InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC Issues White Paper on Mobile Financial Services
On May 25, the FDIC published a report titled “Opportunities for Mobile Financial Services to Engage Underserved Consumers.” The report is the product of FDIC qualitative research with consumers and industry stakeholders regarding mobile financial services’ (MFS) potential to increase economic inclusion. The report identifies the following areas as core financial needs for underserved consumers: (i) control over finances, noting that consumers want to know precisely when and why money is withdrawn from an account; (ii) access to money, stressing that consumers expect financial providers to make funds available as quickly as possible; (iii) convenience, emphasizing the value consumers place on features that save time or effort when making a transaction; (iv) affordability, commenting that consumers aim to “minimize or avoid fees for account maintenance and everyday transactions”; (v) security, emphasizing consumers’ need for protection from theft of funds or personal information; (vi) customer service, with a consumer expectation for having access to live help through their preferred banking channel; and (vii) long-term financial management (i.e., advice on money management or the availability of tools to meet financial goals). According to the report, mobile banking “helps meet consumer needs in areas where traditional banking is perceived to be weak.” Specifically, the report states that mobile banking improves the convenience of banking services, helps consumers maintain better control of their finances, and, in some cases, is more affordable than traditional banking. The FDIC concluded that “consumers make tradeoffs when selecting financial services on certain financial needs.” As such, the report makes suggestions based off consumer feedback as to how both MFS and traditional banking services can better streamline their products to best benefit the underserved, and how to address consumers’ real and perceived fears about the security risks of using MFS.
The FDIC’s report follows a May 3 letter seeking input regarding the FDIC’s plans to explore the economic inclusion potential of MFS. The FDIC requested that all feedback be submitted by June 15, 2016.
FinCEN Director Calvery Opines on Agency Efforts to Increase Financial Transparency
On May 24, FinCEN Director Calvery delivered remarks before the House Committee on Financial Services at a hearing entitled “Stopping Terror Finance: A Coordinated Government Effort.” Calvery noted FinCEN’s commitment to fostering an environment of financial transparency, and provided insight on the recent issuance of a final rule, issued on May 6, which clarified customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for financial institutions: “[w]e are confident that the CDD final rule will increase financial transparency and augment the ability of financial institutions and law enforcement to identify the assets and accounts of criminals and national security threats. We anticipate that the CDD rule will also facilitate compliance with sanctions programs and other measures that cut off financial flows to these actors.” Calvery further emphasized the significance of recently proposed beneficial ownership legislation, noting that it and the CDD rule “dovetail together.” Calvery opined that the level of transparency that the proposed legislation and the CDD rule offer would assist law enforcement in identifying who the “real people are that are involved in a transaction,” furthering its efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism, enforce sanctions, and prevent other unlawful abuses of the U.S. financial system. Finally, she noted that the beneficial ownership legislation, if enacted, would provide FinCEN with the ability to collect information on all funds transfers (instead of only monetary instruments, as currently authorized) through the use of geographic targeting orders.
CSBS and MTRA Issue Report on State Supervision of Money Services Businesses
On May 24, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the Money Transmitter Regulators Association (MTRA) published a report titled “The State of State Money Services Businesses Regulation and Supervision.” According to the report, money services businesses (MSBs) are losing access to traditional banking services, with many banks “indiscriminately terminating the accounts of MSBs, or refusing to open accounts for any MSBs, thereby eliminating them as a category of customers.” Evidence suggests that banks are terminating or refusing to open MSB accounts partially because of the regulatory scrutiny surrounding the industry and the concern of BSA/AML risks. However, the report recognizes that MSBs are an important part of the financial system at large: “[MSBs], and specifically money transmitters, play a vital role in providing financial services to consumers and small businesses across the country. Countless Americans use MSBs every day to pay bills, purchase items online or send funds to family members and friends domestically and abroad.” Acknowledging the significant role MSBs play in providing financial services to U.S. households, the CSBS’ and MTRA’s report is intended to provide an outline of the states’ system of supervision of MSBs, highlighting that “state regulatory requirements are focused on consumer protection, safety and soundness and adherence to BSA/AML requirements and enforcement through state supervisory programs.”
