InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senate Banking Leaders Offer Bipartisan FHA Reform Bill
On July 15, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) released a discussion draft of a bill intended to improve the solvency of the FHA’s Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund). As with legislation recently passed by the House, the bill would allow HUD to manage its HECM program through mortgagee letters. Unlike the House bill, this draft further would require that, whenever HUD issues a HECM mortgagee letter, it also initiate a proposed rulemaking that addresses the subject of the mortgagee letter. The bill also would require that, for a mortgage to be eligible for insurance under the HECM program, the mortgage must contain terms and provisions for ensuring property maintenance, establishing escrow accounts, performing financial assessments, or limiting the amount of any payment made available under the mortgage.
In addition, the bill includes changes to the broader FHA insurance program, including provisions similar to those in a bill passed by the House last year with overwhelming bipartisan support. It would, for example, (i) set a minimum annual mortgage insurance premium of at least 55 basis points and increase existing up-front and annual premium caps by 50 basis points, (ii) direct HUD to establish underwriting standards using criteria similar to the CFPB’s criteria for Qualified Mortgages, and (iii) require that the MMI Fund achieve a capital reserve ratio of 3% within 10 years of enactment and establish escalating reporting requirements and program evaluations that take effect immediately if the capital ratio falls below required levels. Further, the bill would, among other things, (i) enhance HUD’s ability to seek indemnification from FHA-approved mortgagees approved to originate loans under the lender insurance program or the direct endorsement program, (ii) expand the criteria HUD uses to compare mortgagee performance and to allow HUD to terminate a mortgagee’s approval on a national basis, and (iii) require HUD to develop a single resource guide for lenders and servicers regarding the requirements, policies, processes, and procedures that apply to loans insured by FHA.
The committee has scheduled a legislative hearing on the bill for July 24, 2013.
New York Financial Regulator Issues Guidance on Determination of Subprime Home Loans Under State Law
On July 3, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) sent a letter to regulated institutions and issued a temporary order relating to the determination of thresholds for “subprime home loans” under Section 6-m of the New York Banking Law. Due to recent increases in interest rates, many lenders who utilize a loan’s closing date as the time period for determining the “fully indexed rate” feared that they may be originating loans that meet the definition of subprime home loans under Section 6-m. The letter reminds lenders that in 2009, DFS amended Section 6-m of the Banking Law to instruct lenders to use the date that they provide good faith estimates to borrowers as the date for calculating the “fully indexed rate.” The letter also states that the DFS believes that calculating the “fully indexed rate” properly should allay many lenders fears that they may be triggering Section 6-m. Relatedly, recent changes to the calculation of Mortgage Insurance Premiums mandated by the FHA in Mortgagee Letter 2013-04 has increased the annual percentage rate on subject loans and is causing them to fall under Section 6-m’s definition of subprime home loan. To address the issue, the DFS issued a temporary order that, for 60 days from the date of the order, directs lenders not to use the MIP changes effectuated by FHA when calculating the APR and fully indexed rates for purposes of Section 6-m.
Ninth Circuit Holds FAA Preempts Montana's Public Policy Against Enforcing Contracts of Adhesion
On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Montana’s public policy invalidating adhesive agreements running contrary to the reasonable expectations of a party. Mortensen v. Bresnan Comms. LLC, No. 11-35823, 2013 WL 3491415 (9th Cir. Jul. 15, 2013). In this case, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against an internet service provider (ISP) that participated in a trial program in which the ISP’s customer’s personal information allegedly was passed on to an advertising company in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state privacy and property laws. The ISP moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the welcome kit’s its service technicians delivered included mandatory arbitration provisions that required application of New York law to any disputes. The court vacated a trial court’s order declining to enforce arbitration, holding that AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), requires that the FAA preempt Montana’s reasonable expectations/fundamental rights rule, despite the state’s interest in protecting its consumers from unfair agreements, because that rule has a disproportionate impact on arbitration agreements. As a result, the court also held that the district court erred in not applying New York law because a state’s preempted public policy was an impermissible basis on which to reject the parties’ choice-of-law selection. The court vacated the district court’s order declining to enforce the arbitration clause and choice-of-law clause and remanded with instructions to apply New York law to the arbitration agreement.
FTC Extends Time to Comment on Proposed TSR Changes
On July 12, the FTC extended the comment deadline on proposed changes to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). In May, the FTC proposed to prohibit the use of certain payment methods it believes are favored by “fraudulent telemarketers,” and sought comments by July 29, 2013. Because a slightly modified version of the original proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2013, the FTC now will accept comments through August 8, 2013.
HUD Seeks Comments on Potential Changes to FHA's Quality Assurance Process
Recently, HUD published a notice seeking public comments on “ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness” of FHA’s quality assurance process (QAP). In the notice, HUD explains that it is seeking to enhance its oversight of FHA single-family lenders by evaluating single family quality assurance alternatives that would better align with FHA’s mission. Specifically, HUD aims to ensure that it maintains and improves a quality assurance framework that (i) does not hinder or dissuade lending to FHA-targeted populations; (ii) enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the QAP; (iii) ensures compensation to FHA for defects resulting from the lender manufacturing process; and (iv) applies fairly to all lenders. In addition, HUD also endeavors to establish a framework that ensures that loans are reviewed within a reasonable time period, post-endorsement; in order to allow FHA to use loan quality findings to improve credit policy and to allow lenders to improve their FHA origination practices. HUD particularly seeks public comments on (i) the types of loan manufacturing or compliance defects found in the QAP that should be subject to indemnification or other administrative remedies or a combination of responses; (ii) how the FHA’s review and comparison of early defaults and claims may achieve an improved assessment of a mortgagee’s performance – for example, HUD is considering establishing a specific standard of defaults and claims which mortgagees should not exceed within a given construct; (iii) whether FHA should establish a threshold manufacturing (or loan deficiency) risk tolerance; and (iv) whether FHA should establish a process to review a statistically significant random sample of loans for each mortgagee within a prescribed time frame after loan endorsement to estimate defect rates. Comments on the potential changes are due by September 9, 2013.
FinCEN Creates CTR Exemption for Armored Car Transactions
On July 12, FinCEN issued a ruling to exempt financial institutions from collecting data about certain armored car transactions required for Currency Transaction Reports (CTR). Under a 2009 ruling, FinCEN clarified that when a financial institution customer hires an armored car service (ACS) to conduct business on its behalf, the customer’s financial institution is subject to the same CTR requirements as it would be with any other third-party facilitating a transaction for a customer. FinCEN now recognizes that the 2009 ruling created practical issues in application – financial institutions have had difficulty differentiating transactions conducted by a given ACS on behalf of the institution from those the ACS conducted on behalf of a customer, and have had trouble obtaining drivers’ personal information required for the CTR. With its current ruling, FinCEN authorized an exception to the CTR data collection and aggregation requirements that applies only to deposits or withdrawals conducted by an ACS employee pursuant to instructions from the financial institution’s customer or from a third party.
Federal, State Officials Focus on Employee Payroll Cards
On July 11, a group of Democratic Senators urged the CFPB and the Department of Labor to “take swift action” regarding prepaid payroll cards. The Senators expressed concern that workers do not understand the “excessive fees” and “harmful practices” associated with such cards, and suggested that those fees and practices - specifically, those relating to ATM use, balance inquiry, swipe purchases, overdraft, and inactivity, among others – may violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation E. The lawmakers asked the CFPB to conduct a study to better understand these fees and their impact on workers, and to clarify through a rulemaking or other supervisory action the options employers must provide to their employees under Regulation E. The Senators’ letter follows reports of an investigation by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman into potential state law violations related to employers’ use of payroll cards.
Missouri Increases Credit Advance Fees
On July 12, Missouri enacted SB 254, which increases credit advance fees for open-end credit loans of 31 days or longer. Under current Missouri law, lenders may charge a credit advance fees of up to the lesser of $25 or 5% of the credit advanced from the line of credit. Effective August 28, 2013, lenders may charge a credit advance fee of up to the lesser of $75 or 10%of the credit advanced from the line of credit.
Federal District Court Compels Arbitration of Debt Collection Robosigning Suit
On July 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that members of a putative class must arbitrate their claims against creditors for allegedly unlawful debt collection practices individually. Shetiwy v. Midland Credit Management, No. 12-7068, 2013 WL 3530524 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2013). A group of creditors facing allegations that they violated the RICO Act and the FDCPA by conspiring with third party debt collectors to collect debts through fraudulently obtained default judgments, including judgments obtained through practices associated with robosigning, moved to compel arbitration based on the terms of their cardmember agreements, which require mandatory arbitration on an individual basis of any claims arising from a cardmember’s account. The court held that even if the plaintiffs could show that costs associated with individual arbitration would preclude vindicating their statutory rights under RICO and the FDCPA, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, “made clear that a generalized congressional intent to vindicate statutory rights cannot override the FAA’s mandate that courts enforce arbitration clauses” like the one at issue here. The court explained that “[n]othing in the text of RICO or the FDCPA indicate [sic] a more explicit ‘contrary congressional command’ than that contained in the federal antitrust laws at issue in Italian Colors” and that “[i]n fact, the FDCPA explicitly limits recovery obtained by unnamed class members in a class action, without regard to how that will affect total recover for each individual.” The court enforced the arbitration agreements and stayed the case as to the creditors pending arbitration.
NACHA Bulletin Addresses Reinitiation of Returned Debits
On July 15, the Electronic Payments Association (NACHA), the organization that manages the ACH Network, issued a bulletin that describes the provisions of NACHA’s operating rules regarding the “reinitiation” of returned ACH debit entries and the collection of return fees. With respect to the “reinitiation” of returned ACH debit entries the bulletin outlines the limited circumstances under which the rules permits originators and originating depository financial institutions (ODFIs) to reinitiate returned entries. First, an originator or an ODFI may reinitiate a returned entry up to two times if the entry was returned for reasons of insufficient or uncollected funds. Second, an originator or an ODFI may reinitiate a returned entry for reason of stop payment, but only if the receiver of the entry reauthorized the reinitiation after the return of the original entry. Finally, unless authorization has been revoked, an originator or an ODFI may reinitiate an entry returned for any other reason, as long as the originator or ODFI has corrected or remedied the reason for the return. In instances where authorization has been revoked, an originator or ODFI may not be reinitiated. Additionally, in order for a reinitiation of a returned entry to take place within the ACH Network, it must take place within 180 days of the settlement date of the original entry. With respect to the collection of return fees, the bulletin explains that (i) a return fee entry may be initiated only to the extent permitted by applicable law, and only for an entry that was returned for reasons of insufficient or uncollected funds; (ii) originators and ODFIs must provide specific prior notice prior to charging return fees; (iii) return fees must be specifically labeled as return fees in any entry description; (iv) only one return fee may be assessed with respect to any returned entry; and (v) a return fee may not be assessed with respect to the return of a return fee entry (i.e., no “fees on fees”).