Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • McDonnell rule does not apply to the FCPA, says 2nd Circuit

    Courts

    On August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the conviction of a Chinese real estate developer arising from the alleged bribery of United Nations officials. In affirming the conviction, the court held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in McDonnell v. U.S.—that, in cases brought under the domestic federal anti-bribery statute, the government must show that the bribe was paid in exchange for an “official act”—does not apply to prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) or 18 U.S.C. § 666, a federal anti-corruption law related to federal funds.

    In the most recent case, a federal jury convicted the developer of paying bribes and gratuities to United Nations officials in violation of the FCPA and 18 U.S.C. § 666. The developer appealed the conviction and argued, among other things, that the jury should have been instructed that the bribe must have be paid for an “official act,” in light of McDonnell. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit rejected the developer’s arguments, explaining that the FCPA and 18 U.S.C. § 666 target a broader set of bribery goals than the statute at issue in McDonnell. Specifically, the court noted that the FCPA and 18 U.S.C. § 666 prohibit giving anything of value in exchange for specific “quos” that do not include reference to an “official act.” Thus, based on the “textual differences among various bribery statutes,” the appellate court concluded that the “official act” standard does not apply to prosecutions under the FCPA or 18. U.S.C. § 666.

    Courts FCPA Appellate Second Circuit U.S. Supreme Court Bribery Of Interest to Non-US Persons

    Share page with AddThis
  • 7th Circuit: FDCPA claims fail due to insufficient evidence

    Courts

    On August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that a consumer could not proceed on FDCPA or Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) claims because he failed to demonstrate that the incurred credit card debt in question was a “consumer debt” entitled to FDCPA and WCA protections. The consumer filed a lawsuit against a law firm acting on behalf of a debt collection agency claiming, among other things, that the firm had failed to provide written notice of his right to cure a defaulted debt before the firm commenced an action against him in Wisconsin state court. While the consumer maintained that the debt was not his, he argued that “to the extent” that he was liable for the debt, it was entered into for personal, family, or household purposes, and that by failing to provide written notice of his rights, the firm had violated the FDCPA and WCA. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the consumer failed to establish that the debt was a consumer debt.

    On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The appellate court found that the evidence put forward by the plaintiff, which included account statements and his own representations regarding the purpose of the account, was insufficient to show that the debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff’s representations that the debt was a consumer debt could not be reconciled with his contention that the debt was not his and that the charges on his account statement did not provide sufficient information for the court to conclusively determine that they were made for personal, and not business, purposes.  

    Courts Seventh Circuit Appellate FDCPA Consumer Finance Debt Collection State Issues

    Share page with AddThis
  • Federal agencies update host state loan-to-deposit ratios

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On August 9, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, 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. Banks that do not meet the compliance requirements are subject to sanctions by the OCC. Notably, Section 109 is not applicable to federal savings associations or community banks with covered interstate branches.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance OCC Federal Reserve FDIC Bank Compliance

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB settles student-loan suit against defunct educational institution

    Federal Issues

    On August 12, the CFPB announced a proposed settlement with a defunct for-profit educational institution to resolve allegations that the defendant engaged in unfair and abusive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act through its private student loan origination practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a lawsuit in 2014 alleging, among other things, that the defendant offered new students short-term zero-interest loans to cover the difference between the cost of attendance and federal loans obtained by students, but when the short-term loans came due at the end of the students’ first academic year, the defendant forced borrowers into “high-interest, high-fee” private student loans knowing that borrowers could not afford them. According to the Bureau, this practice resulted in a 64 percent default rate on the loans. The terms of the proposed settlement include a $60 million judgment against the defendant as well as an injunction prohibiting the defendant from offering or providing student loans in the future.

    Earlier in June, the Bureau announced a settlement with a company that managed student loans for the defendant, which includes approximately $168 million in student loan forgiveness. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The company has also agreed to permanently cease enforcing, collecting, or receiving payments on any of its loans.