AG Schneiderman Announces Settlement with Real Estate Brokerages for Alleged Housing Discrimination Based on Income Source
On May 23, New York AG Eric Schneiderman announced that his office reached settlements with three real estate brokerages operating in New York City, Nassau County, and Westchester County. According to the AG’s press release, the three firms unlawfully discriminated against potential housing applicants with Section 8 vouchers, which provide rental assistance and a home ownership option to low income households in New York State. During the AG’s investigation, undercover phone testers posing as prospective tenants with Section 8 vouchers were allegedly told by one firm that they would be placed on a months-long waitlist for the apartment in question; in contrast, testers who did not mention the vouchers were told that the units were immediately available. That firm’s manager allegedly testified, in substance, that “a waitlist was essentially used to reject unwanted prospective tenants.” Similarly, the other two firms allegedly “told undercover testers that Section 8 and other government assistance programs would not be accepted at certain properties.” The press release also emphasized that one firm failed to follow its written policy prohibiting income-source discrimination, and another firm did not have a written fair-housing compliance policy at all. Under the settlement agreements, the brokerages must: (i) forward any complaints and documentation regarding housing discrimination to the AG; (ii) develop new non-discriminatory policies; (iii) maintain rental information about certain properties and provide such information to the AG for compliance review; and (iv) pay fines ranging from $13,000 to $40,000. Two of the firms must also have their employees attend training on fair housing.
Special Alert: Second Circuit Reverses SDNY Judgment; Rules Fraud Claim Based on Contractual Promise Cannot Support FIRREA Violation Without Proof of Fraudulent Intent at the Time of Contract Execution
On May 23, in an opinion delivered by Circuit Judge Richard Wesley, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court for the Southern District of New York’s (SDNY) July 30, 2014 judgment ordering a bank and its lender subsidiary to pay penalties in excess of $1.2 billion for alleged violations of section 951 of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. § 1833a. U.S. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Nos. 15-469, 15-499 (2d Cir. May 23, 2016). In relevant part, FIRREA imposes civil penalties for violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes that affect a federally insured financial institution. The Government had alleged in the case that the lender subsidiary had defrauded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the GSEs), by originating mortgage loans through its High Speed Swim Lane (HSSL) loan origination process that it allegedly knew to be of poor quality, and subsequently selling those loans to the GSEs despite representations in the contracts between the GSEs and lender subsidiary that the loans were of investment quality. At trial, the Government presented evidence that high-level employees of the lender subsidiary “knew of the pre-existing contractual representations, knew that the loans originated through HSSL were not consistent with those representations, and nonetheless sold HSSL Loans to the GSEs pursuant to those contracts.” The defendants argued on appeal that, under common-law principles of fraud the Government’s trial evidence proved, at most, a series of intentional breaches of contract which did not suffice as a matter of law to establish fraud.
The Second Circuit agreed with defendants and reversed the judgment of the district court. The court held that:
a contractual promise can only support a claim for fraud upon proof of fraudulent intent not to perform the promise at the time of contract execution. Absent such proof, a subsequent breach of that promise—even where willful and intentional—cannot in itself transform the promise into a fraud.
Thus, the Second Circuit concluded that under common law principles, which were incorporated into the mail and wire fraud statutes, “the proper time for identifying fraudulent intent is contemporaneous with the making of the promise, not when a victim relies on the promise or is injured by it.” The Second Circuit further held that “where allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations are promises made in a contract, a party claiming fraud must prove fraudulent intent at the time of contract execution; evidence of a subsequent, willful breach cannot sustain the claim.”
Click here to view the full Special Alert.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Amanda Raines Lawrence, (202) 349-8089
CFPB Issues Spring 2016 Rulemaking Agenda
On May 18, the CFPB released an overview of its Spring 2016 Rulemaking Agenda, which outlines the CFPB’s current initiatives. In addition to summarizing the CFPB’s recently released proposed rule to ban pre-dispute arbitration clauses in future consumer agreements, the agenda states that the CFPB expects to release this Summer (i) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding small dollar loan products, including payday loans and auto title loan; (ii) a rule to finalize its November 2014 proposed rule on prepaid products; (iii) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to provide clarity concerning its TRID Know Before You Owe mortgage rule; and (iv) a final rule to amend its 2014 proposed rule revising certain provisions of mortgage servicing requirements under RESPA and TILA. The agenda further comments on the CFPB’s oversight of (i) overdraft services on checking accounts, noting that the agency “is engaged in pre-rule making activities to consider potential regulation” of such services; (ii) debt collection practices, observing that the agency is in the process of developing proposed rules to further regulate the industry; (iii) nonbank institutions, emphasizing the CFPB’s rulemaking efforts to further define larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial products and services; and (iv) mortgage markets, highlighting CFPB efforts to implement “critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act.” Finally, the agenda comments that the CFPB is in the “very early stages starting work to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.”
