InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
First Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Claims Against Third-Party for Failure to Protect Personal Information
On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the dismissal of a putative class action brought against a securities clearing company for alleged failures to protect certain personal information. Katz v. Pershing, LLC, No. 11-1983, 2012 WL 612793 (1st Cir. Feb. 28, 2012). In this case, the plaintiff was the customer of a brokerage firm that used defendant Pershing LLC’s online clearing system, but the customer had no direct relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that Pershing had contractual and statutory obligations to encrypt and protect the personal information of brokerage firm customers. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged various contract claims, including one that Pershing’s failures constituted a breach of its contract with the brokerage. She also claimed that Pershing violated Massachusetts consumer protection laws. The First Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal, holding that the agreement between the brokerage and the defendant clearing firm did not confer any benefits on the plaintiff – the brokerage’s customer. The court stated that the separate contractual agreements between the plaintiff and her brokerage on the one hand, and between the brokerage and the defendant clearing firm on the other, could not be mixed and matched. The court also held, with regard to claims that Pershing violated the state data protection law, that plaintiff’s claims of potential harm from unprotected data were purely theoretical and “simply do[] not rise to the level of a reasonably impending threat.” As such plaintiff lacked standing to bring the statutory claims. Because the court found that the plaintiff lacked standing, it did not reach the issue of whether the Massachusetts data privacy law provides a private right of action.
Federal Court in Oregon Finds Noteholder's Agent Cannot Be Beneficiary Under Deed of Trust
On February 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon held, in James v. Recontrust Co., No. 3:11-cv-00324-ST (D. Or. Feb. 29, 2012), that under Oregon law the “beneficiary” of a deed of trust (as opposed to a mortgage) in that state is the noteholder – i.e., the lender or the lender’s successor – and therefore cannot be the agent of the noteholder, such as an electronic registry system. Oregon law only permits a trustee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure where all subsequent assignments are recorded in the proper county recorder’s office. In this case, because the note was subsequently assigned without having been recorded (because the electronic registry system was thought at the time to be the beneficiary and therefore that recordation was not required) the court ruled that the non-judicial foreclosure route was prohibited under Oregon’s statutory regime. However, the court did note that Oregon’s judicial foreclosure process remains available in these circumstances.
Freddie Mac Announces Seller/Servicer Guide Updates To Implement Higher G-Fees
On February 29, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2012-06, which details Freddie Mac’s implementation of an upcoming increase in required spreads. As previously announced, effective April 1, 2012, Freddie Mac is increasing the required spreads for all products by 10 basis points. For Mortgages sold through the Freddie Mac Selling System Selling System, the 10 basis point increase is being implemented through the use of g-fee add-on functionality, and Freddie Mac has created a new Guide exhibit identifying the 10 basis point increase as the “Payroll Tax Cut Act Gfee Add-On.” Freddie Mac also has made a commensurate change in the pricing Sellers receive for Mortgages sold under the cash program. For all other delivery paths and executions, the 10 basis point increase will be reflected in the pricing provided to sellers.
Fannie Mae Announces Multiple Selling Guide Updates
On February 28, Fannie Mae issued Announcement SEL-2012-02, which describes Selling Guide updates related to the Project Eligibility Review Services (PERS), premium pricing recapture, and the maximum buyup of the mortgage backed securities (MBS) guaranty fees. Regarding PERS, effective April 1, 2012, Fannie Mae is increasing the base fee, eliminating the waiver for projects that require a mandatory review, and eliminating the maximum project review fee limit. The announcement also outlines other PERS fee structure changes. Additionally, the Selling Guide updates a remedy available to Fannie Mae when it has identified a lender as having unusual prepayment behavior. Effective immediately, Fannie Mae will be allowed to request reimbursement for any premium paid in connection with the purchase of a mortgage that is paid in full within 120 days from the whole loan purchase date or from the MBS issue date. Finally, for loans delivered on or after May 28, 2012 with MBS issue dates on or after June 1, 2012, Fannie Mae is increasing the maximum buyup of the guaranty fee of 25 basis points for fixed-rate loans and certain ARMs.
SEC and CFTC Propose Rules Regarding Detecting Identity Theft
On February 28, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, together with the SEC, the Commissions) jointly issued proposed rules that would require entities subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction to address identity theft in two ways: (i) financial institutions and creditors would be required to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identify theft with either certain existing accounts or opening new accounts, and (ii) credit and debit card issuers subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction would be required to assess the validity of change-of-address notifications under certain circumstances. Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over certain parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act from the Federal Trade Commission to the Commissions for entities they regulate. The Commissions’ proposed rules are substantially similar to rules adopted in 2007 by the FTC and other federal financial regulatory agencies that previously were required to adopt such rules. The proposed rules set out the four elements that regulated entities would be required to include in their identify theft prevention programs: (i) identify relevant red flags, (ii) detect the occurrence of red flags, (iii) respond appropriately to the detected red flags, and (iv) periodically update the program to reflect changes in risks to customers or to the safety and soundness of the financial institution or creditor from identity theft. The Commissions issued jointly proposed guidelines in an appendix to the proposed rules to assist regulated entities in formulating and maintaining a Program that would satisfy the proposed rule requirements. The Commissions are accepting comments on the proposal through May 7, 2012.
