InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Updates Merchant Processing Booklet
On August 20, the OCC issued Bulletin 2014-41, which announces a new “Merchant Processing” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. This booklet replaces the booklet of the same name issued in December 2001 and provides updated guidance to examiners and bankers on assessing and managing the risks associated with merchant processing activities. Specific updates address: (i) the selection of third-party organizations and due diligence; (ii) technology service providers; (iii) on-site inspections, audits, and attestation engagements, including the “Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagement” (SSAE 16) and the “International Standard on Assurance Engagements” (ISAE 3402); (iv) data security standards in the payment card industry for merchants and processors; (v) the Member Alert to Control High-Risk Merchants (MATCH) list; (vi) BSA/AML compliance programs and appropriate policies, procedures, and processes to monitor and identify unusual activity; and (vii) appropriate capital for merchant processing activities.
New York Sanctions Bank For Alleged Failure To Comply With Prior AML Settlement
On August 19, the New York DFS announced a consent order with a British bank to resolve claims that the bank and its U.S. subsidiary failed to remediate AML compliance deficiencies as required by a prior settlement with the DFS that required the bank to, among other things, implement a transaction monitoring program. The DFS states that the compliance monitor appointed as part of the prior agreement determined that the procedures adopted by the bank to detect high-risk transactions contained errors and other problems that prevented the bank from identifying high-risk transactions for further review. The DFS asserts that the bank failed to detect these problems because of a lack of adequate testing both before and after implementation of the monitoring system. The DFS also claims the bank failed to properly audit its monitoring system. Under the latest consent order, the bank must: (i) suspend its dollar clearing operations for high-risk retail business clients of the bank’s Hong Kong subsidiary; (ii) obtain prior DFS approval to open a U.S. Dollar demand deposit account for any customer who does not already have such an account with the U.S. entity; and (iii) pay a $300 million penalty. The bank also must implement additional compliance enhancements, including enhanced due diligence and know-your customer requirements.
New York Announces Latest Action Against A Bank Consulting Firm
On August 18, the New York DFS announced an settlement with a bank consulting firm to resolve allegations related to certain services it performed for a bank charged last year with sanctions violations. The consulting firm allegedly altered an historical transaction review (HTR) report submitted to regulators regarding wire transfers that the bank completed on behalf of sanctioned countries and entities. At the bank’s request, the firm allegedly removed from the original HTR report key information and warning language concerning the bank’s transactions. Specifically, the DFS alleges that the firm: (i) removed the English translation of the bank’s wire stripping instructions; (ii) removed a regulatory term to describe the wire-stripping instructions and a discussion of the activities; and (iii) deleted “several forensic questions” that the firm identified as necessary for consideration in connection with the HTR report. The agreement prohibits the firm from doing business with any DFS-regulated institution for two years and requires the firm to: (i) pay a $25 million penalty; and (ii) implement certain reforms to address the conflicts of interest within the consulting industry.
New York Extends Comment Period For BitLicense Proposal
This week, the New York DFS announced the extension of the comment period on its proposal to create a regulatory licensing framework for virtual currency companies, including a so-called BitLicense. Given the “significant amount of public interest in and commentary on” the proposal, the DFS doubled the length of the comment period from 45 to 90 days. Comments are now due by October 21, 2014. Further information about the proposal and related issues is available here.
Federal Appeals Court Affirms Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections Do Not Apply Outside U.S.
On August 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the Dodd-Frank Act’s antiretaliation provision does not apply extraterritorially. Liu Meng-Lin v. Siemens AG, No. 13-4385, 2014 WL 3953672 (2nd Cir. Aug. 14, 2014). A foreign worker was allegedly fired by his foreign employer for internally reporting violations of U.S. anti-corruption rules, which he claimed violated the antiretaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act. This provision prohibits an employer from firing or otherwise discriminating against any employee who makes a disclosure that is required or protected under Sarbanes-Oxley or any other law, rule, or regulation subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction. The court first determined that the facts alleged in the complaint revealed “essentially no contact with the United States” and rejected an argument that the foreign company voluntarily subjected itself to U.S. securities laws by listing its securities on the New York Stock Exchange. The court also held that, given the longstanding presumption against extraterritoriality and the absence of any “explicit statutory evidence that Congress meant for the provision to apply extraterritorially,” the cited provision does not apply to purely foreign-based claims.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Decision Not To Enforce Browsewrap Arbitration Agreement
On August 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision not to enforce a retailer’s online “browsewrap” arbitration agreement because the retailer failed to provide adequate constructive notice. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., No. 12-56628,2014 WL 4056549 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 2014). The consumer filed suit alleging that the retailer’s cancellation of his online purchase of two sale items caused him to buy substitute products at a greater expense. The retailer responded that by making the purchase through the company’s website, the consumer accepted the website’s Terms of Use, which contained an agreement to arbitrate any claims arising out of use of the website. Although this “browsewrap” agreement provided that any user of the website was deemed to have accepted the agreement’s terms by, among other things, making a purchase, the district court held that the consumer did not have constructive notice of the Terms of Use because the site did not require that the consumer affirmatively assent to them. The Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that “where a website makes its terms of use available via a conspicuous hyperlink on every page of the website but otherwise provides no notice to users nor prompts them to take any affirmative action to demonstrate assent, even close proximity of the hyperlink to relevant buttons users must click on—without more—is insufficient to give rise to constructive notice.” The court also rejected the retailer’s argument that the customer had constructive notice of the browsewrap terms based on his prior experience with browsewrap agreements found on other sites, including some popular social media sites.
