InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Large Global Bank Settles Legacy Claims Surrounding Mortgage-Backed Securities
On February 2, a major bank agreed to a $500 million settlement to resolve years of litigation surrounding the sale of mortgage securities by Bear Stearns, which the company acquired. In re: Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, No. 1:08-cv-08093-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2015). The litigation concerned the sale of $17.58 billion in mortgage securities by Bear Stearns, and alleged that the former investment bank “misrepresented the quality of the loans in the loan pools.” Although investors did not accuse Bear Stearns of fraud, they alleged that it was strictly liable and negligent for the losses incurred, evidenced by the downgrading of most mortgage certificates from a AAA rating to below investment grade, or “junk” status. In the settlement, the New York-based institution denied any wrongdoing relating to the mortgage sales of Bear Stearns, which occurred during 2006-2007 prior to acquisition.
CFPB Orders Nonbank Mortgage Lender to Pay $2 Million Penalty for Deceptive Advertising and Kickbacks
On February 10, the CFPB announced a consent order with a Maryland-based nonbank mortgage lender, ordering the lender to pay a $2 million civil money penalty for allegedly failing to disclose its financial relationship with a veteran’s organization to consumers. According to the consent order, the CFPB alleged that the lender, whose primary business is originating VA loans, paid a veteran’s organization a fee to be named the “exclusive lender” of the organization and that failing to disclose this relationship in marketing materials targeted to the organization’s members constituted a deceptive act or practice under the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB further alleged that, because the veteran’s organization urged its members to use the lender’s products in direct mailings from the lender, call center referrals, and through the organization’s website, the monthly “licensing fee” and “lead generation fees” paid to the veteran’s organization and a third party broker company as part of marketing and referral arrangements constituted illegal kickbacks in violation of RESPA. In addition to the civil money penalty, the consent order requires the lender to submit a compliance plan to the CFPB and comply with additional record keeping, reporting, and compliance monitoring requirements.
CFPB and Department of Education Reach Agreement with Buyer of For-Profit Colleges
On February 3, the CFPB and the U.S. Department of Education announced that they had reached an agreement with ECMC Group, to provide debt relief and additional consumer protections to borrowers who took out private loans from Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ECMC is the new owner of a number of Corinthian schools. In September 2014, the CFPB sued Corinthian for allegedly luring students into high-cost private loans, using illegal debt collection tactics to make students pay back private loans while still in school, and advertising inaccurate job prospects and career services. The agreement releases ECMC from liability for Corinthian’s actions in exchange for ECMC (i) providing more than $480 million in debt relief for borrowers who took out high-cost private student loans with Corinthian; (ii) not offering private student loans for a period of seven years; (iii) ceasing lawsuit threats and improper debt collection practices; (iv) instructing credit reporting agencies to remove negative credit reporting information from borrowers’ credit reports; and (v) implementing additional consumer protections, including flexible withdrawal policies and clear information on job prospects. The CFPB’s lawsuit against Corinthian remains ongoing.
CFPB Orders Credit Card Company to Refund $2.7 Million for Charging Excessive Credit Card Fees
On February 4, the CFPB announced a consent order with a Delaware-based credit card company, ordering the company to refund an estimated $2.7 million to approximately 98,000 consumers and pay a civil penalty of $250,000 for allegedly charging consumers illegal credit card fees. According to the consent order, the CFPB alleged the company charged customers fees during the first year after customers opened the account that exceeded the 25% credit limit imposed by the CARD Act. The CFPB further alleged that the company, offering the credit cards through a state-chartered credit union, misled customers about paper statement fees associated with their credit cards and falsely claimed that certain security deposits were “FDIC insured” when they were not. In addition to the refund to customers and civil penalty, the consent order requires the company (i) to refrain from charging fees that exceed 25% of a customer’s credit limit in the first year of the account and (ii) subjects itself to CFPB supervisory authority for the first time.
CFPB Seeks to Ban Texas-Based Credit Issuer
On February 3, the CFPB asked a federal district court to enter a consent order against a Texas-based company for allegedly misleading thousands of consumers into signing up for a “sham” credit card. Under the terms of the consent order, the company would be prohibited from offering any future credit products and services and a $70,000 civil money penalty. For more, please refer to our InfoBytes as this development was previously covered on December 19.
DOJ and State AGs Announce Settlement with Credit Rating Agency
On February 3, the DOJ announced a settlement agreement with a large credit rating agency and its parent company for $1.375 billion – a record amount according to the DOJ – in connection with the agency’s alleged “scheme to defraud investors in structured financial products known as Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs).” In 2013, the DOJ, along with 19 states plus the District of Columbia, brought the lawsuit against the agency for misrepresenting the securities’ true credit risks through inflated ratings, which led investors to suffer substantial losses right before the financial crisis. While the agency is neither admitting to nor denying the allegations, it has agreed to (i) “retract an allegation that the United States’ lawsuit was filed in retaliation for the defendant’s decision with regard to the credit of the United States;” (ii) abide by the consumer protection statutes set forth by the settling states and DC; and (iii) answer requests from any of the states and DC regarding information on potential violations of the consumer protection laws.
SEC Publishes Industry Alert on Cybersecurity
On February 3, the SEC released a set of publications – a Risk Alert and an Investor Bulletin – assessing the level of cybersecurity at broker-dealers and advisory firms and highlighting best practices that allow investors to help protect their online accounts. The Risk Alert contains observations based on examinations of more than 100 broker-dealers and investment advisers. The examinations focused on how the firms (i) identify cybersecurity risks; (ii) establish cybersecurity policies, procedures, and oversight processes; (iii) protect their networks and information; (iv) identify and address risks associated with remote access to client information, funds transfer requests, and third-party vendors; and (v) detect unauthorized activity.
Senate Banking Committee Schedules Hearing on "Regulatory Relief"
On February 10, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is scheduled to hold its first full committee hearing on financial regulation, “Regulatory Relief for Community Banks and Credit Unions.” Officials from both federal and state banking regulators will give prepared remarks.
New York DFS Urges CFPB to Adopt "Strong" Payday Loan Rules
On February 4, NY DFS Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky sent a letter to the CFPB urging the agency to adopt strong national rules for the payday loan industry. In his letter, Lawksy highlighted four steps the agency should consider in its drafting of rules including (i) making clear that state laws with stronger anti-payday-lending rules still apply to lenders; (ii) banning payday lenders from using “remotely created checks;” (iii) restricting the sharing of consumers’ personal information by payday lenders, lead generators and other third parties; and (iv) creating a rigorous “ability-to-repay” standard for payday loans.
New York DFS Revises BitLicense Framework for Virtual Currency Regulation
On February 4, New York DFS proposed revisions to its anticipated regulation of virtual currency companies. The DFS originally released a proposal on July 17, 2014, and on December 18, Superintendent Lawsky delivered remarks stating the DFS was revising its proposal to provide more flexibility to virtual currency startups. The revised proposal (i) gives DFS the option of renewing a conditional BitLicense if the virtual currency firm continues to meet operating criteria; and (ii) removes previous language stating that a firm operating a BitLicense is required to obtain addresses and transaction data for all parties to a virtual currency transaction. Regardless of the changes, virtual currency firms still must meet strict standards for consumer protection and anti-money laundering requirements.