InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC, FDIC, and Fed Release Stress Test Scenarios for 2017
On February 3, the Fed announced the release of the “Supervisory Scenarios” to be used by banks and supervisors for the 2017 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act stress test exercises and also issued instructions to firms participating in CCAR. The Fed also published three letters that provide additional information on its stress-testing program. The three letters describe: (i) the Horizontal Capital Review for large, noncomplex companies; (ii) the CCAR qualitative assessment for U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banks, which are submitting capital plans for the first time; and (iii) improvements to how the Fed will estimate post-stress capital ratios.
On February 3, the OCC similarly released economic and financial market scenarios for 2017 that are to be used by national banks and federal savings associations (with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion) in their annual Dodd-Frank Act-mandated stress test. On February 6, the FDIC released its stress test scenarios, working in consultation with the Fed and OCC.
The three sets of supervisory scenarios provide each agency with forward-looking information for use in bank supervision and will assist the agencies in assessing the covered institutions’ risk profile and capital adequacy.
Fed Survey: CRE Tightening Trend Continues
On February 6, the Fed released its January 2017 senior loan officer survey, addressing changes in the standards and terms on, and demand for, bank loans to businesses and households over the past three months. The January survey results indicated that over the fourth quarter of 2016, on balance, lenders left their standards on commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loans unchanged, while tightening credit for commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans. Banks reported that they expect to ease standards on C&I loans and for the asset quality of such loans to improve somewhat this year. In contrast, banks expect to tighten standards on CRE loans, while they expect the asset quality of most CRE loan categories to remain unchanged. As to loans to households, banks reported that demand for most types of home-purchase loans weakened over the fourth quarter. On balance, banks reported that they expect to ease standards and to see asset quality improve somewhat for most residential home-purchase loans in 2017.
For additional details see:
- Table 1 – Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices at Selected Large Banks in the U.S.
- Table 2 – Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices at Selected Branches & Agencies of Foreign Banks
- Charts – Measures of Supply and Demand for Commercial & Industrial Loans
Court Rules that CFPB Must Prove Deceptive Practices at Trial in Mortgage Relief Case
On February 6, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the CFPB’s motion for summary judgment and held that its “intrinsically factual” deception claims would have to be decided at trial. See CFPB v. Nationwide Biweekly, et. al., [Order Denying Motions for Summary J.] No. 15-cv-2106 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017). The Bureau alleges that the defendant company—which helps homeowners restructure their mortgage payments to help them pay down their mortgages faster—misrepresented the savings that consumers would gain through its services. Lawyers for the defendants rejected those claims, saying in a court filing last month that consumers were told multiple times about the setup fee and that promises of interest savings are true. Ultimately, Judge Richard Seeborg sided with defendants, disagreeing with the CFPB’s assertion that it had presented “uncontroverted evidence” of deception and that “no reasonable fact finder” could find in defendants’ favor.
CFPB and New York Attorney General File Lawsuit Against Company that Lured 9/11 Heroes Out of Millions of Dollars
On February 7, the CFPB announced that it has—in partnership with the New York Attorney General (NYAG)—filed a complaint in federal district court against a finance company and two affiliates that offer lump-sum advances to consumers entitled to periodic payouts from victim compensation funds or lawsuit settlements. A press release from the NYAG’s Office can be accessed here.
The Bureau and the NYAG claim, among other things, that the defendants misled World Trade Center attack first responders and professional football players in selling expensive advances on benefits to which they were entitled and mischaracterized extensions of credit as assignments of future payment rights, thereby misleading their victims into repaying far more than they received. Specifically, according to the allegations in the complaint, the New Jersey-based companies: (i) used “confusing contracts” to prevent the individuals from understanding the terms and costs of the transactions; (ii) lied to the individuals by telling them the companies could secure their payouts more quickly; (iii) misrepresented how quickly they would receive payments from the companies, and (iv) collected interest at an illegal rate.
These actions, the two regulators argue, constitute violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act ban on unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices, New York usury laws, and other state consumer financial protection laws. The lawsuit seeks to end the company’s illegal practices, obtain relief for the victims, and impose penalties.
Top "Smart TV" Manufacturer Agrees to Pay $2.2M to Settle FTC Smart TV Tracking Investigation
On February 6, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New Jersey Attorney General (NJAG) announced that they had entered into a $2.2 million settlement to resolve claims that a “smart” television manufacturer secretly gathered users’ viewing data and sold it to third parties who used the data for targeted advertising purposes. The settlement, which was approved by the FTC by a unanimous 3-0 vote, includes a payment of $1.5 million to the FTC and $700,000 to the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs, with an additional $300,000 in penalties to New Jersey suspended. The settlement also requires that the TV maker not misrepresent its data collection and sharing practices, prominently disclose its data collection and sharing practices and obtain permission from each consumer prior to collecting viewing data, delete most of the viewing data it already collected, implement a comprehensive privacy program, and undergo biennial third-party privacy assessments.
