the advanced approaches capital rules, such as community and midsized banks— generally those with less than $250 billion in total assets and fewer than $10 billion in foreign exposure. The federal banking regulators proposed the suspension as they develop a proposal that would simplify capital requirements to reduce regulatory burden. Banks subject to the advance approaches capital rules will still be required to comply with the capital rule requirements taking effect January 1, 2018. The proposal would pause the fully phased-in Basel III requirements regarding the treatment of mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets, investments in the capital instruments of unconsolidated financial institutions, and minority interests (see FDIC Financial Institution Letter FIL-34-2017). According to a press release issued by the FDIC, “the transitional treatment for those items is scheduled to be replaced with a different treatment on January 1, 2018.” FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig issued a statement supporting the proposal but pushed for the need to provide additional relief for community banks such as predicating relief based on banking activities and tangible equity rather than asset size.
Comments on the proposed rule are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Federal Reserve Releases Paper Studying the Evolution and Forward Looking Growth of Fintech
On August 1, the Federal Reserve Board released a paper on the origins and growth of financial technology, and how these “deep innovations” have the potential to affect financial stability. The paper, “FinTech and Financial Innovation: Drivers and Depth,” was authored by John Schindler and adapted from a speech prepared for Banco Central do Brasil’s XI Annual Seminar on Risk, Financial Stability and Banking. Fintech, according to Schindler’s adaptation of the Financial Stability Board’s definition, is best understood as a “technologically enabled financial innovation that could result in new business models, applications, processes, products, or services with an associated material effect on financial markets and institutions and the provision of financial services.” Schindler considers the following to fall into the definition of fintech: (i) online marketplace lending; (ii) equity crowdfunding; (iii) robo-advice; (iv) financial applications of distributed ledger technology; (v) and financial applications of machine learning (also called artificial intelligence and machine intelligence). The paper provides a deeper discussion into the following topics driving fintech innovation:
- supply and demand factors of financial innovation, including regulatory changes and changes to financial or macroeconomic conditions, contributing to the use of technologies supporting fintech financial products and services;
- depth of innovations such as peer to peer lending, high frequency trading, mobile banking and payments, bitcoin, and blockchain all with the “potential to have transformational effects on the financial system”; and
- demographic demands.
Schindler’s position is that fintech evolved, in large part, due to a combination of a number of supply and demand factors occurring in a relatively small period of time, which, as a result, drove new financial innovations.
Federal Reserve Issues Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards, Requests Comments on New SIFI Rating System
Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards.
On August 3, the Federal Reserve (Fed) took an important step towards easing the heavy regulatory burden placed on the boards of directors at the largest U.S. banking organizations, when it issued for public comment a corporate governance proposal intended to “enhance the effectiveness of boards of directors” and “refocus the Federal Reserve supervisory expectations for the largest firms’ boards of directors on their core responsibilities, which will promote the safety and soundness of the firms.”
The proposal is a result of a multi-year review conducted by the Fed of practices of boards of directors, particularly at the largest banking institutions. The Fed focused on the challenges boards face, the factors that make boards effective, and the ways in which boards influence the safety and soundness of their firms and promote compliance within. The key takeaways of this review included:
- supervisory expectations for boards of directors and senior management have become increasingly difficult to distinguish;
- boards devote a significant amount of time satisfying supervisory expectations that do not directly relate to board’s core responsibilities; and
- boards of large financial institutions face significant information flow challenges, which can result in boards being overwhelmed by the complexity and quantity of information received.
The Fed expects that these issues can be remediated by allowing banks to refocus on their core responsibilities, including: (i) developing the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance; (ii) overseeing senior management and holding them accountable for effective risk management and compliance; (iii) supporting the independence of the firm’s independent risk management and internal audit functions; and (iv) adopting effective governance practices.
In April, Fed Governor Jerome Powell indicated that the financial crisis led to a “broad increase in supervisory expectations” for these boards of directors, but cautioned that the Fed needs to “ensure that directors are not distracted from conducting their key functions by overly detailed checklist of supervisory process requirements.” Explaining that the Fed was reassessing its supervisory expectations for boards, Powell stated “it is important to acknowledge that the board’s role is one of oversight, not management.”
The proposed guidance better distinguishes the supervisory expectations for boards from those of senior management, and includes new criteria by which the Fed will assess bank boards. The Fed describes effective boards as those which:
- set clear, aligned, and consistent direction regarding the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance;
- actively manage information flow and board discussions;
- hold senior management accountable;
- support the independence and stature of independent risk management and internal audit; and
- maintain a capable board composition and governance structure.
