InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie updates Covid-19 FAQs
On June 3, Fannie Mae updated its Covid-19 FAQs for sellers to reflect updates to the temporary purchase and refinance eligibility outlined in Lender Letter LL-2020-03. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Fannie Mae announced that borrowers are eligible to purchase a new home or refinance their mortgage if they are current on their mortgage—defined as having “made all mortgage payments due in the month prior to the note date of the new loan transaction by no later than the last business day of that month”—or if the mortgage is currently in a loss mitigation solution (the borrower must have made at least three timely payments as of the note date of the new transaction). The newly updated selling FAQs outline additional details of this policy, including (i) what is meant by “full payments” with regard to loss mitigation programs; (ii) whether the forbearance must be completed before a borrower can be eligible for a purchase or refinance transaction; and (iii) what sources of funds are eligible to be used to reinstate mortgages with missed payments.
CFPB provides E-Sign consent flexibility due to Covid-19
On June 3, the CFPB released a statement on temporary and targeted flexibility for credit card issuers regarding electronic provision of certain disclosures during the Covid-19 pandemic. The statement highlights that certain credit card issuers are receiving far more calls from consumers seeking relief as a result of the pandemic, but are unable to provide such relief without first providing certain written disclosures required by Regulation Z. Because such disclosures can only be provided electronically after consent sufficient under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) is obtained, credit card issuers may be unable to move quickly to assist consumers. To address this issue, the statement provides that the CFPB “will take a flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding card issuers’ electronic provision of disclosures required to be in writing for account-opening disclosures and temporary rate or fee reduction disclosures mandated under provisions governing non-home secured, open-end credit.”
Specifically, the Bureau states that it does not intend to cite a violation in an examination or bring an enforcement action against an issuer that, during a phone call, does not obtain the formal E-Sign consent required by Regulation Z to receive electronic written disclosures, as long as the issuer obtains both (i) oral consent to electronic delivery of the written disclosures, and (ii) oral affirmation of the consumer’s ability to access and review the electronic written disclosures. The Bureau states that it expects issuers to take “reasonable steps during the phone call to verify consumers’ electronic contact information,” including verifying the accuracy of email addresses already on file.
Special Alert: OCC adopts final rule addressing Madden
On Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks’ first day in that role, the OCC issued a final rule designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision.[1] As published in yesterday’s Federal Register, the rule, titled “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred,” provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” This rule contrasts with the Madden decision’s conclusion that a purchaser of a loan originated by a national bank could not charge interest at the rate permissible for the bank if that rate would be impermissible under the lower usury cap applicable to the purchaser. More specifically, the Madden court found that subjecting assignees to state usury law under these circumstances does not “significantly interfere” with the exercise of national bank powers -- the general preemption standard set forth in the Dodd Frank Act.[2]
SEC settles with blockchain company over unregistered ICO
On May 28, the SEC announced a settlement with a California-based blockchain services company resolving allegations that the company conducted an unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) of digital asset securities. According to the order, the company raised over $25 million by selling “Consumer Activity Tokens” to nearly 9,500 investors, including U.S. investors, to raise capital to “develop, administer, and market a blockchain-based search platform for targeted consumer advertising.” The company allegedly told investors that the tokens would increase in value and made the tokens available on third-party digital asset trading platforms after the ICO. However, the SEC found that the tokens constituted securities, and that the company allegedly violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by distributing the tokens without having the required registration filed or in effect, nor did it qualify for an exemption to the registration requirements.
The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a $400,000 penalty, and requires the company to disgorge $25.5 million and pay approximately $3.4 million in prejudgment interest. Additionally, the company is required to surrender all its remaining tokens to the fund administrator so they can be permanently disabled, publish notice of the order, and request the removal of the distributed tokens from all digital asset trading platforms.
California DBO takes action against company for PACE fraud
On May 27, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) filed an order to ban an Encino-based company from the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) industry for allegedly engaging in fraudulent behavior. According to the press release, the CDBO received 30 complaints from 2018 to 2019 alleging the company solicited homeowners by advertising a “free government program,” but used the homeowners’ personal financial information to submit contracts to PACE program administrators with forged electronic signatures. Additionally, complaints alleged various other fraudulent and illegal actions including, (i) the creation of false email accounts to have the PACE financing documents routed to the agents instead of the homeowners; and (ii) the impersonation of homeowners’ voices on state law required completion calls. The CDBO also asserts that the company sold products at three to five times the usual industry rate and used “high-pressure” sales tactics directed at the elderly and non-primary English speakers. In addition to the Desist and Refrain Order, which demands the company discontinue illegal practices and stop soliciting PACE contract, the CDBO notes that a similar but separate order will also be filed against the company president, who is a PACE solicitor agent.
