InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Ohio Enacts Cyber Fraud Enforcement Legislation
On March 9, Ohio Governor Kasich signed SB 223, which will give the Ohio Attorney General the authority investigate suspected cyber fraud cases, and to subpoena phone records, IP addresses, payment information, and witness testimony when the AG has reasonable cause to believe that a person or enterprise has engaged in, is engaging in, or is preparing to engage violations of state cyber fraud laws. The bill also alters the thresholds for determining the severity of cyber fraud charges, creating a new charge of first degree felony for frauds involving $1 million or more. The changes will take effect on June 7, 2012.
Multi-Party Mortgage Servicing Settlement Filed in Court
On March 12, federal and state officials filed documents in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia formalizing a previously announced settlement (the Settlement) of various government probes into alleged mortgage-related violations by the five largest residential mortgage servicers (collectively the Servicers). The Settlement resolves investigations and inquiries by numerous federal regulators and 49 state Attorneys General (AGs). The federal agencies that have signed on to the settlement include: the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the U.S. Trustee. With the filing of a consolidated complaint and a separate consent judgment for each Servicer, the details of the Settlement have been made available, including its provisions regarding: (i) restitution and other relief, (ii) new servicing standards, (iii) the scope of its releases, and (iv) implementation and enforcement. For a detailed analysis of the Settlement, please see BuckleySandler LLP’s recent Special Alert.
CFPB Director Addresses State Attorneys General, Spotlight on Payday Lenders, Debt Collectors, and Servicing Rules
The National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) met this week in Washington, DC. Among the topics covered at the annual meeting was the ongoing and future coordination between federal and state law enforcement with regard to financial services. CFPB Director Cordray, a former state attorney general, noted that NAAG and the CFPB already have several working groups organized to address payday loans, foreclosure scams, auto loans, and debt collection. These efforts will be supported through a formal Memorandum of Understanding that is expected to be finalized soon. In his remarks and in follow up questioning, Director Cordray specifically addressed enforcement and supervision with regard to payday lenders and debt collectors. It was reported that Director Cordray indicated that the CFPB and the FTC are “zoning in” on issues related to payday lenders associated with Native American tribes. Regarding debt collectors, the Director stated that aggressive enforcement by the FTC and states is not enough, and that the CPFB would like federal and state regulators and enforcement agencies to develop a national strategic plan that leverages the CFPB’s supervision and enforcement capabilities. Finally, on planned rulemaking by the CFPB, the Director noted ongoing efforts to develop rules governing mortgage servicing, including force-placed insurance products and hybrid ARMs.
Ninth Circuit Holds Nevada AG Suit Against Bank Not Removable Under CAFA
On March 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a parens patriae suit brought by Nevada’s Attorney General (AG) related to mortgage modification and foreclosure practices could not be removed from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., No 12-15005, 2012 WL 688552 (9th Cir. Mar. 2, 2012). The AG alleges that Bank of America Corp. (BAC) violated state law by misleading Nevada consumers about the terms and operation of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes, and that it violated a consent judgment entered between the state and several of its subsidiaries. BAC removed the case to federal court under CAFA. The district court denied the state’s motion to remand, finding that (i) it had jurisdiction over the suit as a CAFA “class action,” but not as a “mass action,” and (ii) it had federal question jurisdiction because the allegations require interpretation of the federal HAMP program and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit consistent with its opinion in Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2011), which was issued after the district court ruled on Nevada’s motion, held that a parens patriae suit does not qualify as a class action removable under CAFA, and does not otherwise satisfy CAFA’s “mass action” requirements. The court reasoned that Nevada is the real party in interest and therefore held that the case could not qualify as a mass action removable under CAFA. The Ninth Circuit also held that, because only state law causes of action are alleged and there is no overriding federal interest, the district court does not have federal question jurisdiction.
Colorado State Court Rules Payday Lending Firms Affiliated with Native American Tribes are Immune from State Investigation and Prosecution
On February 13, the District Court for the City and County of Denver ruled that online payday lending businesses affiliated with two Native American tribes are protected from state investigation and enforcement. Colorado v. Cash Advance, No. 05-1143 (Col. Dist. Ct. Feb. 13, 2012). For several years the state had been trying to investigate and regulate the payday lending practices of the firms and brought suit to enforce subpoenas and cease and desist orders issued with regard to the firms’ operations. The state claimed that, among other things, the businesses were in violation of state laws that require firms doing business with Colorado consumers over the internet to have a valid state license. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the firms are immune from those subpoenas and enforcement orders under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. On appeal, the state supreme court held that tribal sovereign immunity applies to state investigative subpoena enforcement actions and remanded the case to the trial court for additional inquiry into the immunity status of the tribes’ affiliated businesses. On remand, the state claimed that sovereign immunity did not apply because the firms engaged non-tribal members in some of their operations and designed their affiliation with two online payday lending firms to avoid state regulation and oversight, a practice sometimes referred to as “rent-a-tribe.” After discovery, the court disagreed and ruled for the defendant tribes and their businesses, holding that the companies are extensions of the tribes and therefore immune from state investigatory actions and judicial enforcement.