The proposal also clarifies expectations regarding internal communications within firms for communicating supervisory findings internally, stating that for all supervised firms, most supervisory findings should be communicated to the firm's senior management for corrective action, rather than to its board of directors. Such findings would only be directed to the board for corrective action when the board needs to address its corporate governance responsibilities or when senior management fails to take appropriate remedial action.
While the proposal does not address all of the post-crisis challenges faced by bank boards, it is a welcome message to the industry that the Fed recognized the need to recalibrate their expectations. The proposal also identifies existing supervisory expectations for boards of directors that could be eliminated or revised and notes that the Fed intends to continue assessing whether its expectations of bank boards require further changes.
New SIFI Rating System.
On August 3, the Fed also issued for public comment a new risk rating system for Large Financial Institutions (“LFI”s) that would replace the RFI rating system for bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to the Fed’s Regulation YY. (The Fed will continue to use the same RFI rating system that has been in place since 2004 to evaluate community and regional bank holding companies.)
The LFI rating system is designed to evaluate LFIs on whether they possess sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions. The system would consist of three chief components:
- Governance and Controls
- board of directors
- management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls and
- recovery planning (for domestic bank holding companies subject to LISCC);
- Capital Planning and Positions; and
- Liquidity Risk Management and Positions.
The Governance and Control component would evaluate a LFI’s effectiveness in ensuring that the firm’s strategic business objectives are safely within the firm’s risk tolerance and ability to manage the accordant risk. The component will focus on LFIs’ effectiveness in maintaining strong, effective and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit and compliance, and providing for ongoing resiliency.
The second and third components are intended to incorporate LFI supervision activities, including CCAR and CLAR, which will be directly reflected within the respective component ratings–resulting in a more comprehensive supervisory approach than the RFI rating system which did not incorporate the results of those supervisory activities.
Each LFI would receive a component rating using a multi-level scale (Satisfactory/Satisfactory Watch, Deficient-1 and Deficient-2). “Satisfactory Watch” would indicate that a firm is generally considered safe and sound, however certain issues require timely resolution. Any Deficiency rating would result in that LFI being considered less than “well managed.”
OCC, Federal Reserve Solicit Public Comments on Volcker Rule
On August 2, the OCC announced it is seeking public comments on ways to improve regulations implementing the Volcker Rule, however the agency stressed it is not seeking comment on changes to the underlying statute. The draft notice outlines issues with the rule, which bans banks from engaging in proprietary trading and restricts their ownership of certain funds, explaining that there is “broad recognition that the final rule [implementing the Volcker Rule] should be improved both in design and in application.” Referring to the Treasury Department’s June 2017 report, which identified problems with the design of the final rule and offered recommendations for revision, the OCC’s notice asked for suggestions on how to improve implementation with the understanding that any revisions would require a joint undertaking by the OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, and consultation with the SEC and the CFTC. Specifically, the notice seeks comments in the following four areas: (i) scope of entities subject to the final rule; (ii) proprietary trading prohibitions; (iii) covered fund prohibitions; and (iv) requirements for compliance program and metrics reporting.
Comments must be received within 45 days from publication in the Federal Register.
Separately, on August 2, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) issued a notice seeking comment on whether to extend for three years the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds (Regulation VV). Regulation VV imposes information reporting requirements on certain banks engaged in significant trading activities, to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the Fed invited comment on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary and has practical utility, and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information, while minimizing the burden on respondents. In its notice, the Fed stated that the information collection “is required in order for covered entities to obtain the benefit of engaging in certain types of proprietary trading or investing in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund, under the restrictions set forth in [the Volcker Rule].”
Comments must be received by October 2, 2017.
Regulators Coordinate Review of Volcker Rule Application to Foreign Funds
On July 21, five U.S. financial regulators announced that they would not take action against foreign banks for qualifying foreign excluded funds, subject to certain conditions, under the Volcker Rule for a period of one year as they review the treatment of these types of funds under current implementing regulations. The regulators, which include the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, OCC, SEC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, issued a joint statement to address concerns raised as to whether certain foreign excluded funds may fall within the definition of “banking entity” under the Bank Holding Company Act and therefore be subject to the Volcker Rule.
“A number of foreign banking entities, foreign government officials, and other market participants have expressed concern about the possible unintended consequences and extraterritorial impact of the Volcker Rule and implementing regulations for certain foreign funds,” according to the joint statement. The regulators noted that the review will allow time to consider the appropriate course of action to address these concerns, including whether congressional action may be necessary.In addition, the regulators stressed that the joint statement “does not otherwise modify the rules implementing section 619 [of the Dodd-Frank Act] and is limited to certain foreign excluded funds that may be subject to the Volcker Rule and implementing regulations due to their relationships with or investments by foreign banking entities.”