Court rejects dismissal of CFPB claims against foreclosure relief services company
On May 20, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a foreclosure relief services company and its owner’s (collectively, “defendants”) motion to dismiss an action by the CFPB accusing the defendants of violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and Regulation O. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defendants, alleging that since 2014 the defendants made deceptive and unsubstantiated representations about the efficacy and material aspects of its mortgage assistance relief services, and made misleading or false claims about the experience and qualifications of its employees. The Bureau alleged that the defendants’ representations constituted abusive acts and practices because, among other things, consumers “generally did not understand and were not in a position to evaluate the accuracy of [the defendants’] marketing representations or the quality of the mortgage-assistance-relief services that [the defendants] sold.” Moreover, the Bureau claimed the defendants further violated Regulation O by charging consumers advance fees before rendering services. The defendants moved to dismiss the action.
The district court rejected all of the defendants’ arguments, concluding that the Bureau “as an organization and its establishment” are constitutionally permissible, and therefore, can bring enforcement actions against the company. The court also held that the Bureau adequately pleaded that the defendants’ were covered by the CFPA and Regulation O, as providers of “[a]udit and litigation documents to consumers, which Defendants claim will prevent foreclosure or modify the terms of [consumers] mortgage[s].” And lastly, the court held that the Bureau sufficiently alleged that the defendants took “unreasonable advantage of the consumer’s lack of understanding” of the material terms of the product they were selling.
FDIC releases April enforcement actions
On May 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. The FDIC issued 23 orders and 2 notices of changes, which “consisted of 12 Section 19 orders, 3 orders of prohibition, 1 order to pay, 3 consent orders, 1 order to cease and desist, 4 orders terminating consent orders, and 1 order terminating an order of restitution.” Among the actions is a cease and desist order and civil money penalty issued against a Louisiana-based bank for allegedly violating the Bank Secrecy Act, EFTA, RESPA, TILA, the National Flood Insurance Program, and HMDA. The order follows the issuance of a 2019 recommended decision on remand by an FDIC administrative law judge (ALJ), who also found that the bank failed to comply with a majority of the provisions outlined in a 2011 memorandum of understanding entered into with the FDIC two years prior to the filing of this action. Specifically, the recommended decision found that the bank, among other things, “violated the independence requirement of the FDIC’s rules and regulations pertaining to appraisals by allowing a lending officer originating loans to appraise the collateral underlying the loan,” and “allow[ing] a high ranking officer to repeatedly overdraw his bank account without being charged overdraft fees” in violation of Regulation O of the Federal Reserve Board. Other violations included that the bank failed to: (i) conduct independent property evaluations and appraisals; (ii) disclose unauthorized fees or investigate reports of erroneous charges; (iii) assess flood insurance needs or inform borrowers of force-placed flood insurance rules; (iv) file suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports; (v) implement a “meaningful compliance program” to ensure the bank did not engage in foreign financial transactions with prohibited persons identified by the Office of Foreign Assets Control; and (v) “conduct proper compliance training or maintain an effective audit program for consumer compliance matters.” The FDIC’s order affirmed the ALJ’s recommended decision to subject the bank to an order to cease and desist and pay a $500,000 civil money penalty.
Additionally, the FDIC entered a consent order against an Illinois-based bank relating to alleged weaknesses in its Bank Secrecy Act compliance program.
FHFA announces Fannie and Freddie LIBOR transition resources
On May 28, the FHFA announced the launch of new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) websites (see here and here), which are designed to provide key resources for lenders and investors as the GSEs transition from LIBOR. The LIBOR Transition Playbook and frequently asked questions describe key transition milestones and recommended actions related to the GSEs’ transition from LIBOR to the Alternative Reference Rates Committee’s preferred Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) before the anticipated cessation of LIBOR at the end of 2021. The playbook provides resources related to, among other things, single-family adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and mortgage-backed securities (MBS), as well as single-family credit risk transfer transactions, collateralized mortgage obligations, and multifamily ARMs, MBS and floating-rate loans, and credit risk transfers. The websites also provide details related to the transition of the GSEs’ Credit Risk Transfer (CRT) programs and their collateralized mortgage obligations.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on LIBOR here.
CFPB issues Covid-19 remittance rule FAQs
On June 2, the CFPB released Regulation E Remittance Rule FAQs related to the Covid-19 pandemic. The FAQs state that a provider’s failure to deliver remittance transfer funds to a designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability due to a government-mandated closure of commercial activity in response to Covid-19 would not be considered an error under the rule if the provider could not have reasonably anticipated the closure. The FAQs note that a provider would not be able to reasonably anticipate a closure, for example, if the closure of remittance transfer services was announced in the foreign country after the provider initiated the transfer, but before the guaranteed availability date.
The Bureau previously issued a policy statement (covered by InfoBytes here), which established a temporary exception allowing institutions providing remittance transfers to estimate fees to consumers in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. From July 1 until January 21, 2021, the Bureau will not cite supervisory violations or initiate enforcement actions against certain institutions for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates.
Oklahoma Department of Consumer Credit issues an extension to interim guidance regarding temporary operations from home or alternate locations
On June 1, the Oklahoma Department of Consumer Credit issued a Second Amended Interim Guidance that extends previous guidance permitting mortgage loan originators and employees of regulated entities to work from home or an alternate site, as long as certain data security precautions are taken (previously discussed here and here). The guidance was extended through July 5, 2020.