    Federal Issues Courts CFPB Enforcement Student Lending UDAAP CFPA

    Share page with AddThis
  • FTC settles with email company for deceptively collecting consumer information

    Federal Issues

    On August 8, the FTC announced a settlement with an email management company, which requires the company to delete the personal information it obtained from consumers’ email receipts after allegedly misleading consumers about the company’s services. In the complaint, the FTC alleges that the company, which assisted consumers in unsubscribing from unwanted subscription emails, deceptively told consumers that it would “never touch [their] personal stuff,” when providing the company access to their emails, but in reality, the company would access inboxes to collect consumers’ e-receipts to sell the purchase information to other companies. Moreover, the complaint alleges that, even after consumers chose to decline to allow the company access to their email, the company persisted with deceptive messages, which resulted in “[o]ver 20,000 consumers chang[ing] their minds and decid[ing] to complete the sign-up process after viewing the messages.” The settlement requires the company to: (i) delete from its system, and its parent company’s system, the email receipts it collected from consumers, unless it obtains their affirmative consent to maintain the information; (ii) cease misrepresenting the way it collects, uses, stores, or shares the information it collects; and (iii) notify consumers who have signed up for the service, after viewing the deceptive messages, about how it collects and shares information.

    Federal Issues FTC Deceptive UDAP

    Share page with AddThis
  • 9th Circuit: Plaintiffs’ face-scanning claims can proceed

    Courts

    On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a district court order certifying a class action suit that alleged a social media company’s face-scanning practices violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The court found that the plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently concrete injury necessary to establish Article III standing as defined in the U.S. Supreme court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant’s use of the facial-recognition technology did not comply with Illinois law designed to regulate “the collection, use, safeguarding and storage of biometrics”—which, under BIPA, includes the scanning of face geometry. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and certified the class. The defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that even if the plaintiffs have standing to sue, (i) BIPA is not intended to be applied extraterritorially; (ii) the collection of biometric data occurred on servers located outside of Illinois; and (iii) it is unclear that the alleged privacy violations “occurred ‘primarily and substantially within’” within the state. Additionally, the defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class because the state’s “extraterritoriality doctrine precludes the district court from finding predominance,” and that a class action was not superior to individual actions due to the potential for a large statutory damages award.

    On appeal, the 9th Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claims met the standing requirement of Spokeo because the defendant’s alleged development of a face template that uses facial-recognition technology without users’ consent constituted an invasion of an individual’s private affairs and concrete interests. “Because we conclude that BIPA protects the plaintiffs’ concrete privacy interests and violations of the procedures in BIPA actually harm or pose a material risk of harm to those privacy interests, the plaintiffs have alleged a concrete and particularized harm, sufficient to confer Article III standing,” the appellate court stated. The 9th Circuit also dismissed the defendant’s extraterritoriality argument, stating that predominance is not defeated because the threshold questions of exactly which consumers BIPA applies to can be decided on a classwide basis.

    Courts Ninth Circuit Appellate Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Class Action Spokeo

    Share page with AddThis
  • Fed issues final rules related to rate decreases

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On August 12, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) published two final rules following its July 31 decision to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 2 - 2.25 percent. These rules affect the primary and secondary credit available to depository institutions as a short-term backup source of funding, as well as reserve requirements that depository institutions must meet.

    A final rule amending Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks) was issued to reflect the Fed’s approval of a one-quarter percent decrease, from 3 percent to 2.75 percent. Additionally, because the formula for the secondary credit rate incorporates the primary rate, the secondary credit rate also decreased by one-quarter percentage point, from 3.50 percent to 3.25 percent. The amendments are effective August 12, with rate changes for primary and secondary credit applicable on August 1.

    A second final rule amending Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) was issued to reflect approval of a one quarter percent decrease to the rate of interest paid on balances maintained to satisfy reserve balance requirements (IORR), along with the rate of interest paid on excess balances (IOER) maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions. The final rule specifies that both the IORR and the IOER are 2.10 percent. The amendments are effective August 12, with IORR and IOER rate changes applicable on August 1.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Reserve Regulation A Regulation D Bank Compliance

    Share page with AddThis
  • 5th Circuit upholds $298 million fine in FCA/FIRREA mortgage fraud action

    Courts

    On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that ordered two mortgage companies and their owner to pay nearly $300 million in a suit brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The suit accused the defendants of allegedly making false certifications, which reportedly led to mortgages ending in default. The jury agreed that the defendants defrauded the Federal Housing Agency’s mortgage insurance program when a state audit revealed unregistered company branches were used to originate loans in violation of agency guidelines, and the court determined that there was ample evidence to find that the false certifications were a proximate cause of losses from loan defaults. As a result, the government trebled the damages and civil penalties under the FCA from $93 million to roughly $298 million. The defendants appealed the decision, challenging, among other things, the sufficiency of evidence, methodologies presented by the government’s expert witnesses, and the judge’s decision to not order a new trial after dismissing a disruptive juror.