California Federal Court Holds Bank Responsible For Funds Subject To IRS Levy On Customer's Account
On August 15, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that a bank responded too slowly to a government levy on a customer’s account and was therefore responsible for funds subsequently removed by the customer. The IRS notified the bank of a jeopardy levy on the account of a customer who received an improper tax refund and refused to return those funds to the government. Before the bank acted on the notice, the customer removed the funds from his account and the IRS was unable to recover them. The government then turned to the bank for relief, asserting that under the Internal Revenue Code, any person who fails or refuses to surrender any property subject to a levy is liable to the government. The court held that although the statute does not require the bank to immediately surrender the property, the bank was required, upon receiving notice, “to preserve that property or run the risk of paying the depositor’s tax bill.” The court explained that once the levy was served on the bank, the bank was in the best position to protect the property, and that even if the bank acted reasonably—i.e., without any undue delay—it could still be liable for the levied property.
Special Alert: CFPB Bulletin Re-Emphasizes Focus on Mortgage Servicing Transfers
On August 19, 2014, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2014-01 to address “potential risks to consumers that may arise in connection with transfers of residential mortgage servicing rights.” The bulletin, which is the latest in a series of CFPB regulations, statements, and guidance on this subject, replaces the Bureau’s February 2013 bulletin on mortgage servicing transfers and states that “the Bureau’s concern in this area remains heightened due to the continuing high volume of servicing transfers.” It further states that “the CFPB will be carefully reviewing servicers’ compliance with Federal consumer financial laws applicable to servicing transfers” and “may engage in further rulemaking in this area.”
The bulletin contains the following information, which is summarized in great detail below:
- Examples of policies and procedures that CFPB examiners may consider in evaluating whether the servicers on both ends of a transfer have complied with the CFPB’s new regulations requiring, among other things, policies and procedures reasonably designed to facilitate the transfer of information during servicing transfers and to properly evaluate loss mitigation applications.
- Guidance regarding the application of other aspects of the new servicing requirements to transfers.
- Descriptions of other Federal consumer financial laws that apply to servicing transfers, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices (“UDAAPs”).
- A statement that “[s]ervicers engaged in significant servicing transfers should expect that the CFPB will, in appropriate cases, require them to prepare and submit informational plans describing how they will be managing the related risks to consumers.” This largely reiterates the Bureau’s statements in its February 2013 bulletin.
In a press release accompanying the bulletin, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that: “At every step of the process to transfer the servicing of mortgage loans, the two companies involved must put in appropriate efforts to ensure no harm to consumers. This means ahead of the transfer, during the transfer, and after the transfer. We will not tolerate consumers getting the runaround when mortgage servicers transfer loans.
CFPB Enforcement Action Targets Auto Finance Company's Credit Reporting Practices
On August 20, the CFPB announced a consent order with a Texas-based auto finance company to address alleged deficiencies in the finance company’s credit reporting practices. The company offers both direct and indirect financing of consumer auto purchases, and, according to the CFPB, specializes in lending to consumers with impaired credit profiles. In general, the CFPB took issue with the finance company’s alleged failure to implement policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and alleged deceptive acts in the finance company’s representations regarding the accuracy of furnished information.
The CFPB’s action specifically alleged that the finance company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by providing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies regarding how its borrowers were performing on their accounts, including by: (i) reporting inaccurate information about how much consumers were paying toward their debts; (ii) reporting inaccurate “dates of first delinquency,” which is the date on which a consumer first became late in paying back the loan; (iii) substantially inflating the number of delinquencies for some borrowers when it reported borrowers’ last 24 months of consecutive payment activity; (iv) informing CRAs that some of its borrowers had their vehicles repossessed, when in fact those individuals had voluntarily surrendered their vehicles back to the lienholder. The CFPB claims this activity took place over a three-year period, even after the company was made aware of the issue. The CFPB believes the company furnished incorrect information to the CRAs on as many as 118,855 accounts.
The consent order requires the company to pay a $2.75 million penalty to the CFPB. In addition, the finance company must: (i) review all previously reported accounts for inaccuracies and correct those accounts or delete the tradeline; (ii) arrange for consumers to obtain a free credit report; and (iii) inform all affected consumers of the inaccuracies, their right to a free consumer report, and how consumers may dispute inaccuracies. The order also directs the company to sufficiently provide the staffing, facilities, systems, and information necessary to timely and completely respond to consumer disputes in compliance with the FCRA.
Unofficial Transcripts of the ABA Briefing/Webcast "Mortgage Q&A with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau"
To address outstanding questions regarding the new mortgage rules that took effect in January 2014, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in a webinar hosted by the American Bankers Association (ABA). Specifically, CFPB staff answered questions regarding the mortgage origination rules and the mortgage servicing rules on April 22, 2014.
With the ABA’s consent, BuckleySandler has prepared a transcript of the webinar that incorporates the ABA’s slides. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinions, interpretations, or advice by BuckleySandler. The transcript was prepared from the audio recording arranged by the ABA and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB or the ABA for accuracy or completeness.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the webinar or the rules themselves may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917