Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On December 26, Fannie Mae issued temporary guidance relating to loan origination and loan servicing during the government shut down. According to LL-2018-06, loans are not rendered ineligible for purchase solely because a borrower’s employment is directly impacted by the shutdown. However, the lender must still be able to obtain a verbal verification of employment prior to the time of loan delivery in order for the loan to be eligible for sale to Fannie Mae. For military borrowers, the lender can use a Leave and Earnings Statement dated within 30 calendar days prior to the note date in lieu of a verbal verification. Additionally, among other things, if a borrower is furloughed on or after closing, the loan remains eligible for sale to Fannie so long as the lender has obtained all required documentation, including the verbal verification.
The guidance also addresses government verifications of certain information. For IRS transcripts, Fannie Mae notes that Desktop Underwriter will continue to process tax transcript verification reports received prior to the shutdown, but will not able to access new verification reports for validation. As a result, requests for verification reports may remain in pending status until normal government operations resume. Further, Fannie Mae is temporarily allowing lenders to obtain verification of a borrower’s social security number, if needed, prior to the delivery of the loan. If the number cannot be verified prior to delivery, however, the loan will not be eligible for sale. With respect to flood insurance, Fannie Mae advises that it will purchase loans secured by properties located in Special Flood Hazard Areas so long as the loans meet certain conditions, including proof the borrower has completed an application for the insurance and paid the initial premium. Lenders are obligated to have a process in place to identify any mortgaged properties that do not have proper evidence of active flood insurance, or where an increase in coverage or renewal of existing policies would have occurred during the shutdown, and to make sure coverage is obtained once the shutdown ends. Finally, with respect to loan servicing, servicers are authorized to offer forbearance plans to assist borrowers who cannot make their regular monthly payment as a result of the shutdown
Fannie Mae notes that additional guidance will be released if the shutdown lasts “for a prolonged period.”
5th Circuit: Loan originators cannot be liable for loan servicers’ violations of RESPA loss mitigation requirements
On December 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that a mortgage loan originator cannot be held vicariously liable for a loan servicer’s failure to comply with the loss mitigation requirements of RESPA (and its implementing Regulation X). According to the opinion, in response to a foreclosure action, a consumer filed a third-party complaint against her loan servicers and loan originator alleging, among other things, that the loan servicers had violated Regulation X’s requirement that a servicer evaluate a completed loss mitigation application submitted more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale. In subsequent filings, the consumer clarified that the claims against the loan originator were for breach of contract and vicarious liability for one of the loan servicer’s alleged RESPA violations. The district court dismissed both claims against the loan originator and the consumer appealed the dismissal of the RESPA claim.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for two independent reasons. First, the 5th Circuit noted it is well established that vicarious liability requires an agency relationship and determined the consumer failed to assert facts that suggested such a relationship existed. Second, in an issue of first impression at the circuit court stage, the court ruled that, as a matter of law, the loan originator could not be vicariously liable for its servicer’s alleged violations of RESPA, as the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions only impose loss mitigation requirements on “servicers,” and therefore only servicers could fail to comply with those obligations. The appellate court reasoned that Congress explicitly imposed RESPA duties more broadly in other sections (using the example of RESPA’s prohibition on kickbacks and unearned fees that applies to any “person”), but chose “a narrower set of potential defendants for the violations [the consumer] alleges.” The court concluded, “the text of this statute plainly and unambiguously shields [the loan originator] from any liability created by the alleged RESPA violations of its loan servicer.”
State Attorneys General fine national bank $575 million for incentive compensation, mortgage and auto lending practices
On December 28, a national bank reached a $575 million multistate settlement with 50 states and the District of Columbia. Among other things, the settlement resolves allegations that have been the subject of previous litigation concerning the bank’s incentive compensation sales program (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as allegations involving certain practices related to mortgage rate-lock extension fees, auto loan force-placed insurance policies, and guaranteed asset/auto protection products. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank reached a settlement last year with the CFPB and the OCC to resolve allegations concerning its auto and mortgage lending practices, which were previously discontinued and for which voluntary consumer remediation was initiated by the bank.