California AG and Mobile Platforms Agree to Require Privacy Policies for Apps
On February 22, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced an agreement with six leading mobile platform companies to ensure that apps on those platforms have privacy policies. Privacy policies are already required under the California Online Privacy Protection Act, which governs commercial websites and online services that collect personal data from California residents. The new agreement also includes commitments from the six companies - Amazon, Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Research in Motion - to educate app developers about user privacy obligations.
Missouri AG Announces "Robosigning" Indictment
On February 7, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced that a grand jury had returned a 136-count indictment against DOCX, LLC, and its founder, for alleged “robosigning” by forgery and false declarations with regard to mortgage documents. The indictment alleges that the signatures on 68 notarized deeds of release submitted to one county recorder were forged and constituted false declarations. If convicted, the founder could face up to seven years in prison per count, and the company could be fined up $10,000 for each forgery and $2,000 for each false declaration.
Federal and State Officials Announce Mortgage Servicing Settlement
On February 9, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, and several other state and federal officials jointly announced an approximately $25 billion agreement in principle between the federal government, 49 state attorneys general and the five largest mortgage servicers to settle various mortgage servicing and foreclosure related issues. Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt later announced an "independent mortgage settlement" between Oklahoma and the five servicers. The national-level agreement - with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial (the servicers) - was the culmination of several state and federal investigations and extended negotiations between the parties. The settlement's terms require a commitment of approximately $20 billion in financial relief for homeowners. In addition, the servicers will pay $5 billion in cash to the state and federal governments, including $1.5 billion to establish a Borrower Payment Fund that will provide payments to qualifying borrowers whose homes were sold or foreclosed on between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011. The $25 billion agreement includes more than $766.5 million in monetary sanctions assessed by the Federal Reserve Board. An additional $394 million of penalties from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency are held in abeyance provided four of the servicers make payments and take other actions under the settlement with a value equal to at least the penalty amounts assessed for each servicer by the OCC. In addition to the financial compensation offered in the settlement, the servicers will conduct future business under new servicing standards, which include (i) restrictions on the default management process known as "dual tracking", (ii) a requirement for the institutions to provide a single point of contact for borrowers, (iii) specific protections for military service members beyond those provided by the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, (iv) obligations concerning disclosures and practices related to force-placed insurance, and (v) limitations on servicing fees. The standards also require the servicers to establish (i) updated foreclosure and bankruptcy documentation processes, (ii) enhanced servicer oversight of third party vendors, and (iii) adherence to a new set of loan modification timelines. The terms of the agreement will be filed as a consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Their fulfillment, over the three-year term of the settlement, will be overseen by an independent monitor, North Carolina Commissioner of Banks Joseph A. Smith. In order to ensure timely dissemination of the settlement's terms to those who may be eligible for financial relief, the parties have established a "National Mortgage Settlement" web site, which provides "Servicing Standards Highlights" and outlines key aspects of the servicing settlement. The materials provided by the federal and state officials in announcing the settlement agreement note that the agreement left numerous issues unresolved and does not preclude (i) criminal claims, (ii) securities claims and claims related to the use of an electronic mortgage registry, (iii) loan origination claims in connection with FHA-insured loans, except those covered specifically by this settlement, and (iv) borrower claims. For additional information concerning some of the state-level recoveries and issues the state attorneys general have reserved for potential future action please see California's announcement here and New York's announcement here. Buckley LLP advises clients regarding mortgage servicing issues and conducted a webinar on servicing developments, including a review of the OCC's April, 2011 Consent Orders and related servicing guidance. If you have any questions about the settlement or servicing issues in general please contact a member of our Mortgage Servicing Team.
Illinois AG Files Suit Alleging Improper Recording of Mortgage Assignments
On February 2, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that a Florida-based company that prepares documents for use in default servicing and foreclosure actions filed faulty documents with Illinois county recorders. According to a press release issued by the Attorney General, the defendant processes and records mortgage assignments that are used in foreclosure proceedings by some of the largest mortgage lenders and servicers. The defendant's activities in Illinois purportedly violate the state consumer protection statutes, and are alleged to have contributed to the state's mortgage crisis. The state is seeking an order requiring that the company (i) review and correct all documents it unlawfully created and recorded in Illinois, (ii) disgorge all financial gains obtained in connection with the allegedly unlawful practices, and (iii) pay civil penalties.
Florida Appeals Court Denies Request to Certify Question Important to State Foreclosure Investigation
On February 1, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's request to certify to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether the creation of invalid assignments of mortgages by a law firm and subsequent use of such documents to foreclose constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice under Florida law that may be investigated by the Attorney General. In April 2011, the Fourth District ruled that the Attorney General's office did not have authority to subpoena records from one of the law firms under investigation. Because the Attorney General cannot appeal that decision to the Florida Supreme Court, it sought certification of the issue as one of great public importance. With that request now denied, the Attorney General must reassess its pending investigations of law firms alleged to have engaged in foreclosure misconduct.