Federal Reserve Board Releases Mortgage Servicing Action Plans
On February 27, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) released final action plans to be implemented by nine financial institutions to correct alleged deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure procedures. The FRB also announced that it expects to release plans for additional institutions soon. The plans are required by consent orders issued by the FRB in April 2011, and describe how the institutions will alter their servicing and foreclosure procedures by, among other things, (i) providing each borrower the name of a primary point of contact at the servicer; (ii) establishing limits on foreclosures where loan modifications have been approved; (iii) establishing robust, third-party vendor controls, including local foreclosure counsel; and (iv) strengthening compliance programs. The announcement also included the release of engagement letters between certain servicers and the third-party vendors hired to conduct reviews of foreclosures processed in 2009 and 2010. Those reviews, also required by the April 2011 orders, will determine whether borrowers suffered a financial injury that the institutions will be required to remedy. The release of the action plans follows the agreement by five of the servicers to pay a combined $766.5 million in penalties to the FRB as part of the $25 billion multi-party servicing settlement.
FHA Increases Mortgage Insurance Premiums
On February 27, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it is increasing its annual mortgage insurance premiums and upfront premiums in two phases. First, for loans with case numbers assigned on or after April 1, 2012 the FHA is increasing by 10 basis points the annual mortgage insurance premium, and is increasing upfront insurance premiums by 75 basis points. Subsequently, for loans with case numbers assigned on or after June 1, 2012 that exceed $625,500, the FHA is increasing the annual premium by an additional 0.25 percent. The changes are designed to encourage the return of private capital to the residential mortgage market while supplementing the FHAs Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which has fallen below the congressionally mandated two percent reserve threshold. At least one report recently suggested that based on current home price and default projections the fund will become insolvent without action. The increased premiums are projected to contribute more than $1 billion to the FHA's mortgage insurance fund, and on average will cost new home buyers $5 per month.
Second Circuit Moves MBS Case Back to New York State Court
On February 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) case that had been removed from New York state court fell within the securities exception to both original and appellate jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). BlackRock Financial Management Inc. v. Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp., No. 11-5309, 2012 WL 611401 (2nd Cir. Feb. 27, 2012). The case arose out of claims that the originator and servicer of MBS breached obligations owed to the trusts. After the trustee reached an $8.5 billion settlement agreement, it initiated an Article 77 proceeding in New York state court to confirm that it had authority to enter the settlement under the trust documents and that entry into the settlement did not violate its duties under the agreements and state law. Certain investors intervened and removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court denied a motion to remand to state court on the grounds that the case fell within CAFA's securities exception. On this interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that the case was one that solely involved a claim that "relates to the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security." The courts rationale was that, based on prior precedent, it did not have jurisdiction over claims that were based "either on the terms of the instruments that create and define securities or on the duties imposed on persons who administer securities," although it did have jurisdiction over "claims based on rights arising from independent sources of state law." Because the underlying Article 77 case sought a declaration authorizing the exercise of the trustee's power to enter a settlement, the trustee was seeking construction of its rights under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) and an instruction from the court as to whether it complied with its duties and obligations arising under the PSA. Therefore, the court (i) held that the securities exception of CAFA applied, (ii) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, (iii) reversed the district court's order, and (iv) directed the district court to vacate its decision and order and remand the case to state court.
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Foreclosures Can Proceed Despite Notice Defects
On February 27, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Guillaume, No. 068176, 2012 WL 603307 (N.J. Feb. 27, 2012), that state trial courts are not required to dismiss foreclosure actions if there are defects in the notice of foreclosure, and affirmed the denial of the borrowers motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure. The decision overturned an August ruling from a New Jersey appeals court, Bank of New York v. Laks, 422 N.J. Super. 201 (App. Div. 2011), holding that dismissal was mandatory if a notice did not strictly comply with the requirements of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act. In Guillaume, the borrowers sought to avoid foreclosure in part because the Notice of Intention to Foreclose identified only the servicers name and contact information and not the name and address of the lender. At the trial level, the court gave the lender an opportunity to cure the defects in the Notice in lieu of dismissal. A panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court outcome based on its analysis that listing the name of the loan servicer rather than the name of the lender substantially complied with the statutory requirements. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Fair Foreclosure Act requires that a Notice of Intention to Foreclose include the name and address of the actual lender, in addition to contact information for any loan servicer with responsibility to collect payments and negotiate resolution of a dispute between the lender and homeowner. Nonetheless the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that dismissal without prejudice was not the exclusive remedy for service of a defective notice and upheld the trial's court authority to craft an appropriate remedy for notice defects. The New Jersey Supreme Court also rejected the homeowners argument that their original lender's $120 fee overcharge was a TILA violation that entitled them to rescission and held that courts adjudicating TILA claims have discretion to deny rescission if the homeowner cannot tender the full amount due on the loan.
FHFA Announces First Properties Available for Sale in REO Pilot Program
On February 27, the Federal Housing Finance Agency opened for sale the first pool of foreclosed properties currently owned by Fannie Mae to be sold to private firms under the condition that the firms will manage the properties as rental properties for a specified period of time. This first transaction is part of a recently announced pilot program designed to shift the management of certain foreclosed properties to private entities in an effort to reduce taxpayer losses and stabilize neighborhoods and home values. Interested investors must apply to become pre-qualified in order to bid on the pools of properties. At the start, the properties for sale will be located in the hardest-hit markets including, Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and parts of Florida.