InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Virginia AG Sues Online Payday Lender to Enforce State Licensing Law
On July 18, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (AG) announced a lawsuit against an online lender for allegedly making illegal payday loans in the state. The AG explained that the Virginia State Corporation Commission requires every payday loan lender to obtain a license before conducting business in Virginia. The AG asserts that the lender did not obtain the required license. State law limits unlicensed lenders to charging no more 12% in annual interest on a loan. The AG alleges that the rates on the online lender’s loans range from 438% annually for a 25-day loan to 1,369% annually for an eight-day loan. The AG stated that the company instructs customers to apply for loans through its website, and after the loan applications are approved, the company wires funds directly to the consumers' bank accounts in exchange for authorizing the company to directly debit loan payments from the customers’ bank accounts. The suit seeks to enjoin the company from collecting interest over the 12% state limit, and seeks consumer reimbursement of certain interest paid and civil penalties in the amount of $2,500 for each violation.
Magistrate Judge Finds Tribal Payday Lender Subject to FTC Act; Lender Agrees to Settle Some FTC Charges
On July 22, the FTC announced that it obtained a partial settlement of claims it filed last year against a Native American Tribe-affiliated payday lending operation that allegedly charged undisclosed and inflated fees, and collected on loans illegally by threatening borrowers with arrest and lawsuits. FTC v. AMG Servs, Inc. No. 12-536 (D. Nev.). The agreement does not include any monetary resolution of the claims, but (i) prohibits the defendants from certain collection practices, (ii) prohibits the defendants from conditioning the extension of credit on preauthorized electronic fund transfers, and (iii) requires the defendants to implement enhanced compliance policies that are subject to new reporting requirements. The settlement follows a report and recommendation issued last week by the magistrate judge assigned to the case in which he concluded that the FTC has authority under the FTC Act to regulate “Indian Tribes, Arms of Indian Tribes, employees of Arms of Indian Tribes and contractors of Arms of Indian Tribes” with regard to the payday lending activities at issue in the case. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the magistrate judge held that while the FTC Act does not expressly apply to Indian Tribes, it is a statute of general applicability with reach sufficient to cover the Tribal entities. Further, the magistrate judge concluded that “both TILA and EFTA provide the FTC the power to enforce the statutes without regard for any jurisdictional limitations contained in the FTC Act.” The FTC will continue litigating other charges against the defendants, including allegations that they deceived consumers about the cost of their loans by charging undisclosed charges and inflated fees.
Florida District Court Orders Disgorgement of Profits from Unfair, Deceptive Online Payday Loan Referral Practices
On July 18, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that an online payday loan referral business engaged in unfair and deceptive billing practices and failed to provide adequate disclosures to its customers. FTC v. Direct Benefits Group, LLC, No. 11-1186, 2013 WL 3771322 (M.D. Fla. Jul. 18, 2013). The FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by obtaining consumers’ bank account information through payday loan referral websites and debiting their accounts without their consent. The FTC also alleged that the defendants failed to adequately disclose that, in addition to using consumers’ financial information for a payday loan application, they would use it to charge them for enrollments in unrelated programs and services. During a bench trial, the parties presented evidence and arguments regarding the content and operation of the websites and whether consumers could enroll in the referral programs without taking affirmative steps to do so. The court agreed with the FTC’s claims that the defendants’ practices were deceptive and held that the “pop-up box” used to enroll consumers in the programs at issue was misleading. The court explained that the defendants’ website and the online payday loan application form created the overall impression that they were intended for applying for payday loans and that the bank account information that applicants were asked to enter would be used for deposit of the payday loan—not so that the account could or would be debited for the purchase of an unrelated product or service. Further, the court held that the defendants’ disclosures were not clear and conspicuous under the principles included in the FTC’s “.com disclosures guidance.” The court also held that the FTC established that the billing practices were unfair, and ordered the defendants to disgorge over $9.5 million and permanently cease the practices at issue.
Housing Finance Reform Bills Advance in Congress
On July 24, the House Financial Services Committee approved a comprehensive housing finance reform bill, outlined recently by Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). The Chairman has indicated that the bill could move to the House floor for consideration by the full body shortly after the August recess and that in the interim he will work to explain the bill to his conference and build support. The House bill differs in several substantial ways from a Senate proposal. For instance, the House bill provides for an overhaul of the Federal Housing Administration while the Senate Banking Committee intends to address the FHA separately from, and in advance of, the Senate’s broader housing finance reform bill. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing this week on its FHA legislation and intends to amend and vote on the bill next week.
NIST Releases Minor Updates to Digital Signature Standard
On July 23, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a revised digital standard used to ensure the integrity of electronic documents and the identity of the signer. The revised standard includes no major changes, but does update the standard to align it with other publications so that all NIST documents offer consistent guidance regarding the use of random number generators. Another revision concerns the use of prime number generators, which requires random initial values for searching for prime numbers.