CFPB Releases Auto Title Report; Sets Date for Small Dollar Lending Field Hearing
On May 18, the CFPB issued a report titled “Single-Payment Vehicle Title Lending.” The report provides an overview of the CFPB’s analysis of “de-identified data from vehicle title lenders consisting of nearly 3.5 million loans made to over 400,000 borrowers in ten states during 2010-2013.” The CFPB examined loan patterns (re-borrowing and rates of default) for single-payment auto loan titles. A loan contained in the CFPB’s study has three possible outcomes: (i) repaid without subsequent borrowing; (ii) default; or (iii) re-borrowing on the same day or within a certain specified period (14, 30, or 60 days) of time after repayment. According to the report, auto title loans have high rates of consumers re-borrowing: “[o]ver 80% of vehicle title loans are re-borrowed on the same day a previous loan is repaid, and 87% of loans are re-borrowed within 60 days.” The CFPB further contends that only about one in every eight loan sequences is repaid without a consumer having to re-borrow. Additional findings highlighted in the report include: (i) approximately one-third of loan sequences default, with one in every five borrowers having a vehicle repossessed by the lender for failure to repay; and (ii) approximately two-thirds of the loans are in sequences of seven loans or more and about half are in sequences of ten or more loans, with no more than 15% of the sequences maintaining three loans or fewer.
Also on May 18, the CFPB announced that, on June 2, 2016, it will hold a field hearing about small dollar lending in Kansas City, MO. It is widely anticipated that the CFPB will announce its proposal on small dollar lending products during this hearing. Notably, the CFPB’s auto title loan findings are not dissimilar to the findings outlined in the agency’s recent “Online Payday Loan Payments” report. The data analysis from each report will likely influence the lender requirements included in the CFPB’s expected proposal on the small dollar lending industry.
CFPB Files Complaint Against Payday Lending Company for Alleged Deceptive Practices
On May 11, the CFPB filed a complaint for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) against a Mississippi-based company offering cash checking services and payday loans. Regarding the company’s check cashing services, the CFPB alleges that the company violated state consumer protection laws by (i) explicitly forbidding employees from disclosing check cashing fees to consumers and providing new employees with a training presentation instructing them to “NEVER TELL THE CUSTOMER THE FEE”; and (ii) telling consumers that check transactions could not be canceled or that the process to reverse transactions would be lengthy, when neither was the case. The CFPB’s complaint further contends that the company’s payday lending practices differ from other companies’ practices in that it provides “multiple two-week loans over the course of the month” as opposed to providing 30-day loans to monthly consumers. The CFPB’s complaint states that, “[b]y borrowing from [the company], these consumers pay more in fees for the same or less net cash received during the month. Nevertheless, [the company] has deceptively represented to consumers that borrowing from [it] is more financially beneficial than, or at least financially equivalent to, taking out a 30-day loan from one of [its] competitors.” Further, the complaint states that consumers using the company’s services would often overpay and, from at least 2011 until 2014, the company failed to take “affirmative steps to notify consumers when they made an overpayment or to refund overpayments to consumers.”
The CPFB’s complaint, which also names one other company that provides payday loans and check cashing services in Mississippi and the president and sole owner of both companies, seeks monetary relief, injunctive relief, and penalties.
SEC Awards At Least $5 Million to Whistleblower
On May 17, the SEC announced that a former company insider will receive between $5 million and $6 million for providing a “detailed tip” that led the agency to uncover securities violations. According to the SEC, without the whistleblower’s information, the violations would have been “nearly impossible” to detect. Since the SEC started its whistleblower program in 2011, the agency has awarded more than $67 million to 29 whistleblowers. The SEC’s most recent award is its third highest and follows a $3.5 million award announced last week.
OFAC Amends Burmese Sanctions Regulations
On May 17, OFAC amended the Burmese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 537 by adding a general license to authorize most transactions related to U.S. persons residing in Burma that are otherwise prohibited by the Regulations, including paying rent and purchasing goods and services for personal use. In addition, the amendments add general licenses to (i) extend indefinitely General License 20, which authorizes transactions “ordinarily incident to exports to or from Burma that are otherwise prohibited involving an individual or company that is designated or otherwise blocked by OFAC’s sanctions”; and (ii) support trade-related transactions by permitting certain transactions incident to the movement of goods within Burma. OFAC also updated an existing general license to authorize most banking services involving Innwa Bank and Myawaddy Bank (two currently designated financial institutions in Burma) and terminated sanctions on Myanma Economic Bank, Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank, and Myanma Investment and Commercial Bank, which, taken together, authorizes “most transactions involving all Burmese financial institutions.”