InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA Recaps RMBS Litigation Following Latest Settlement
On January 2, the FHFA announced that it has obtained nearly $8 billion in connection with its RMBS litigation initiative. In 2011, the FHFA filed lawsuits against 18 financial institutions involving allegations of securities law violations and, in some instances, fraud in the sale of private label securities to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The total recovered to date includes a recently announced $1.9 billion settlement, the FHFA’s sixth RMBS settlement thus far.
Federal Agencies Issue Statement On Subjecting TruPS CDOs To Volcker Rule
On December 27, in response to substantial criticism and legal action by banking trade groups, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, and the SEC stated that they are reviewing whether it is appropriate and consistent with the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) not to subject pooled investment vehicles for Trust Preferred Securities (TruPS), such as collateralized debt obligations backed by TruPS, to the prohibitions on ownership of covered funds in section 619 of the DFA, as implemented by the recently finalized Volcker Rule. Community banks and their trade group representatives state that the Volcker rule treatment of TruPS conflicts with a separate section of the DFA that requires TruPS issued by depository institution holding companies to be phased out of such companies’ calculation of Tier 1 capital, but provides for the permanent grandfathering of TruPS issued before May 19, 2010, by certain holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion. The banks assert that banking entities investing in pooled TruPS are facing “unexpected and precipitous write-downs” that are not justified by any safety and soundness concern, and that the resulting write-downs are actually causing safety and soundness concerns. The agencies promised to address the matter by January 15, 2014.
FINRA Announces 2014 Examination Priorities
On January 2, FINRA outlined certain specific areas of concern the independent regulator intends to focus on in 2014. The topics are largely consistent with FINRA’s 2013 priorities and are grouped in several categories: (i) business conduct; (ii) fraud; (iii) financial and operational; and (iv) market regulation. Under business conduct, for example, FINRA explains that it remains concerned about the suitability of recommendations to retail investors for complex products whose risk-return profiles may be difficult for investors to understand. FINRA lists numerous specific products it intends to scrutinize with regard to suitability. FINRA also intends to focus on, among other things, conflicts of interest, cybersecurity, anti-money laundering, and senior investors.
CFPB Submits Annual Report To Appropriations Committees
On December 30, the CFPB released an annual report reviewing consumer financial protection activities undertaken by the Bureau during the last fiscal year. The report was presented to the Committees on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives pursuant to section 1017(e)(4) of the Dodd-Frank Act and covers August 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. While it does not identify any planned activities, the report reviews the Bureau’s enforcement and fair lending activities to date, and explains the Bureau’s risk-based prioritization process for addressing lending discrimination and allocating enforcement resources. The report also describes the Bureau’s supervisory process, including procedures for conducting examinations and investigations, as well as its complaint process. Finally, the report reviews the proposed and final rules issued to date and provides, as well as administrative issues such as the agency’s spending and organization.
New York Extends Emergency Regulations Regarding Determination of Subprime Home Loans
On December 29, the New York State Department of Financial Services advised supervised institutions that it readopted expiring emergency regulations used to determine if a home loan qualifies as a subprime home loan under Section 6-m of the New York Banking Law. The latest emergency regulations are identical to those initially adopted in September 2013. Without further action, the readopted emergency regulations will expire March 29, 2014.
