InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Puerto Rico Federal District Court Denies Motions to Dismiss FDIC Suit Against Former Bank Officers and Directors
On October 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denied motions to dismiss gross negligence claims against former directors and officers brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank. The court further held that the FDIC as receiver is not precluded from recovering under the directors and officers’ insurance policies. W Holding Co. v. Chartis Ins. Co.-Puerto Rico, No. 11-2271, slip op. (D. Puerto Rico Oct. 23, 2012). The FDIC sued former officers and directors of the bank, alleging that they were grossly negligent in approving and administering commercial real estate, construction, and asset-based loans and transactions and seeking over $176 million in damages. The court concluded that the FDIC could not maintain claims for ordinary negligence against the former officers and directors because of the business judgment rule, but that the FDIC had stated sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim for gross negligence. The court held that (i) the FDIC’s complaint adequately specified which alleged misconduct was attributable to each director or officer, (ii) the claims should not be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, and (iii) separate claims against certain former officers and directors concerning fraudulent conveyances should not be dismissed. In addition, the court denied the insurers’ motions to dismiss the FDIC’s claims for coverage under the directors and officers’ liability policies. The court held that the policies’ “insured versus insured” exclusion did not apply to an action by the FDIC as receiver because the FDIC was suing on behalf of depositors, account holders, and a depleted insurance fund.
FDIC Finalizes Rule Regarding Enforcement of Subsidiary and Affiliate Contracts
On October 16, the FDIC published a final rule regarding the enforcement of subsidiary and affiliate contracts by the FDIC as receiver for failed financial companies. The rule implements authority granted to the FDIC by the Dodd-Frank Act that permits the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to financial stability, to enforce certain contracts of subsidiaries and affiliates of the covered company. The rule covers contracts that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide for other remedies based on the insolvency, financial condition, or receivership of the covered company, so long as the FDIC complies with statutory requirements. The rule takes effect November 15, 2012, applies broadly to all contracts, and makes clear that the FDIC's authority as receiver effectively preserves contractual relationships of subsidiaries and affiliates during the liquidation process. In response to industry comments, the final rule clarifies certain aspects of the rule as proposed.
Federal Regulators Finalize Bank Stress Test Rules
On October 9, the OCC and the FDIC each finalized a rule to implement the company-run stress test requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. The stress tests are exercises designed to gauge the losses that covered institutions might experience under hypothetical scenarios established by the regulators. The OCC and FDIC rules apply to covered institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion. Covered institutions with assets over $50 billion are subject to the stress test requirements immediately. They will be required to submit results in January 2013 of stress tests based on data as of September 30, 2012 and scenarios that the FDIC and the OCC plan to publish next month. Implementation of the stress test requirements for institutions with assets of $10 billion to $50 billion will not begin until October 2013. Also on October 9, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) finalized two stress test-related rules. The first rule establishes the stress test requirements for bank holding companies, state member banks, and savings and loan companies with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. As with the OCC and FDIC rules, the FRB rule delays implementation of stress test requirements for covered institutions with $50 billion or less in assets until the fall of 2013. Additionally, the results of that first test will not have to be publicly disclosed. The second FRB rule establishes the company-run stress test requirements for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, and nonbank financial companies designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. These institutions are required to conduct two internal stress tests each year, in addition to a stress test performed by the FRB. Like the OCC and the FDIC, the FRB expects to release its stress test scenarios in November.
FDIC Finalizes Large Bank Assessment Rule
On October 9, the FDIC released a final rule to revise certain definitions included in the large bank pricing assessment system for banks with more than $10 billion in assets. In February 2011, the FDIC published a large bank pricing rule that, among other things, eliminated risk categories and the use of long-term debt issuer ratings. In their place, the FDIC adopted scorecards that combine CAMELS ratings and certain forward-looking measures to assess risk posed by an institution to the FDIC insurance fund. The February rule used existing interagency guidance to define nontraditional mortgage loans, subprime consumer loans, and leveraged commercial loans, but refined the definitions to minimize reporting discrepancies. A subsequent FDIC notice added a requirement that covered institutions include nontraditional mortgage loans, subprime consumer loans, and leveraged commercial loans data in their Call Reports. In response to industry concerns that institutions generally do not maintain data on those loans consistent with the definitions in the February rule, the current final rule extensively renames and revises the definitions of (i) higher-risk consumer loans, (ii) higher-risk consumer and industrial loans, (iii) nontraditional mortgage loans, and (iv) higher-risk securitizations.