    On appeal, the 5th Circuit opined that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings, and rejected the defendants’ expert witness challenges, holding first that the defendants had waived any argument about the loan default sampling methodology used by one of the witnesses, because their argument that the witness “failed to control for obvious causes of default” never came up “during the extensive negotiations over the sampling methodology that would be used.” The appellate court also concluded that nothing in the record supported the defendants’ argument that the second witness “did not apply the HUD underwriting standards” in his re-underwriting methodology. The appellate court further noted that it has declined to adopt a rule used by other circuit courts that prohibits jurors from being dismissed “unless there is no possibility” that the juror’s failure to deliberate stems from their view of the evidence. Rather, the 5th Circuit held that the district court had grounds to dismiss the juror who “failed to follow instructions, exhibited a lack of candor during questioning, and had engaged in threatening behavior towards other jurors.” 

    Courts Fifth Circuit Appellate Mortgages Fraud False Claims Act / FIRREA HUD

    Share page with AddThis
  • VA consolidates and clarifies IRRRL guidance

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On August 8, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-22, which consolidates and clarifies guidance related to Section 309 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law No. 115-174, and updates guidance regarding loan seasoning requirements based on the “Protecting Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019,” Public Law No. 116-33. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.) The Circular states that a lender (broker or agent included), a servicer, or issuer of an Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan (IRRRL) must, among other things:

    • Recoup Fees. Certify that certain fees and costs of the loan will be recouped on or before 36 months after the loan note date;
    • Net Tangible Benefit. Establish that when the previous loan had a fixed interest rate (i) the new fixed interest rate is at least 0.5 percent lower, or (ii) if the new loan has an adjustable rate, that the rate is at least 2 percent lower than the previous loan. In each instance, the lower rate cannot be produced solely from discount points except in certain circumstances;
    • Loan Seasoning. Follow a seasoning requirement for all VA-guaranteed loans. A loan cannot be refinanced until (i) the date on which the borrower has made at least six consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced, and (ii) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due date of the loan being refinanced; and
    • Disclosure. Present a comparison of the refinance loan to the original loan within two business days from the initial loan application and again at closing that includes information about the overall cost of refinance. The Circular offers a sample comparison statement in Exhibit C.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues Ginnie Mae Refinance IRRRL EGRRCPA

    Share page with AddThis
  • 7th Circuit: Debt collector’s email not a “communication” under the FDCPA

    Courts

    On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a consumer, concluding that a debt collector’s emails did not constitute a “communication” under the FDCPA. According to the opinion, the debt collector sent a consumer two emails about separate medical debts containing hyperlinks to the debt collector’s website, which then required the user to click through various screens to access and download a document containing the disclosures required under Section 1692g(a) of the FDCPA. The consumer did not open the emails. After finding out about the debt collection effort from the hospital, the consumer called the debt collector for more information; however, the required disclosures were not provided over the phone or sent in a written notice within the next five days. The consumer filed suit against the debt collector alleging it violated Section 1692g(a) by not providing the disclosures during her phone call or within five days after the call as required by law. The company argued that the emails were the FDCPA’s “initial communications” and contained the mandatory disclosures. The lower court granted the consumer’s motion for summary judgment.

    On appeal, the 7th Circuit rejected the debt collector’s arguments that the emails constituted a “communication” under the FDCPA, noting that other appellate courts have held the message “must at least imply the existence of a debt,” and the emails only contained the name and email address of the debt collector. Moreover, the appellate court took issue with the multistep process required to access the validation notice, concluding “[a]t best, the emails provided a digital pathway to access the required information. And we’ve already rejected the argument that a communication ‘contains’ the mandated disclosures when it merely provides a means to access them.”

    Notably, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in the action, seeking affirmation of the lower court’s ruling on the separate theory that the debt collector allegedly failed to satisfy the conditions of the E-Sign Act. However, because the court affirmed the decision on other grounds, it chose not to address the E-Sign Act.

    Courts Appellate Seventh Circuit Debt Collection FDCPA CFPB E-SIGN Act

    Share page with AddThis

Pages

Upcoming Events