SDNY Retains Jurisdiction Over Three LIBOR Suits
On December 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that three LIBOR suits should remain under federal jurisdiction and denied the plaintiffs’ motions to remand. In Re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., No. 11-md-2262, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2013). One of the cases was removed from state court, and the other two were referred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to be joined with the numerous consolidated suits that have been brought by investors and bondholders who claim that certain financial institutions colluded to deliberately depress LIBOR, which caused the plaintiffs various economic injuries. LIBOR is a global benchmark rate used in financial products and transactions, which was set using data from the banks under the auspices of the British Bankers’ Association. Focusing on the only disputed element for Edge Act jurisdiction—whether the conduct “arises out of” (i) transactions involving international or foreign banking or (ii) other international or foreign financial operations—the court held that it has federal jurisdiction under the Edge Act. Applying a “common sense” statutory interpretation, the court reasoned that the cases arise out of the financial institutions’ allegedly misleading submissions to the LIBOR panel, which is an international or foreign financial operation, and without which there would be no cases at all. Although it did not need to address the financial institutions’ alternative basis for federal jurisdiction, the court explained that it could also retain jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
HUD Finalizes Expansion Of Mortgagee Evaluation System
On December 30, HUD finalized revisions to the system used by the FHA to measure and inform mortgagees of their loss mitigation performance. The revisions, finalized in Mortgagee Letter 2013-46, involve more comprehensive metrics to evaluate mortgagees on their overall performance with regard to delinquent loan servicing, as opposed to the limited review of default reporting of forbearance actions and loss mitigation and foreclosure claims paid under the previous system. The evaluation will be used to determine which mortgagees are eligible for additional incentive payments during the January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, calendar year. The final system is substantially similar to the proposed version, with some changes made in response to comments. HUD also updated the final scoring methodology using new default status codes delineated in Mortgagee Letter 2013-15. Also in its responses to comments, HUD agreed that it should improve loss mitigation performance by imposing penalties in individual cases of non-compliance with its loss mitigation requirements, stating that with the implementation of TRS II, HUD will have the granular data required for referral to enforcement divisions for “meaningful consequences to be imposed.”
HUD Delays Reverse Mortgage Requirements
On December 20, HUD announced in Mortgagee Letter 2013-45 that new requirements related to the FHA’s Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program (HECM) are tolled pending further guidance from the agency. Since announcing the new financial assessment requirements and funding requirements for the payment of property charges in September 2013, HUD has received comments that require HUD to update the requirements and guidance. Given those changes, HUD delayed the original date for compliance with the requirements—January 13, 2014—and will set a new effective date when it issues the updated guidance. Mortgagees will have at least 90 days to comply with the new guidance.
Massachusetts AG Obtains Another RMBS Settlement
On December 30, Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Martha Coakley announced the state’s sixth settlement related to allegedly unlawful RMBS practices, which resulted from the AG’s ongoing review of subprime mortgage securitization practices in Massachusetts. The most recent agreement requires an underwriting firm to pay a total of $17.3 million, which includes $11.3 million to be dedicated to compensate government entities that had invested with the Massachusetts Pension Reserve Investment Management Board and $6 million to be paid to the state.
Eleventh Circuit Certifies Questions On Georgia Business Judgment Rule In Bank Officer Case, Declines To Apply "No Duty" Rule To Bar Affirmative Defenses
On December 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit certified questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether bank directors and officers can be subject to claims for ordinary negligence under the state banking code. FDIC v. Skow, No.12-15878, 2013 WL 6726918 (11th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013). In this case, former directors and officers of a failed Georgia bank moved to dismiss a suit brought against them by the FDIC as receiver for the failed bank, asserting that the state’s business judgment rule blocked the FDIC’s ordinary negligence allegations. Specifically, the FDIC claimed that the former directors and officers were negligent in pursuing an unsustainable growth strategy that included approving high risk loans that resulted in substantial losses and contributed to the bank’s failure. The appeals court explained that state law appears to provide that a bank director or officer who acts in good faith might still be subject to a claim for ordinary negligence if he failed to act with ordinary diligence. However, given that its reading of the state statute conflicts with state intermediate appellate court holdings, the Eleventh Circuit asked the Supreme Court of Georgia to determine (i) whether a bank director or officer violates the standard of care established by state statute when he acts in good faith but fails to act with “ordinary diligence;” and (ii) whether, in a case applying Georgia’s business judgment rule, the bank officer or director defendants can be held individually liable if they are shown to have been ordinarily negligent or to have breached a fiduciary duty, based on ordinary negligence in performing professional duties. The court also affirmed the district court’s denial of the FDIC’s motion to strike certain affirmative defenses, rejecting the FDIC’s argument that under federal common law it owes “no duty” to bank officers or directors and it therefore is exempt from defenses under state law.