California Federal District Court Permits FDIC Suit Against Former Bank Officers to Proceed
On October 5, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed several affirmative defenses invoked by a group of former bank officers sued by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank, including their claim of protection from personal liability for business decisions. FDIC v. Van Dellen, No. 10-4915, 2012 WL 4815159 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2012). The FDIC sued the former officers, alleging that, in pursuit of bonuses for high loan origination volumes, the officers approved homebuilder loans to unqualified borrowers. As part of their defense, the officers claimed that the court should apply the law of the state of Delaware where the bank was incorporated, and not California law where the bank had its principle place of business. The officers sought to invoke Delaware law protecting officers from personal liability for business decisions. The court disagreed and held that (i) California law applies under any choice of law test and (ii) California’s business judgment rule, both as codified and its common law element, immunizes directors from personal liability but not officers. With regard to the officers’ defense that the FDIC claims were time barred as allegations of professional negligence, the court held that the gravamen of the complaint actually is breach of fiduciary duty, which has a longer statute of limitations. The court also reiterated a previous ruling that the officers could not invoke any defenses that would rely on imputing the bank’s pre-receivership conduct to the FDIC as receiver. The court did agree with the officers that any recoveries made by the FDIC in another case should be considered when assessing damages in this case, and that claims regarding certain loans approved by the bank’s federal regulator should be reviewed by a jury.
CFPB Continues Credit Card Enforcement Activity
On October 1, the CFPB announced a coordinated enforcement action taken by federal regulators against a major credit card company and several of its subsidiaries alleged to have violated multiple consumer financial protection laws. According to the CFPB, the investigations conducted by it and other federal regulators and a state regulator revealed that the companies (i) charged illegal late fees, (ii) discriminated on the basis of age in the offering of credit, (iii) engaged in deceptive marketing, and (iv) failed to properly report consumer credit disputes. To resolve the allegations, the companies agreed to enter into several different consent orders. Two orders obtained by the CFPB and a joint CFPB/FDIC order require three of the subsidiaries collectively to refund approximately $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers and pay a cumulative $18 million in civil money penalties. Likewise, the OCC issued a consent order that includes an additional $500,000 penalty, and provides for restitution that overlaps with the broader restitution ordered by the CFPB. Finally, an order obtained by the Federal Reserve Board, requires the company, and certain of its subsidiaries, to pay an additional $9 million penalty. Furthermore, pursuant to the various orders, the companies agreed to undergo an independent audit and implement enhanced compliance systems to address the alleged illegal practices. This is the third public CFPB-led enforcement action aimed at credit card companies, and the first to go beyond allegations regarding ancillary products and resolve alleged violations of the CARD Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
FDIC Announces New Violations Classification System
On September 25, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-41-2012, which revises the classification system used to cite violations of consumer financial laws identified during compliance examinations. The new system features three levels of severity and will replace the current two-level system on October 1, 2012. The FDIC letter states that the change is intended to provide greater clarity regarding the severity of a violation by focusing on the most significant issues identified during an examination. For example, the new “Level 3/High Severity” classification will cover violations that result in significant harm to consumers or members of a community. These violations typically result in restitution in excess of $10,000 (in aggregate), and include any pattern or practice violations of anti-discrimination provisions.
FDIC Names New York Regional Director
On September 26, the FDIC named John Vogel as New York Regional Director. The New York Region covers twelve northeastern states, as well as Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mr. Vogel has been with the FDIC since 1990 and previously served as New York Deputy Regional Director for Risk Management.
FDIC to Host Teleconferences on CFPB Proposed Mortgage Rules
On September 18, the FDIC announced in Financial Institution Letter FIL-39-2012 that it plans to host two teleconferences in the coming weeks to discuss the CFPB’s mortgage-related proposed rules. The teleconferences will be conducted by staff from the FDIC’s Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection and are being offered to officers and employees of FDIC-supervised institutions. The first call will take place on September 27, 2012 and will cover (i) mortgage origination standards, (ii) appraisals for “higher-risk” mortgages, (iii) ECOA appraisal requirements, and (iv) mortgage servicing standards. On October 10, 2012, FDIC staff will discuss (i) RESPA/TILA mortgage disclosure integration, (ii) qualified mortgages and the ability to repay standard, (iii) escrow requirements for “higher-priced mortgage loans”, and (iv) high-cost HOEPA loans.
Federal Regulators Host Webinar on SCRA Compliance
On September 10, federal banking regulators, the CFPB, and the FHFA conducted a webinar on federal servicemember financial protections, recent changes to the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act (SCRA), and recent changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sale procedures for servicemembers and loan modification options for servicemembers. The event featured compliance and enforcement updates from the CFPB, the DOJ, and the OCC. Ann Thompson from the CFPB Office of Nonbank Supervision described recent joint agency guidance regarding servicemembers with Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Orders as an extension of the CFPB's mortgage servicing exam procedures. Ms. Thompson explained that the CFPB will look at bank and nonbank servicers' policies and procedures to determine their adequacy for handling servicemembers with PCS orders. If there are deficiencies, the CFPB may take supervisory or enforcement actions to support implementation of the guidance. Eric Halperin from the DOJ's fair lending unit provided an update on enforcement activity and described a recent SCRA enforcement action against a national bank that covered all aspects of SCRA, not just foreclosure protections, as the model for the DOJ moving forward. Finally, Kimberly Hebb from the OCC offered some considerations for institutions seeking to comply with SCRA. She explained that the SCRA compliance process need not stand alone. For example, with regard to the law's rate reduction requirements, compliance steps could be incorporated into existing processes for error resolution. Ms. Hebb also stressed documentation and record keeping, pointing out that while the law does not include a specific record retention requirement, examiners will want to see the full scope of compliance processes documented for use in determining compliance.