InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: Trump Administration Initiates "Regulatory Freeze"
On January 20, Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff to President Trump, issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies initiating a regulatory review to be headed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) has been nominated to fill that position.
On behalf of the President, the memorandum asks the following of the agency and department heads:
- No new regulations: “[S]end no regulation to the Office of the Federal Register (the ‘OFR’) until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2017, reviews and approves the regulation.”
- Withdraw final but unpublished regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, immediately withdraw them from the OFR for review and approval.”
- Delay the effective date of published but not yet effective regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been published in the OFR but have not taken effect, as permitted by applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum” and consider notice and comment to further delay the effective date or to address “questions of fact, law, or policy.” Following the delay, regulations that “raise no substantial questions of law or policy” would be allowed to take effect. For those regulations that do raise such questions, the agency or department “should notify the OMB Director and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director.”
Rulemakings subject to statutory or judicial deadlines are exempt, and the OMB Director has the authority to grant further exemptions for “emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters, or otherwise.”
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the “freeze” 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.
State Attorneys General Seek to Intervene in PHH v. CFPB Case
On January 23, the Attorneys General of 16 states and the District of Columbia (the State Attorneys General) filed a motion requesting the permission of the D.C. Circuit to intervene in the CFPB’s petition for en banc reconsideration in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. In the motion, the State Attorneys General argue that they have a vital interest in the matter because the October 2016 panel decision subjecting the CFPB Director to “at will” removal by the President “threatens to undermine the ability of the State Attorneys General [to work with the CFPB] to bring effective civil enforcement and coordinated regulatory actions free from political influence and interference.”
Noting the possibility that President Trump may seek to remove CFPB Director Cordray before the petition for rehearing is resolved or refuse to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court if the panel decision stands, the State Attorneys General raise the concern that “[t]he incoming administration … may not continue an effective defense of the statutory for-cause protection of the CFPB director.” Therefore, because “[a] significant probability exists that the pending petition for rehearing will be withdrawn, or the case otherwise rendered moot,” the State Attorneys General argue that the D.C. Circuit should allow them to intervene to protect their interests.
In addition to the District of Columbia, the motion was filed on behalf of the Attorneys General for the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The filing of the motion was announced by Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, whose office prepared the initial draft.
Special Alert: Trump Administration Initiates “Regulatory Freeze”
Buckley Sandler Special Alert
On January 20, Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff to President Trump, issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies initiating a regulatory review to be headed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) has been nominated to fill that position.
On behalf of the President, the memorandum asks the following of the agency and department heads:
- No new regulations: “[S]end no regulation to the Office of the Federal Register (the ‘OFR’) until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2017, reviews and approves the regulation.”
- Withdraw final but unpublished regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, immediately withdraw them from the OFR for review and approval.”
- Delay the effective date of published but not yet effective regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been published in the OFR but have not taken effect, as permitted by applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum” and consider notice and comment to further delay the effective date or to address “questions of fact, law, or policy.” Following the delay, regulations that “raise no substantial questions of law or policy” would be allowed to take effect. For those regulations that do raise such questions, the agency or department “should notify the OMB Director and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director.”
Rulemakings subject to statutory or judicial deadlines are exempt, and the OMB Director has the authority to grant further exemptions for “emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters, or otherwise.”
Click here to read full special alert
If you have questions about the “freeze” 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.
GOP Senators Introduce Bill to Create Five-member Board of Directors at CFPB
Last week, Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill (S. 105) that would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to replace the CFPB’s current single director with a bipartisan, five-member board. The proposed leadership structure would be similar to that of other financial regulators, including the FDIC, SEC and CFTC.
House GOP Report Claims CFPB Violated APA
On January 18, GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee released “The CFPB’s Vitiated Legal Case Against Auto-Lenders”, an investigative report prepared by GOP members who are of the belief that the CFPB likely has and continues to violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Relying mostly on internal CFPB documents obtained by the committee, the report focuses on the Bureau’s 2015 rule authorizing it to supervise larger participants in the auto lending market. In an accompanying press release, Committee Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling noted that the CFPB likely violated federal law when CFPB Director Richard Cordray failed to “heed CFPB attorneys who advised him to publish a list of institutions the Bureau believed would be subject to the proposed [auto-lending] rule” and/or “re-open the public comment period after it had closed.”
The report was released amid uncertainty over the fate of Director Cordray as the new administration assumes office. As previously covered in InfoBytes, a group of Democratic senators sent a letter Jan. 10 to President-elect Trump urging him not to dismiss Cordray, and noting that an attempt by Trump to fire him would be hard-pressed to withstand a legal challenge. This latest investigative report was the third released by GOP members on the panel over the last 14 months concerning CFPB efforts to regulate auto lenders—which Rep. Hensarling describes as “dangerously out-of-control,” and “unconstitutional.”