Rhode Island Adopts Foreclosure Mediation
On July 15, Rhode Island enacted HB 5335 to create a temporary foreclosure mediation program. Effective September 1, 2013 through July 1, 2018, the new law requires mortgagees or their servicers or agents to provide borrowers who are not more than 120 days delinquent written notice that foreclosure cannot proceed without the borrower first having an opportunity to participate in a mediation conference. The law establishes the procedures and requirements for such conferences and prohibits a mortgagee from proceeding with a foreclosure action until the mediator certifies that, after good faith effort by the mortgagee, the parties could not reach agreement.
FINRA To Begin Sharing Additional MBS Information
On July 22, FINRA announced that it will begin to disseminate information for so-called specified pool transactions in agency pass-through mortgage-backed securities and SBA-backed securities, including transaction information such as the time of the trade, price and volume. Transactions must be reported to within two hours of execution (the reporting period is reduced to one hour after a six month implementation period), and are disseminated as soon as received. Combined with FINRA’s action last year to begin disseminating transaction information for agency pass-through mortgage-backed securities traded "to-be-announced" (TBA), FINRA now will be sharing information for securities that represent over 90 percent of the par value traded in all asset- and mortgage-backed securities.
Fourth Circuit Relies on E-Sign Act to Hold Electronic Agreement May Effect A Valid Transfer of Copyright
On July 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that under the E-Sign Act, an electronic transfer may satisfy the requirements for transfer of a copyright under the Copyright Act, even though the Copyright Act itself does not define the “writing” or “signature” required to effectuate a transfer. Metro. Reg. Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc. No. 12-2102, 2013 WL 3722365 (Jul. 17, 2013). In this case, the company that operates the online real estate listing service MLS sued a competitor real estate referral service, contending that the referral service collected and used information without authorization – including photographs of listed properties – that MLS compiled for its customers. In order to submit photos to the MLS, customers are required to click a button and agree to certain terms of use. The court agreed with the MLS operator that its customers’ acceptance of the terms of use operated as a transfer of copyrights in any photograph provided to the MLS, and that as such the competitor service may have violated the Copyright Act through its unauthorized use of the materials. Noting the paucity of case law applying the E-Sign Act to instruments conveying copyrights, the court looked to cases in which circuit courts have applied the E-Sign Act to the Federal Arbitration Act’s protections that pertain only to written arbitration agreements, including the Second Circuit’s holding in Specht v. Netscape Comms. Corp., 605 F.3d 17 (2nd Cir. 2002). Based on the analysis in those cases, the court explained that “[t]o invalidate copyright transfer agreements solely because they were made electronically would thwart the clear congressional intent embodied in the E-Sign Act.” The court held that an electronic agreement may effect a valid transfer of copyright interests under the Copyright Act. As such, the court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting MLS’s competitor from displaying the MLS photographs.
Prudential Regulators Encourage Private Student Loan Workouts
On July 25, the FDIC, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve Board issued a joint statement to encourage financial institutions to “work constructively with private student loan borrowers experiencing financial difficulties.” The statement explains that prudent workout arrangements are consistent with safe-and-sound lending practices and are generally in the long-term best interest of both the financial institution and the borrower. Specifically, under the Retail Credit Policy, which covers student loans, “extensions, deferrals, renewals, and rewrites of closed-end loans can be used to help borrowers overcome temporary financial difficulties.” As such, the agencies promise not to criticize institutions for engaging in prudent workout arrangements with borrowers who have encountered financial problems, even if the restructured loans result in adverse credit classifications or troubled debt restructurings in accordance with accounting requirements under GAAP. Further, the regulators state that modification programs should provide borrowers with clear and easily accessible practical information about the available options, general eligibility criteria, and the process for requesting a modification.
CFPB Publishes ECOA Baseline Review Modules
Yesterday afternoon, the CFPB released its ECOA baseline review modules, which supplement the recently updated ECOA examination procedures. Completed baseline modules will be included in an institution’s examination work papers and may be considered in conjunction with any fair lending statistical analysis to assess an institution’s fair lending compliance and risks.
The baseline review procedures provide examiners with a series of questions in six modules to assess the following:
- Fair lending supervisory history;
- Fair lending compliance management system – management participation, policies and procedures, training, and internal controls and monitoring;
- Mortgage lending - policies and procedures for mortgage underwriting and pricing, including frequency of deviations, compensation structures, third-party involvement, and marketing practices;
- Mortgage servicing - policies and procedures as they relate to fair lending;
- Auto lending – policies and procedures for direct and indirect auto lending, including information related to pricing, underwriting, referrals, origination, and third-party compensation; and
- Other products – policies and procedures with respect to any additional products selected for review, e.g. secured and unsecured consumer lending, credit cards, add-on products, private student lending, payday lending, and small business lending.
The CFPB baseline review differs from the CFPB’s targeted review process, during which a supervised institution can be subject to an in-depth look at a specific area of fair lending risk, and is separate from the CFPB’s HMDA review, which includes transactional testing for HMDA data accuracy.