On December 26, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), fining a broker-dealer $10 million for failing to establish and enforce an anti-money laundering (AML) program that complies with Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulation requirements. According to FINRA, alleged failures in the firm’s automated AML surveillance system allowed transactions from countries with “high money laundering risk” to flow through the financial system from January 2011 through at least April 2016. Furthermore, the firm allegedly failed to (i) devote sufficient resources to reviewing suspicious transactions; (ii) adequately monitor customers’ penny stock trades and deposits for suspicious activities; and (iii) adequately monitor and conduct risk-based reviews of correspondent accounts of certain foreign financial institutions.
The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement, but agreed to address identified deficiencies in its programs. FINRA further noted that the firm “has taken extraordinary steps and devoted substantial resources since 2013 to expand and enhance its AML policies and procedures.”
On December 26, the SEC announced a settlement with a national bank to resolve allegations that the bank mishandled the pre-release of American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)—U.S. securities that represent shares in foreign companies. The SEC noted in its press release that ADRs can be pre-released without the deposit of foreign shares only if: (i) the brokers receiving the ADRs have an agreement with a depository bank; and (ii) the broker or the broker's customer owns the number of foreign shares that corresponds to the number of shares the ADR represents. The SEC alleged that the bank improperly provided thousands of pre-released ADRs where neither the broker nor its customers possessed the required shares. According to the SEC’s order, the bank’s alleged practice of allowing pre-released ADRs, that were in many instances not backed by ordinary shares, violated the Securities Act of 1933. The bank has neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations, but has agreed to pay more than $71 million in disgorgement, roughly $14.4 million in prejudgment interest, and an approximate $49.7 million penalty. The SEC’s order further acknowledges the bank’s cooperation in the investigation and implementation of remedial measures.
On December 26, 2018, a Brazilian electric utilities company entered into an administrative order to settle the SEC’s claims that the company violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA and agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $2.5 million.
The company, which is majority-owned by the Brazilian government, is alleged to have – through former officers of its nuclear power generation subsidiary – rigged bids and paid bribes through private construction companies in relation to construction of a nuclear power plant in Brazil. This matter was first announced publicly in October 2016 when the company hired outside counsel to conduct an internal investigation into related conduct.
In entering into this administrative order, the SEC consider the company’s cooperation efforts, including sharing facts discovered in its internal investigation and producing and translating related documents, as well as its efforts towards remediation, including discipline of involved employees, enhancement of internal accounting controls and compliance functions, and adoption of new anti-corruption policies and procedures.
Previous coverage can be found here.
On December 26, 2018, an American communication technology company (the company) entered into an administrative order to settle claims by the SEC that the company violated the books and records and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA. The alleged conduct involved improper payments made through distributors and resellers its subsidiary in China (the subsidiary) to Chinese government officials from 2006 through 2014 in an effort to obtain business from public sector customers.
According to the administrative order, at the instruction of the Vice President of the subsidiary, sales personnel used a sales management system outside of the U.S.-based company-approved database to parallel-track sales to public sector customers in China. The scheme involved providing discounts to distributors and resellers that were used to cover the costs of payments to Chinese government officials. These discounts were not passed on to the end customer, and the purpose of those discounts was not tracked in the company-approved database. The subsidiary's sales personnel were also instructed by the VP to use non-company email addresses when discussing and arranging these deals.
Pursuant to the administrative order, the company will pay to the SEC approximately $10.7 million in disgorgement, $1.8 million in prejudgment interest, and a $3.8 million civil monetary penalty.
On the same day, DOJ released a December 20, 2018 declination letter settling its investigation of the same conduct. Pursuant to the declination letter, the company agreed to disgorge approximately $10.15 million to the U.S. Treasury Department and $10.15 to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Consumer Fraud Fund.