DOL Releases Second Set of FAQs Addressing Comments Concerning Fiduciary Rule
On January 13, the Department of Labor (DOL) released a second set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) in response to comments from financial services firms and other stakeholders on its recently-released Fiduciary Rule, which redefines a fiduciary investment advisor under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The DOL issued an initial set of 34 answers to FAQs about the Fiduciary Rule back in October, focusing on the rule’s exemptions, such as the “best-interest contract” exemption and the “prohibited-transaction” exemption. The second set of FAQs provides further clarification on the scope of various exemptions regarding investment recommendations, but also includes guidance on topics such as: (i) investment education; (ii) general communications versus fiduciary investment advice; (iii) fees and other compensation; and (iv) platform providers.
The FAQs further reflect, among other things, that an adviser charging clients a level asset-based fee for providing advice on 401(k) fund offerings may use revenue-sharing payments to offset part or all of that level fee, without running afoul of the fiduciary regulation. The guidance also clarifies that providing educational information to IRA and retirement customers about investment alternatives—such as product features, returns and fees—will not be considered “investment advice” so long as a bank does not make any specific investment recommendations. And, in question 34, the DOL explains that fiduciary status is not triggered by offering to customers an automatic sweep of any uninvested cash from the customer’s account into a short-term investment vehicle on a daily basis.
Senate Banking Committee Announces Subcommittee Assignments for 115th Congress
On January 17, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), announced subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress. The Senators named to head each subcommittee are listed below:
- Dean Heller of Nevada will be the new chairman of the Securities, Insurance and Investment subcommittee. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia will continue to serve as ranking member.
- Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania will remain chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection subcommittee. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will be the new ranking member.
- Tom Cotton of Arkansas will become chairman of the Economic Policy subcommittee. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota will be the new ranking member.
- Ben Sasse of Nebraska will chair the National Security and International Trade and Finance subcommittee. Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana will serve as ranking member.
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina will continue to chair the Housing, Transportation and Community Development subcommittee. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey will remain ranking member.
CFPB Releases Updated Student Loan Payback Playbook Prototype
According to a January 17 blog post by CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman Seth Frotman, the CFPB has released an updated student loan Payback Playbook prototype, incorporating changes that the Bureau implemented after reviewing thousands of public comments submitted by student loan borrowers, consumer advocates, and other industry members. According to Mr. Frotman, the Bureau worked together with the Departments of Education and Treasury to develop “prototype disclosures” that “outline[] a path to affordable payments for struggling borrowers who are trying to avoid student debt distress.” The CFPB reports that it has shared the Payback Playbook prototype and the underlying consumer feedback data with the Department of Education. The joint efforts are part of a broader Department of Education initiative branded “A New Vision for Serving Student Loan Borrowers.”
OCC Announces Launch of New Central Application Tracking System (CATS)
On January 17, the OCC launched the first phase of its Central Application Tracking System (CATS), a new web-based system for banks to file licensing and public welfare investment applications and notices. CATS provides a secure, electronic system through which authorized national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches, and banking agencies may draft, submit, and track their licensing and public welfare investment applications and notices. CATS will replace the existing e-Corp and CD-1 Invest application tools. As explained in OCC Bulletin 2016-37, the new program is being launched in three phases to help banks transition from the existing tools. The second and third phases of the CATS rollout are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017. When ready, CATS will be accessible through BankNet, the secure portal for OCC-regulated banks.
OCC Finalizes Rule Addressing Receiverships of Uninsured National Banks
On December 20, the OCC announced the publication of its final rule implementing a framework for receiverships of national banks that are not insured, and thus not subject to receivership, by the FDIC under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). As discussed in a previous InfoBytes post, the OCC has not historically appointed a receiver for uninsured banks, opting instead to rehabilitate or resolve such institutions without a receiver. This OCC final rule—which goes into effect on January 19, 2017—reflects the OCC’s current belief that establishing and clarifying a receivership framework for uninsured banks “will be beneficial to financial market participants and the broader community of regulators.”
Among other things, the rule seeks to provide clarity to market participants with respect to the following key issues: (i) when and how a receiver for uninsured bank may be appointed; (ii) the powers held by the receiver of an uninsured bank; (iii) the two methods through which parties holding claims against an uninsured depository institution can seek approval of those claims; (iii) the order of payment for administrative expenses and claims against an uninsured bank; and (iv) the treatment of fiduciary or custodial assets. Notably, the OCC did not explicitly address whether the new rule will also apply to FinTech companies should they obtain a special purpose national bank charter as proposed recently by the OCC.