Notably, in a concurring statement, acting FTC Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen emphasized that this settlement marks “the first time the FTC has alleged in a complaint that individualized television viewing activity falls within the definition of sensitive information.” Previously, the FTC had limited the definition of sensitive information to “financial information, health information, Social Security Numbers, information about children, and precise geolocation information.” Chairman Ohlausen noted “the need for the FTC to examine more rigorously what constitutes ‘substantial injury’ in the context of information about consumers” and indicated her intention to “launch an effort to examine this important issue further.”
DOJ Declines FCPA Action Against Oil Company
Houston-based oil company announced in a February 9, 2017 press release that the DOJ had formally closed its FCPA investigation into the company’s oil exploration operations in Angola and would not prosecute the company. The press release noted that the DOJ’s investigation “was the last remaining FCPA investigation by any U.S. regulatory agency into [the company’s Angolan operations.” The DOJ’s declination letter came more than two years after the SEC closed its own FCPA investigation and declined to bring an enforcement action.
As detailed in a previous FCPA Scorecard post, the parallel investigations began in 2011, and were prompted by allegations concerning the connection between senior Angolan government officials and a local partner in the company-led deepwater oil venture. According to the company’s 10-K filing for FY 2012, the company had voluntarily contacted the DOJ when the SEC launched its initial inquiry and “offered to respond to any requests the DOJ may have.”
Fired General Counsel Wins $10.9 Million in FCPA Whistleblower-Retaliation Case
On February 6, 2017, a federal jury in San Francisco awarded the former general counsel of a life sciences company $10.9 million in a landmark FCPA whistleblower-retaliation case brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), the Dodd-Frank Act, and California state law. After three hours of deliberation, the jury found that the company’s former general counsel of nearly 25 years, was fired for reporting suspected FCPA violations to the company’s audit committee in February 2013, a protected activity under SOX’s anti-retaliation provisions. Although the former general counsel did not report his concerns to the SEC, the court held in 2015 that internal whistleblowing under SOX was also protected by the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provisions, opening the door to Dodd-Frank’s double back-pay remedy. The company’s last-minute motion to block purported attorney-client privileged information from trial –“virtually all of the evidence and testimony Plaintiff might rely upon to prove his case” – was denied by the court in December 2016.
The jury ultimately awarded the former general counsel $2.96 million in back-pay – to be doubled under Dodd-Frank – plus $5 million in punitive damages. As detailed in a previous FCPA Scorecard post, the company paid $55 million in November 2014 to settle DOJ and SEC allegations that the company violated the FCPA in Russia, Thailand, and Vietnam. The former general counsel’s report to the audit committee had involved separate allegations that the company violated the FCPA in China.
State Financial Regulators Release BSA/AML Compliance Tool
On February 1, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced the release of its BSA/AML Self-Assessment Tool—a new, voluntary tool to help banks and non-depository financial institutions better manage Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) risk. Building upon CSBS’s efforts to help banks understand their risk exposure to third-parties, the self-assessment tool—developed jointly by the CSBS and state regulators—aims to help institutions better identify, monitor, and communicate BSA/AML risk, thereby reducing some of the burden and uncertainty surrounding compliance and facilitating more transparency within the financial sector. The self-assessment tool is available for use by any institution and may be accessed here. A narrated tutorial is also available here. Last year, CSBS released a white paper that outlines state supervision of money services businesses.
President Issues Executive Order to Study the DOL's Fiduciary Rule
On February 3, President Trump issued an Executive Memorandum directing the Department of Labor (DOL) to examine the Fiduciary Rule—an April 2016 DOL rule that expands the circumstances in which a person will be treated as a fiduciary under both ERISA and Section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code by reason of providing investment advice to retirement plans and IRAs. In the memorandum, President Trump calls for an examination of the Fiduciary Rule to determine whether it (i) has harmed or is likely to harm investors; (ii) has resulted in dislocations or disruptions within the retirement services industry; and (iii) is likely to cause an increase in litigation and an increase in the prices that investors and retirees must pay to gain access to retirement services. If the Secretary of Labor makes any of these findings, the memorandum directs the Secretary of Labor to publish a proposed rule rescinding or revising the Fiduciary Rule. Initial compliance with the Fiduciary Rule is currently required by April 10, but the DOL has announced that it “will now consider its legal options to delay the applicability date as we comply with the President’s memorandum.”
Special Alert: President Signs Executive Order Calling For Review of Financial Regulations
On February 3, President Trump signed an executive order (the Executive Order) directing the Treasury Secretary and the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to review financial laws and regulations—including the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations implementing that law—thereby setting into motion a process by which the 2010 financial law could be significantly scaled back.
Under the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Treasury – who has yet to be confirmed – has 120 days to review and report to the President which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements promote the “core principles” listed below and those that do not. The core principles include:
- restoring public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework
- fostering economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry
- enabling American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets
- advancing American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings
- preventing taxpayer-funded bailouts, and
- empowering Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the order or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.