In settling these matters, both the SEC and DOJ cited the company’s identification of the misconduct, thorough internal investigation conducted by outside counsel, prompt voluntary disclosure, full cooperation, and remediation efforts. The company’s lauded cooperative efforts included making certain employees available for interviews, as well as producing all requested documents and translating large volumes of those documents from Mandarin to English. The remedial efforts cited included termination of eight employees and discipline of eighteen others, termination or reorganization of certain channel partner relationships, enhancement of third party oversight, and improvements to anticorruption and related trainings provided to China-based employees (certain materials of which had previously not been translated into Mandarin, the first language of many of the subsidiary employees).
On December 20, the U.S. Treasury Department issued the National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (the National Illicit Finance Strategy). Pursuant to Sections 261 and 262 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA), the National Illicit Finance Strategy describes current U.S. government efforts to combat domestic and international illicit finance threats in the areas of terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering, and discusses potential risks, priorities and objectives, as well as areas for improvement. The document addresses the strengths of U.S. counter-illicit finance efforts, including the legal and regulatory framework, as well as efforts undertaken to improve the effectiveness of national safeguards currently in place due to changes in technology and emerging threats. Recent efforts include a working group formed earlier in December to explore ways to modernize the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering regulatory regime and encourage banks and credit unions to explore innovative approaches such as artificial intelligence, digital identity technologies, and internal financial intelligence units to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial threats when safeguarding the financial system (see previous InfoBytes coverage here).
On December 21, the New York governor signed A08783, which creates a digital currency task force to conduct a comprehensive review related to the regulation of cryptocurrencies in the state. The act requires the task force to issue a report by December 15, 2020, with recommendations to “increase transparency and security, enhance consumer protections, and to address the long-term impact related to the use of cryptocurrency.” The report will also contain a review of laws and regulations on digital currency, including those used by other states, the federal government, and foreign countries.
Maryland Court of Appeals holds state licensing requirement is a “statutory specialty” with 12-year statute of limitations
On December 18, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the licensing requirement, §12-302, of the Maryland Consumer Loan Law (MCLL) is a “statutory specialty” and causes of action under it are accorded a 12-year statute of limitations period. The decision results from a question of law posed to the appeals court by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland after consumers brought an action in the district court against a lender for alleged violations of the MCLL that occurred over three years before the lawsuit was filed. The lender claimed the action was time-barred under the state’s three-year general statute of limitations for civil actions, while the consumers argued the MCLL was an “other specialty,” which would provide a 12-year statute of limitations under state law. To answer the question, the appeals court applied a three-part test to determine whether the statute constituted an “other specialty”: (i) if the obligation sought to be enforced is imposed solely by statute; (ii) if the remedy pursued is authorized solely by statute; and (iii) if the civil damages sought are liquidated, fixed, or, by applying clear statutory criteria, are readily ascertainable. The appeals court analyzed the first and third prongs of the test as the parties agreed the second was not an issue. For the first prong, the court concluded that the MCLL’s licensing requirement was created and imposed solely by statute and not by common law. As for the third prong, the court agreed with the consumers that the need for fact-finding with regard to the monetary liability does not preclude “ready ascertainment.” Because all three elements of the test were satisfied, the court concluded the licensing requirement is a “statutory specialty” and is afforded a 12-year statute of limitations period.
- Buckley Webcast: Tips for this year’s FHA annual recertification and what the shutdown means
- Jessica L. Pollet to discuss "Your career is impacting your life..." at the Ark Group Women Legal Conference
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "RESPA-compliant marketing" at NEXT
- Daniel P. Stipano to provide "Update on AML/SAR reporting and enforcement" at an Mortgage Bankers Association webinar
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Dynamic customer due diligence and beneficial ownership from KYC to ongoing CDD and the new rule implementation" at the Puerto Rican Symposium of Anti-Money Laundering
- Jon David D. Langlois to discuss "Successors in interest updates" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "Keeping your head above water in flood insurance compliance" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "Servicing super session" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Moorari K. Shah to provide "Regulatory update – California and beyond" at the National Equipment Finance Association Summit
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from ABLV and other major cases involving inadequate compliance oversight" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "A year in the life of the CDD final rule: A first anniversary assessment" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference