InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
European Banking Authority Expresses Concerns Regarding New Financial Sector Domain Names
On February 23, the European Banking Authority (EBA) released a letter it sent to the ICANN Board of Directors expressing concerns about ICANN’s June 2011 approval of a new program to allow additional generic top level domains, including “.bank” and “.fin”. The new domain names are expected to be available for use later this year. As the European umbrella organization comprised of the heads of each member state’s consumer credit regulator, the EBA is broadly tasked with European consumer financial protection. From that standpoint, the letter and an attached comment document ask ICANN to halt the use of the new domain names because they have the potential to increase consumer fraud and decrease data security. Further, the new names may require financial institutions to implement costly and complex legal and commercial initiatives to protect their trademarks from fraud. The EBA does not believe that ICANN’s proposals to mitigate these concerns, including a proposed new registration system for the domain names, are insufficient.
Federal Court Approves for First Time Computer-Assisted Document Review
On February 24, a Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge held that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for electronically stored information. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 11-1279, 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). The court explained that computer-assisted coding is the use of sophisticated algorithms to enable the computer to determine relevance, based on interaction with a human reviewer. The court then described traditional e-discovery keyword searches and manual review as, in some cases, “over-inclusive,” “quite costly,” and “not very effective.” In certain cases, the court concluded, computer-assisted review is the better approach. The judge then detailed the factors that favored computer-assisted predictive coding in this case: (i) the parties' agreement to use predictive coding; (ii) the size of the entire data set (more than 3 million documents); (iii) the accuracy of predictive coding compared to traditional methods; (iv) the need for cost effectiveness and proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2)(C); and (v) the “transparent” review process proposed by the defendant.
Nevada Supreme Court Rules MERS Mortgage Assignments Are Valid
On February 24, the Nevada Supreme Court held, in two separate cases, that a Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)-generated mortgage assignment did not invalidate a foreclosure. Davis v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 56306, 2012 WL 642544 (Nev. Feb. 24, 2012); Volkes v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, No. 57304, 2012 WL 642673 (Nev. Feb. 24, 2012). In both cases, the court upheld the lower courts’ decisions allowing foreclosure certificates to be issued following unsuccessful foreclosure mediation. Appellants had argued that MERS is a sham entity, and therefore any MERS-generated assignments are necessarily invalid. Noting that courts in Nevada and other states have “repeatedly” recognized that MERS serves a legitimate business purpose, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected appellants’ arguments that their assignments were invalid merely because they were generated by MERS.
Federal Court Holds Combination of Clickwrap Agreement and 30-Day Right to Cancel Letter Made Arbitration Clause Clear to User
Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that a clickwrap agreement combined with a follow up thirty-day right to cancel letter presented users with an arbitration clause in a reasonably conspicuous manner. Grosvenor v. Qwest Corp., No. 09-02848, 2012 WL 602655 (D. Colo. Feb. 23, 2012). The plaintiff brought suit against his internet service provider (ISP), Qwest Corporation, claiming that Qwest violated a lifetime price guarantee for the service. Qwest moved to compel arbitration. The court held that although the terms were not presented in the clearest manner, they were sufficiently conspicuous and provided an opportunity for a reasonable user to review them. The installation software provided to the plaintiff specifically mentioned the existence of an arbitration clause, directed the plaintiff to the ISP's website to review the agreement, and required that the plaintiff accept the terms before installing the software. The court raised concerns that once directed to the ISP website to review the arbitration terms, the plaintiff was required to click through two pages to find the terms. Despite this, the court stated that, as a matter of law, the multiple clicks requirement does not prevent contractual formation. Moreover, a follow up "Welcome Letter" sent to the plaintiff by the ISP again identified the arbitration clause and provided plaintiff with an opportunity to cancel the service within thirty days. The court decline to determine whether either the clickwrap agreement or the letter would be sufficient on their own, but together they rendered the contractual terms sufficiently clear for a reasonable user. In the end, the court found the arbitration agreement unenforceable on other grounds.
Feds Announce Mortgage-Related False Claims Act Settlement
On February 24, HUD and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that they had obtained from Flagstar Bank FSB an admission that the bank submitted false certifications to HUD when seeking government insurance for residential mortgages in violation of the False Claims Act. As part of a settlement agreement the bank also agreed to pay $132.8 million in damages and penalties, and reform its businesses practices. This is the second recent settlement of mortgage-related violations of the False Claims Act following the largest such settlement in history, announced as part of the multi-party settlement with five mortgage servicing companies. That agreement included a $1 billion settlement of False Claims Act allegations against Bank of America with regard to Countrywide loans. In all of the cases federal authorities alleged, among other things, that a financial institution participating in the FHA‘s Direct Lender Program repeatedly and falsely endorsed loans for FHA insurance that did not comply with underwriting requirements. The loans therefore should not have been eligible for government insurance, yet the federal insurance fund was unnecessarily impaired when those borrowers defaulted.
HUD Publishes Revised Proposal for Limiting Seller Concessions
On February 23, HUD published for comment a revised proposal for reducing seller concessions that supplants its initial July 15, 2010 issuance. In its previous issuance, HUD had proposed, as one of its initiatives to reduce risk to its insurance fund, reducing the cap on seller conditions from six percent of the lesser of the sales price or appraised value to three percent. In response to the significant public comment on its July proposal, HUD is now proposing to reduce the amount of seller concessions permitted as offsets to three percent or $6,000, whichever is greater, although the offsets would not be permitted to exceed the borrower’s actual costs. To address future increases to closing costs, the $6,000 cap would be indexed to increase at the same rate as the FHA national loan limit floor. HUD also proposes limiting acceptable uses of seller concession to payments toward borrower closing costs, prepaid items, discount points, the FHA Up Front Mortgage Insurance Premium, and an Interest Rate Buydown. Comments on this revised proposal are due March 26, 2012.
