Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Banking Agencies Update Leveraged Lending Guidance

    Consumer Finance

    On March 21, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC issued final interagency guidance to ensure institutions provide leverage lending in a safe and sound manner by: (i) identifying the institution's risk appetite for leveraged finance, establishing appropriate credit limits, and ensuring prudent oversight and approval processes; (ii) establishing underwriting standards that clearly define expectations for cash flow capacity, amortization, covenant protection, collateral controls, and the underlying business premise for each transaction, and consider whether the borrower’s capital structure is sustainable; (iii) concentrating valuation standards on the importance of sound methods in the determination and periodic revalidation of enterprise value; (iv) accurately measuring exposure on a timely basis, establish policies and procedures that address failed transactions and general market disruptions, and ensure periodic stress tests of exposures to loans not yet distributed to buyers; (v) developing information systems that accurately capture key obligor characteristics and aggregate them across business lines and legal entities on a timely basis, with periodic reporting to the institution’s board of directors; (vi) considering in risk rating standards the use of realistic repayment assumptions to determine a borrower’s ability to de-lever to a sustainable level within a reasonable period of time; (vii) establishing underwriting and monitoring standards similar to loans underwritten internally; and (viii) performing stress testing on leveraged loans held in portfolio as well as those planned for distribution. The new guidance took effect on March 22, 2013, and institutions have until May 21, 2013 to comply.

    FDIC Federal Reserve OCC Bank Compliance

  • NMLS Proposes Uniformed Authorized Agent Reporting Processing Fee

    Consumer Finance

    On March 20, the NMLS proposed a processing fee to support a uniform and automated method for state-licensed money transmitters to report information concerning authorized agents/delegates to NMLS participating state agencies. The proposal notes that as of March 2013, 10 state agencies manage their money transmitter licenses through NMLS and an additional 20 agencies intend to do so by the end of 2014. The NMLS proposes to support that functionality through a fee of no more than fifty cents ($.50) per active agent/delegate location, assessed once per year, based on the number of all active agent/delegate locations as of a certain date. Money transmitter licensees with less than 100 active agent/delegate locations reported through NMLS will not be assessed a fee. The fee, which is distinct from and independent of fees or assessments required by state agencies, would be charged starting in 2014. The NMLS seeks comments on the proposal by April 19, 2013.

    NMLS Money Service / Money Transmitters

  • Justices Question Agency Deference Doctrine

    Consumer Finance

    On March 20, an environmental case before the Supreme Court spurred two opinions from three Justices that question the continuing vitality of the agency deference doctrine known as Auer deference. Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Defense Ctr., No. 11-338, slip op. (S. Ct. Mar. 20, 2013). Auer deference provides that a court should ordinarily defer to an agency’s view of its own regulation, so long as the agency’s view is not “plainly erroneous” or “inconsistent” with that regulation.  But in a partial dissent, Justice Scalia criticized the basis for the doctrine and attacked each of the three reasons why the doctrine is invoked. Justice Scalia was not alone. Two other justices—including Chief Justice Roberts—said that they also felt it was appropriate to reconsider Auer when the proper case presented itself. Reconsidering Auer could in turn effect a significant change in how many federal administrative cases—including cases involving banking and financial regulators—are handled.

    U.S. Supreme Court

  • CFPB Presents Annual FDCPA Report

    Consumer Finance

    On March 20, the CFPB presented to Congress its annual report on implementation and enforcement of the FDCPA. The report (i) summarizes the Bureau’s Consumer Response function, which does not currently cover debt collection complaints, and the number and types of consumer complaints regarding debt collection received by the FTC in 2012, (ii) describes the CFPB’s debt collection supervision program, (iii) presents recent enforcement and advocacy program developments, (iv) discusses recent education and outreach, as well as research and policy initiatives, and (v) discusses coordination and cooperation between the CFPB and the FTC. Because the FTC and the CFPB share FDCPA implementation and enforcement responsibilities, the report incorporates a letter from the FTC regarding its FDCPA-related activities. The CFPB reported that the FTC continues to receive more complaints for the debt collection industry than for any other. The report also highlights (i) the debt collection aspects of a CFPB enforcement action against a credit card company, (ii) the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding court discretion to award costs to prevailing FDCPA defendant creditors, and (iii) FTC enforcement activities.

    CFPB FTC FDCPA Debt Collection

  • House, Senate Committees Hold Separate Hearings on Housing Finance Reform

    Lending

    On March 19, the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee each held a hearing to review issues related to housing finance post-federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The House committee heard from Acting FHFA Director Edward DeMarco, while the Senate committee heard from non-governmental groups with reform proposals. The hearings mark the beginning of a process expected to play out over the course of the coming months to develop consensus on legislation to reform the housing finance sector. Each of the hearings covered numerous topics, but in each the central issue for debate was the appropriate level of government involvement in the mortgage market. On that primary issue, there was broad consensus that the current conservatorship role of the government should end. However, some stakeholders argued the government should play no role in the reformed market, while others believe a limited, protected government backstop would be necessary to support an affordable, stable housing market. Mr. DeMarco did not take positions on the broad policy issues, but repeated his commitment to implementing the FHFA’s Strategic Plan while positioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet whatever requirements policymakers choose to impose.

    FHFA U.S. Senate U.S. House Housing Finance Reform

  • Supreme Court Holds Class Plaintiff Cannot Avoid Removal by Stipulating Damages Under CAFA's Jurisdictional Threshold

    Consumer Finance

    On March 19, the Supreme Court held that a class action plaintiff’s pre-class certification stipulation that the class would not seek damages exceeding the Class Action Fairness Act’s (CAFA) $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement could not be binding on the class, and therefore, the stipulation would not affect federal jurisdiction under CAFA. Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, No. 11-1450, 2013 WL 1104735 (2013). The district court determined that the value of the putative class members’ claims would have exceeded $5 million, but for the named plaintiff’s stipulation limiting damages to less than that amount, and based on that stipulation, remanded the case to state court. On appeal, the Supreme Court explained that while a plaintiff may disclaim his or her own damages, such damages stipulations or any pre-certification stipulation “cannot legally bind members of the proposed class before the class is certified.” The Court thus held that because the class representative “lacked the authority to concede the amount-in-controversy issue for the absent class members,” the district court wrongly concluded that the “precertification stipulation could overcome its finding that the CAFA jurisdictional threshold had been met.” The Court vacated the District Court’s order remanding the case to state court, and remanded the class action for further proceedings in the federal district court.

    U.S. Supreme Court Class Action

  • NCUA Issues Fair Lending Guide, Plans Fair Lending Webinar

    Consumer Finance

    On March 19, the NCUA released a letter to credit unions to introduce its new fair lending guide and announce other fair lending tools. The fair lending guide includes (i) an overview of fair lending law and regulations, (ii) credit union operational requirements, (iii) fair lending compliance policy considerations, and (iv) checklists for testing compliance with laws and regulations, or developing a fair lending policy for compliance. The letter also explains that the NCUA’s determinations about which credit unions will be examined for fair lending are based on (i) HMDA outliers, (ii) recent fair lending findings or violations identified in safety and soundness exams, (iii) general risk compliance ratings, and (iv) other factors such as volume, types, and complexity of products and services offered, types of communities served, and customer fair lending complaints. The NCUA also announced its plans to hold a fair lending webinar on April 4, 2013.

    NCUA Fair Lending

  • Senate Banking Committee Approves Nominees for Top CFPB, SEC Spots

    Securities

    On March 19, the Senate Banking Committee approved Mary Jo White to serve as SEC Commissioner/Chair through June 2014, and Richard Cordray to serve a five-year term as CFPB Director. The vote on Ms. White was 20-1. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was the lone dissenter, citing his general concern with nominees who previously worked for the industry they are intended to regulate. Mr. Cordray was approved on party lines, 12-10. In an opening statement Ranking Member Michael Crapo (R-ID) reiterated Republican opposition to any nominee until structural changes are made to the CFPB.

    CFPB SEC U.S. Senate

  • Debate over FHFA Leadership Resurfaces

    Lending

    On March 15, the attorneys general (AGs) for nine states sent a letter to President Obama and Senate leaders seeking the appointment of a permanent director for the FHFA to replace Acting Director Edward DeMarco. The AGs complain that under Mr. DeMarco’s leadership, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain an obstacle to progress by refusing to adopt policies that will help maximize relief for homeowners,” identifying the FHFA’s opposition to allowing the entities to offer principal forgiveness as the primary issue. The AGs follow federal lawmakers who made a similar plea last month. Recently, it was reported that the President is considering Representative Mel Watt (D-NC) for the position. During a Senate hearing this week, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) defended Mr. DeMarco and responded that any nominee for FHFA director should lack political bias and possess technical expertise to help guide Congress through development and implementation of housing reform.

    State Attorney General FHFA

  • Supreme Court Declines Review of Second Circuit Decision Reinstating MBS Class Action

    Securities

    On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition seeking review of a Second Circuit decision that reinstated a class action against an underwriter and an issuer of mortgage-backed securities. Goldman Sachs & Co. v. NECA-IBEW, No. 12-528, 2013 WL 1091772 (2013). An institutional purchaser of certain MBS filed suit on behalf of a putative class alleging that the offering documents contained material misstatements regarding the mortgage loan originators’ underwriting guidelines, the property appraisals of the loans, and the risks associated with the certificates. After the district court dismissed the case, the Second Circuit reinstated and held that the plaintiff had standing to assert the claims of the class, even when the securities were purchased from different trusts, because the named plaintiff raised a “sufficiently similar set of concerns” to allow it to seek to represent proposed class members who purchased securities backed by loans made by common originators. With regard to the plaintiff’s ability to plead a cognizable injury, the court reasoned that while it may be difficult to value illiquid assets, “the value of a security is not unascertainable simply because it trades in an illiquid market.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Class Action RMBS

Pages

Upcoming Events