InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
State Law Update: Georgia Eliminates Double Taxation on Auto Leases
On March 5, Georgia enacted HB 266, which, among other things, eliminates a monthly sales tax on auto leases. The bill responds to a 2012 overhaul of the state’s tax code that mistakenly created a double tax on car leases, requiring payment of a Title Ad Valorem Tax of 6.5% to be paid by both lessees and purchasers of motor vehicles in the state, as well as the monthly sales and use tax to be paid by lessees. This additional tax had the effect of making motor vehicle leases less attractive than purchases, and at the same time likely would have resulted in lower overall taxes payable to the state. The bill also allows the Georgia Department of Revenue to decide whether and how to regulate “buy here, pay here” dealers. If the Department does create such rules, it has discretion to provide those dealers a larger discount from the normal title tax. The bill took effect immediately.
Second Circuit Reinstates MBS Suit, Easing Standing Hurdle for Investors
On March 1, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an investor plaintiff may be able to assert claims on behalf of a class for securities in which it had not invested, and additionally found that the investor had alleged sufficient facts of abandoned mortgage underwriting standards to survive defendants' motion to dismiss. N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. The Royal Bank of Scot. Grp., PLC, No. 12-1701, 2013 WL 765178 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2013). An investor claimed on behalf of a putative class that the offering documents for six mortgage-backed securities (MBS) materially misrepresented the standards used to underwrite the loans. The district court initially dismissed the case as to five of the trusts, holding that the investor could not bring claims on securities in which it had not invested. The investor amended its complaint and focused on the one trust in which it had invested. The district court then held that the allegations were not specific enough to the loans at issue, and that the risks were sufficiently disclosed and known at the time of the transaction. After the district court's rulings, the Second Circuit held in another case, NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012), that where an issuer had issued multiple securities under the same shelf registration statement, an investor who invested in at least some of those securities could, on behalf of a putative class, bring claims on securities in which it had not invested so long as all of the relevant claims involved "the same set of concerns." On appeal in the instant case, the Second Circuit held that in light of its decision in NECA-IBEW, the investor had standing to bring its claims as to all six of the original MBS. The court also held that the "allegations in the complaint-principally, that a disproportionately high number of the mortgages in a security defaulted, that rating agencies downgraded the security's ratings after changing their methodologies to account for lax underwriting, and that prior employees of the relevant underwriter had attested to systematic disregard of underwriting standards-state a plausible claim that the offering documents" violated the 1933 Securities Act. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
Maryland's Highest Court Holds Auctions that Charge Admission Fee are Private Sales
On March 1, the Court of Appeals of Maryland, answering a question of law certified to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the sale of repossessed automobiles at an auction where individuals had to pay a refundable $1,000 cash deposit was a “private sale”, and not a “public auction,” under the provisions of Maryland’s Creditor Grantor Closed End Credit Act (CLEC). Gardner v. Ally Fin. Inc., Misc. No. 10, 2013 WL 765013 (Md. Mar. 1, 2013). The court determined, based on legislative history, that one purpose of 1987 amendments to the CLEC was to protect the debtor against “favored buyer private sales that are not . . . commercially reasonable.” The court held that although the sale of the automobiles in this case was publicly advertised and open to the public for competitive bidding, the admission fee, which was charged to all participants, even those who merely wanted to observe the proceedings, “obscured transparency” and “shielded the process used to sell [the] cars from observation and, thus, could not constitute a ‘public auction’ under CLEC.” Thus, the court held that the creditors were subject to the more stringent post-sale disclosure requirements required for “private sales” under the CLEC.
FHFA Outlines 2013 Objectives for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
On March 4, FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco sketched out the FHFA’s plans for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) in 2013. These measures implement the Strategic Plan issued in February 2012 that identified three goals for the Enterprises: (i) build a new infrastructure for the secondary market, (ii) contract the Enterprises’ presence in the secondary market, and (iii) maintain foreclosure prevention activities. In 2013, the FHFA expects to support its first goal by creating an independent business entity that will serve as a securitizing platform. To continue contracting the Enterprises’ presence, the FHFA (i) has asked each Enterprise to conduct risk sharing transactions to meet a target of $30 billion of unpaid principal balance in credit risk sharing transactions, (ii) plans to continue increasing guarantee fees, (iii) aims to reduce multifamily business volume by 10 percent, and (iv) plans to sell five percent of the less liquid portion of the enterprises retained portfolios. Finally, on foreclosure prevention, the FHFA expects to (i) enhance the post-delivery quality control practices and transparency associated with the new representation and warranty framework, and (ii) work to complete representation and warranty demands for pre-conservatorship loan activity. In addition to making strides on the three prongs of its Strategic Plan, the FHFA plans to (i) update master policies and formulate eligibility standards for mortgage insurance, and (ii) develop a set of aligned standards for force placed insurance.
