InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CSBS challenges OCC’s Covid-19 preemption bulletin
On June 24, the Director of Regulatory Policy & Policy Counsel at CSBS, Mike Townsley, wrote a blog post in response to the OCC’s Bulletin on Covid-19 preemption, arguing that the bulletin does not have the force and effect of law. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on June 17, the OCC issued a Bulletin stating that banks are governed primarily by federal standards and generally are not subject to state law limitations. The OCC acknowledged states’ efforts to respond to the economic disruptions as “well-intended,” but noted that the competing requirements could risk banks’ safety and soundness. The Bulletin also provided specific examples of the types of state laws that do not apply to banks’ lending and deposit activities.
In response, Townsley asserts that the Bulletin has no preemptive effect, because the OCC did not follow the “process required by the National Bank Act (NBA) to determine that these state COVID-19 relief measures are preempted.” Specifically, Townsley argues that through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress “amended the NBA to overturn the OCC’s preemption regulations and establish substantive procedural requirements for the determination of whether the NBA preempts a state law.” The requirements include a court or the OCC having to conclude that the law “‘prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers,’” which determination, according to Townsley, if made by the OCC, must be on a case-by-case basis, and include a notice and comment period and the backing of “‘substantial evidence’ on the record.” Townsley also seeks to cast further doubt as to whether the preemption regulations cited by the Bulletin can serve as a guide on procedural grounds, observing that Dodd-Frank requires the OCC to review and decide, through notice and comment, whether to “continue or rescind” each preemption determination every five years, and it has been “well over five years” since the rules were adopted and no such review has ever been conducted. Townsley concludes by citing to the 19th century Supreme Court decision Nat'l Bank v. Commonwealth, stating that national banks “’are subject to the laws of the State.’”
Financial regulators issue examiner guidance on Covid-19
On June 23, the federal financial institution regulatory agencies (Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA), in conjunction with the state bank and credit union regulators, issued interagency examiner guidance for assessing the safety and soundness of financial institutions in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. The joint guidance states that due to the “unique, evolving, and potentially long-term nature of the issues confronting institutions” from the Covid-19 pandemic, examiners will “exercise appropriate flexibility in their supervisory response.” The guidance acknowledges that Covid-19 can have an adverse impact on the financial condition and operational capabilities of financial institutions that have appropriate governance and risk management systems in place.
Among other things, the guidance notes that examiners will (i) “continue to assign supervisory ratings in accordance with the interagency CAMELS and ROCA rating systems”; and (ii) “assess the reasonableness of management’s actions in response to the pandemic given the institution’s business strategy and operational capacity.” The guidance also provides details on things such as capital adequacy and asset quality for examiners to consider when assigning composite and component CAMELS and ROCA ratings.
FDIC and OCC mitigate Covid-19 assessment effects
On June 22, the FDIC and the OCC released separate rules aimed at mitigating the assessment effects of participation in Covid-19 programs. Specifically, the FDIC issued a final rule to limit the deposit insurance effects of participation in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF), and Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF). Among other things, the final rule (i) removes the effect of PPP lending and borrowings under the PPPLF in calculating risk measures for an insured depository institution’s assessment rate; (ii) provides an offset to the total assessment amount for the increase in assessment base due to participation in the PPP and MMLF; and (iii) removes the effect of PPP and MMLF participation when classifying institutions as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes. The final rule is applicable as of April 1.
Under the OCC’s interim final rule (see also Bulletin 2020-63), the assessments due on September 30 for covered banks will be based on the December 31, 2019 Call Report for each institution, rather than the June 30 Call Report, in order to lower the assessments for supervised banks. However, if an institution’s June 30 Call Report is lower than the December 31, 2019 report, the OCC will use the lower of the two options. The interim final rule expires after the September 30 assessment collection.
OCC bulletin discusses preemption and Covid-19
On June 17, the OCC issued Bulletin 2020-62 discussing Covid-19-related relief programs and preemption, reminding stakeholders that banks are governed primarily by federal standards and generally are not subject to state law limitations. While the OCC recognizes the “well-intended” efforts by state and local governments to respond to the economic disruptions caused by the spread of Covid-19, the Bulletin states the agency is “concerned that the proliferation of a multitude of competing requirements will conflict with banks’ ability to operate effectively and efficiently,” which could harm consumers by risking the banks’ safety and soundness. The Bulletin cites to the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson to remind stakeholders that federal law preempts state and local laws that prevent or largely interfere with a national bank’s ability to exercise its powers. The Bulletin provides specific examples of the types of state laws that do not apply to banks’ lending and deposit activities, including limitations on (i) terms of credit; (ii) disbursement and repayments; and (iii) processing, originating, and servicing mortgages. Additionally, the Bulletin notes that any state action that limits banks’ foreclosure activities beyond what is required by the CARES Act is preempted by OCC regulations. Lastly, the OCC reminds stakeholders of Bulletin 2020-43, which details its exclusive visitorial authority of banks (covered by InfoBytes here) and encourages banks to “consult with counsel to determine the applicability of any particular state or local law.”
Waters and Meeks introduce Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse OCC’s CRA rule
On June 11, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Gregory Meeks (D-NY), introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse the OCC’s final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The OCC’s final rule (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), while technically effective October 1, provides for at least a 27-month transition period for compliance based on a bank’s size and business model. However, Waters criticized the OCC’s decision to move forward with the rule “despite the Federal Reserve and the FDIC—the other regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing CRA—declining to join in the rulemaking.” Waters argued that the final rule “will result in disinvestment in many low- and moderate-income communities,” with Meeks stating that the OCC’s decision to “put forward a rushed, incomplete rule. . .will harm the very communities the CRA is meant to support.”
OCC addresses technology advances in rulemaking issuances
On June 4, the OCC announced two rulemaking issuances: a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) that is intended to eliminate outdated regulatory requirements, and an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (ANPR) seeking comments on banking issues related to digital technology and innovation.
Specifically, the NPR would amend 12 CFR part 7 to update or eliminate outdated regulatory requirements and clarify and codify recent OCC interpretations related to the modern financial system. Among other things, the changes would include (i) codifying interpretations which permit covered institutions to engage in certain tax equity finance transactions; (ii) clarifying anti-takeover provisions; and (iii) expanding the ability of national banks to choose corporate governance provisions under state law.
The ANPR seeks comment on regulations 12 CFR part 7, subpart E and 12 CFR part 155, and, among other things, asks commenters to discuss (i) whether, in light of technological advances, the legal standards of both regulations are flexible enough; (ii) whether there are digital banking activities not covered by these rules that the OCC should address; (iii) the barriers or obstacles to further adoption of crypto-related activities in the banking industry; and (iv) the potential implications of new payments technologies and processes for the banking industry.
Comments on both issuances are due August 3.
Federal agencies release host state loan-to-deposit ratios
On June 2, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC released the current host state loan-to-deposit ratios for each state or U.S. territory, which the agencies use to determine compliance with Section 109 of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Under the Act, banks are prohibited from establishing or acquiring branches outside of their home state for the primary purpose of deposit production. Branches of banks controlled by out-of-state bank holding companies are also subject to the same restriction. Determining compliance with Section 109 requires a comparison of a bank’s estimated statewide loan-to-deposit ratio to the yearly host state loan-to-deposit ratios. If a bank’s statewide ratio is less than one-half of the yearly published host state ratio, an additional review is required by the appropriate agency, which involves a determination of whether a bank is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank’s interstate branches.
Acting Comptroller Brooks will focus on responsible innovation, fintech charters
On May 29, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks issued a statement focusing on four priorities intended to help meet the challenges facing banks today. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Brooks was named Acting Comptroller following the departure of former Comptroller Joseph Otting. These priorities include building upon responsible innovation to provide regulatory certainty, flexible frameworks, and oversight that will allow banks to “evolve and capitalize on technology and innovation to deliver better products and services, to operate more efficiently, and to reduce risk in the system.” Brooks reiterated that the OCC has the authority to issue bank charters to companies engaged in “the business of banking on a national scale, including taking deposits, lending money, or paying checks,” and emphasized that the OCC will work to “clarify what true lender means, to underscore that the terms of a lawfully made contract remain valid for the duration of that contract even if it is sold by a bank to another investor, and to specify what the parameters of the ‘fintech charter’ and other special purpose charters should be.” The same day the OCC issued a final rule (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), which establishes that when a bank transfers a loan, the interest rate permissible before the transfer will still be valid after the transfer.
Among other topics, Brook also discussed the OCC’s recent issuance of a final rule to strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), stating that the OCC will work to ensure that banks provide “fair access” to all customers and stressing that the agency “should not tolerate lawful entities being denied access to our federal banking system based on their popularity among a powerful few.”
Special Alert: OCC adopts final rule addressing Madden
On Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks’ first day in that role, the OCC issued a final rule designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision.[1] As published in yesterday’s Federal Register, the rule, titled “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred,” provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” This rule contrasts with the Madden decision’s conclusion that a purchaser of a loan originated by a national bank could not charge interest at the rate permissible for the bank if that rate would be impermissible under the lower usury cap applicable to the purchaser. More specifically, the Madden court found that subjecting assignees to state usury law under these circumstances does not “significantly interfere” with the exercise of national bank powers -- the general preemption standard set forth in the Dodd Frank Act.[2]
Acting Comptroller Brooks warns of lockdown effects on banks
On June 1, Acting Comptroller, Brian Brooks, wrote to the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Governors warning of the adverse impact the regional economic shutdowns due to the Covid-19 pandemic will have on the nation’s banks. In the letter addressed to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Brooks emphasizes the risks to the banking industry associated with state and local lockdown orders, including (i) physical risks associated with commercial real estate loan collateral, should businesses be forced to remain closed indefinitely; (ii) inability for businesses to generate revenue needed to repay loans; (iii) difficulties forecasting future delinquencies and losses with shifting definitions of “essential” businesses; and (iv) increased risks in bank robberies due to potentially permanent face mask requirements. The letter states, “[n]ational banks and federal savings associations entered the Covid-19 crisis extremely well capitalized and with strong liquidity,” and many aspects of the CARES Act rely on a strong banking system. Brooks urges state and local officials to “consider the impact of their lockdown orders on the health and functioning of our shared national financial structure” as they make plans to unwind, narrow, or end lockdowns.