FHFA Takes Initiative on Idled Housing Finance Reform
On February 21, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) submitted a strategic plan outlining the next phase of its conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises). FHFA’s plan is in part a response to requests from lawmakers, including requests made during a December 2011 hearing. FHFA states that it will seek to build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market, contract the Enterprises’ current market dominance, and maintain the Enterprises’ roles in foreclosure prevention activities and refinance initiatives. FHFA also outlines the legal authority under which it plans to act.
Until Congress can enact broader housing finance reform, FHFA envisions moving the Enterprises into a single open-architecture securitization platform that could become a type of public utility that would outlast the Enterprises. This move would also be accompanied by uniform standards for underwriting, disclosures, and servicing, and a robust and standard pooling and servicing agreement. FHFA will also contract Enterprise operations by (i) working to shift mortgage credit risk to private investors through some combination of increasing the g-fee, establishing loss sharing arrangements, and/or expanding reliance on mortgage insurance; (ii) directing the Enterprises to conduct a market analysis of the viability of their multifamily operations without government guarantees; and (iii) considering whether to retain each Enterprise's capital markets expertise to manage portfolios, or to hire a third-party investment firm to manage the portfolios. Finally, the FHFA asserts that it will maintain foreclosure prevention efforts and credit availability by (i) continuing existing programs such as the Servicing Alignment Initiative, HARP, and REO disposition initiatives; (ii) aligning and making policies for representations and warranties more transparent, in conjunction with the ongoing Uniform Mortgage Data Program; and (iii) pursuing lawsuits alleging securities law violations in private-label mortgage-backed securities purchased by the Enterprises.
The FHFA paper notes that these strategic goals and plans are consistent with each of the housing finance reform options identified in a February 2011 Obama administration report to Congress, as well as "leading legislative proposals." However, the paper also reminds legislators that fully addressing the Enterprises and the federal government's role in the secondary mortgage market will require congressional action, which should not be impaired by the FHFA's immediate pursuit of its strategic goals. For additional details on the strategic plan, please click here.
CFPB Turns Attention to Bank Overdraft Practices
On February 22, the CFPB launched an inquiry into overdraft practices with a coordinated release of information. The official announcement came during a CFPB Roundtable discussion at Hunter College in New York City. At that event, CFPB Director Richard Cordray drew similarities between overdraft practices and payday lending, which was the subject of a prior CFPB field event. Mr. Cordray expressed his “concern[] that overdraft practices employed by some banks unnecessarily increase consumer costs by making it difficult to anticipate and avoid fees.” He also identified some practices the CFPB views as problematic, including those related to (i) ordering of transactions, (ii) missing or confusing information, and (iii) misleading marketing. To address those and other practices, the CFPB issued a request for information from consumers, third party processors, and financial institutions, regarding overdraft programs and their costs, benefits and risks to consumers. The CFPB also released and is seeking comment on a prototype “penalty fee box” that would appear on checking account statements to highlight overdraft activity and fees. Finally, the CFPB is collecting data from several large banks to inform a study of the effects of prior federal regulations and guidance regarding overdraft fees. While conducting these initiatives, Director Cordray promised to employ the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement authorities to take action against financial institutions engaged in deceptive marketing related to overdrafts.
California Class Action Suits Allege Mislabeled Privacy Policy Links
In the last three months, five class action cases filed in California under the state’s “Shine a Light” statute have alleged that online businesses, including Microsoft Corp., CBS Interactive Inc., and Time Inc., failed to properly label links to their privacy policies. The five suits, all filed by a single firm, claim $3,000 per violation plus additional damages (Boorstein v. CBS Interactive Inc., Cal. Super. Ct., No. 476015, complaint filed 12/28/11; Boorstein v. Men's Journal LLC, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 475697, complaint filed 12/22/11; Miller v. Hearst Communications, C.D. Cal., No. 12-733, complaint filed 1/27/12; Murray v. Time Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 12–431, notice of removal filed 1/26/12; Smith v. Microsoft Corp., Cal. Super. Ct., No. 476413, complaint filed 1/9/12). The "Shine a Light" statute, in effect since 2005, requires businesses that collect California residents’ personal data and then share that data for marketing purposes to disclose or allow consumers to opt out of that sharing. Each defendant company allegedly mislabeled links to their online privacy policies or otherwise failed to meet the statute’s requirements.
Colorado State Court Rules Payday Lending Firms Affiliated with Native American Tribes are Immune from State Investigation and Prosecution
On February 13, the District Court for the City and County of Denver ruled that online payday lending businesses affiliated with two Native American tribes are protected from state investigation and enforcement. Colorado v. Cash Advance, No. 05-1143 (Col. Dist. Ct. Feb. 13, 2012). For several years the state had been trying to investigate and regulate the payday lending practices of the firms and brought suit to enforce subpoenas and cease and desist orders issued with regard to the firms’ operations. The state claimed that, among other things, the businesses were in violation of state laws that require firms doing business with Colorado consumers over the internet to have a valid state license. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the firms are immune from those subpoenas and enforcement orders under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. On appeal, the state supreme court held that tribal sovereign immunity applies to state investigative subpoena enforcement actions and remanded the case to the trial court for additional inquiry into the immunity status of the tribes’ affiliated businesses. On remand, the state claimed that sovereign immunity did not apply because the firms engaged non-tribal members in some of their operations and designed their affiliation with two online payday lending firms to avoid state regulation and oversight, a practice sometimes referred to as “rent-a-tribe.” After discovery, the court disagreed and ruled for the defendant tribes and their businesses, holding that the companies are extensions of the tribes and therefore immune from state investigatory actions and judicial enforcement.