Federal Court Holds Borrowers Must Allege Sufficient Basis To Exercise TILA Three-Year Right of Rescission
On February 28, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a borrower failed to state sufficient facts to avail herself of TILA’s extended three-year right to rescind her mortgage. Wolf v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Assoc., No. 11-2419, 2013 WL 749652 (4th Cir. Feb. 28, 2013). Nearly three years after refinancing her loan, and just a few days before the scheduled foreclosure sale, the borrower attempted to rescind her mortgage loan pursuant to TILA, based on arguments that the original lender under-disclosed certain material finance charges. The district court held that the borrower’s TILA claims were untimely because she failed to file a lawsuit within the three-year deadline. Since the district court’s decision was issued, the Fourth Circuit held in another case, Gilbert v. Residential Funding LLC, 678 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2012), that a borrower need not file a lawsuit seeking rescission within the three-year deadline but instead must only notify the lender that she is exercising her rescission right. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that, in light of Gilbert, the borrower’s claim had not necessarily expired and the relevant question centered on whether she had adequately alleged facts that the three-year deadline applied. The Fourth Circuit found that the borrower’s allegations amounted to bare assertions and presented no facts as to why the charges were unreasonable. The court also rejected the borrower’s argument that the lender had inadequately disclosed the right to rescind. Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling – on different grounds – and dismissed the TILA claims. The Fourth Circuit also held that the borrower had failed to state claims for fraud, defamation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim that the assignment was invalid, thus invalidating the foreclosure sale.
Federal Court Holds Credit Furnisher Must Show Proof of Investigation of Consumer Dispute under FCRA
On February 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona held that a furnisher of credit information must present evidence regarding its investigation of a consumer's credit reporting dispute in order to satisfy the FCRA dispute resolution requirements. Modica v. Am. Suzuki Fin. Servs., No. CV11-02183-PHX, 2013 WL 656495 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 2013). The plaintiff leased a vehicle from the defendant and did not return it at the end of the lease term. The defendant reported the account as "current/paying as agreed" after the plaintiff returned the vehicle. The plaintiff disputed this charge to the credit bureaus which contacted the defendant to notify them of the dispute and confirm the charge. The defendant eventually changed the report to show an unpaid balance with a charge-off, prompting the plaintiff to bring suit alleging breach of contract, violation of a state law regarding credit reporting, and violation of FCRA. In denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment as to the FCRA claim, the court noted that FCRA requires a furnisher of credit information to conduct a "reasonable investigation" upon receipt of a consumer dispute. The court found that the creditor did not engage in a reasonable investigation—the defendant was unable to explain discrepancies between what it submitted to the credit reporting agencies and a letter it submitted to the plaintiff which showed she had no past due payments. In fact, the defendant was unable to say what the credit investigation entailed, a fact that precluded its claim for summary judgment.
Federal Reserve Board Inspector General Reviewing CFPB's Use of Enforcement Attorneys During Examinations
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which also serves as the OIG for the CFPB, released an updated Work Plan. The Work Plan includes as a “work in progress,” an evaluation of the CFPB’s integration of enforcement attorneys into its examinations of financial institutions. According to the Plan, the OIG is assessing (i) the potential risks associated with this examination approach and (ii) the effectiveness of any safeguards that the CFPB has adopted to mitigate the potential risks associated with this approach. Banks and nonbanks have previously expressed concern with the CFPB’s approach, which differs from the traditional approach taken by other federal regulators. In fact, in November 2012, the CFPB Ombudsman recommended that the CFPB review its implementation of the policy. The Work Plan states that the OIG expects to complete its review during the second quarter of 2013.
Federal Reserve Board and OCC Release Amended Foreclosure Consent Orders
On February 28, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC jointly released amendments to their enforcement actions against multiple mortgage servicers to resolve allegations that the servicers engaged in improper mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing practices. The amendments resolve consent orders issued in April 2011 by memorializing several recent agreements in principle that provide for $3.6 billion in cash payments and $5.7 billion in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments, to 4.2 million borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure in 2009 or 2010. For the participating servicers, the amendments also replace the requirements related to the Independent Foreclosure Review process set out under the original consent orders. The servicers are also required to undertake loss mitigation efforts focused on foreclosure prevention, and will continue to be monitored by examiners for implementation of corrective actions to address alleged deficient servicing and foreclosure practices.
Ramirez Expected to Chair FTC
On February 28, the FTC announced that President Obama will designate Edith Ramirez as Chairman of the FTC, effective March 4, 2013. Ms. Ramirez became an FTC commissioner on April 5, 2010, and has focused on promoting competition and innovation in the technology and healthcare sectors, protecting vulnerable consumers from deceptive and unfair practices, and safeguarding consumer privacy. Prior to joining the FTC, Ms. Ramirez was a lawyer in private practice, and before that served as the Vice President on the Board of Commissioners for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
European Lawmakers Agree to New Capital Rules and Caps on Bank Executive Pay
On February 28, the European Parliament announced that negotiators from the Parliament and the European Council agreed to alter bank capital rules and limit executive pay. The capital requirements, developed to implement aspects of Basel III, would raise to eight percent the minimum thresholds of high quality capital that banks must retain. The announcement does not specify what types of capital would satisfy the requirement, but does indicate that good quality capital would be mostly Tier 1 capital. With regard to executive pay, the base salary-to-bonus ratio would be 1:1, but the ratio could increase to a maximum of 1:2 with the approval of at least 65 percent of shareholders owning half the shares represented, or of 75 percent of votes if there is no quorum. Further, if a bonus is increased above 1:1, then a quarter of the whole bonus would be deferred for at least five years. Finally, the legislation would require banks to disclose to the European Commission certain information that subsequently would be made public, including profits, taxes paid, and subsidies received country by country. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the legislation in mid-April, and each member state also must approve the legislation. Once approved, member states must implement the rules through their national laws by January 2014.