InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Oregon releases guidance for credit unions during Covid-19
Oregon’s Division of Financial Regulation communicated with credit union CEOs regarding operational adjustments due to Covid-19. Among other things, the state requests notice if credit unions temporarily close branches, decide to offer special programs, or make public statements about their response to Covid-19. The letter also notes that examinations will continue to be conducted offsite.
New Jersey issues Bulletin No. 20-05 to encourage institutions to meet the financial needs of consumers affected by Covid-19
On March 19, the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance (Department) signed Bulletin No. 20-05 to encourage institutions to meet the financial needs of consumers affected by Covid-19. The Department also reminded institutions to provide prompt notice to the Department regarding changes to operating hours of branch locations. The Department also requested all notices, inquiries, correspondence, and applications be submitted electronically by e-mail to the appropriate contacts.
New Jersey issues Bulletin No. 20-04 to address the disruption resulting from Covid-19
On March 19, the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance (Department) signed Bulletin No. 20-04 encouraging regulated entities and individuals to take the following actions, consistent with safe and sound banking practices: (i) relaxing due dates for loan payments (of all types, including mortgage, commercial, student, and other consumer loans); (ii) extending grace periods; (iii) modifying terms on existing loans; (iv) easing credit card limits; (v) extending new credit; (vi) waiving late fees and other fees; (vii) allowing customers to defer or skip payments; and (viii) delaying the submission of delinquency notices to credit bureaus.
New Jersey issues bulletin permitting licensees to work from home due to Covid-19
On March 19, the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance (Department) signed Bulletin No. 20-06 setting forth the Department’s no-action position regarding licensure for certain branch office locations due to individuals temporarily working from home as a result of Covid-19. Licensees must submit a list of all individuals working from home, a certification that the individuals are working from home due to Covid-19, and a certification that the locations will maintain certain data security and privacy protections. The no-action position is effective through April 30. In addition, the Department requested prompt notice for any changes to the operating hours of branch locations.
Massachusetts DOB instructs licensees on temporary branch closures
On March 19, the Massachusetts Division of Banks issued guidance to licensees for temporary closures necessitated by Covid-19. Licensees are encouraged to provide alternative service options to customers when feasible and notify customers about closures and alternatives as soon as practicable. In addition, licensees should notify the Division of any closures, business disruptions or other significant Covid-19-related developments, including significant staff or liquidity shortages or issues with funding closed loans to consumers.
District court grants summary judgment in favor of bank in TCPA robocall suit
On March 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a large bank’s (defendant) motion for summary judgment in a proposed class action alleging that the plaintiff received an unsolicited telemarketing call. The plaintiff—who was himself a TCPA investigator for an attorney—was a long-time customer of the defendant when he answered a robocall from the defendant in March 2005. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant alleging that the robocall from the defendant violated the TCPA. In response, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which put forth three arguments: (i) plaintiff did not have Article III standing to sue because he was not injured by the call; (ii) the plaintiff had an existing business relationship with the defendant as a long-time customer; and (iii) the content of the call did not violate the law at the time of the call.
Here, the court determined that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to sue the defendant because he did not show an injury-in-fact as a result of the robocall. The court added, “notably, [p]laintiff does not assert, nor has he put forward any evidence to show, that he suffered nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, wasted time, invasion of privacy, or any other such injury.” Moreover, the court pointed to the plaintiff’s position and asserted that as a TCPA investigator, “he welcomed such calls.” The court additionally held that the plaintiff lacked statutory standing for similar reasons. As a customer of the defendant, the court stated that plaintiff’s claims were subject to the TCPA’s “established business relationship” exemption in effect at the time of the call. The court agreed with the defendant’s argument that the call did not violate the TCPA prohibitions in effect at the time of the call. Further, the court found that the call’s content did not violate FCC regulations at the time for “abandoned telemarketing calls and dual-purpose calls.” As a result, the court dismissed as moot the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and his motion to file a second amended complaint.
District court grants bank’s partial summary judgment in FDIC RMBS suit
On March 11, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the securities arm of a large banking group (defendant) in an FDIC suit alleging securities violations in the offering, sale, or distribution of residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) certificates to a now failed bank. As receiver for the failed bank, the FDIC filed suit in 2007 concerning, among other things, two senior certificates purchased by the failed bank. The FDIC alleged that the defendant omitted key facts and made numerous false statements of material fact to sell RMBS certificates to the failed bank and additionally performed due diligence on the underlying loans, thus participating in the distribution of the certificates. The agency further alleged that although the defendant “did not directly purchase or sell the senior certificates, [the defendant] is still an underwriter as defined under the Securities Act because of its ‘direct or indirect participation’ in the distribution of the senior certificates.”
The court sided with the defendant, finding that even though its “due diligence and review of prospectus supplements helped facilitate the securities offerings, those activities do not involve the purchase, offer, or sale of the securities and thus are not part of their distribution.” The court reasoned that the prospectus supplements of the senior class certificates specifically state that the defendant was only an underwriter for the subordinated class certificates and not for the senior class certificates purchased by the failed bank. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the two claims with respect to the senior certificates.
Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions issues guidance to payday lenders
On March 18, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) announced the issuance of emergency guidance on character and fitness requirements for all payday and licensed lenders doing business in Wisconsin. The DFI cautions payday and licensed lenders that increasing interest rates, fees, or any costs of borrowing in response to the Covid-19 crisis may result in license suspension or revocation. The emergency guidance also encourages the reduction of rates and fees “as low as operational expenses and sound lending practices allow.”
Alabama Securities Commission provides temporary relief for certain financial professionals
On March 19, the Alabama Securities Commission (ASC) issued an emergency order temporarily exempting certain financial professionals (i.e. broker-dealers, investment advisers, and their registered agents or representatives) who are not registered or notice filed with the ASC and who have been displaced from their ordinary business locations from the registration and filing requirements of the Alabama Securities Act, subject to certain conditions. The emergency order also provides broker-dealers, state registered investment advisors and federal covered investment advisers with relief from the requirement to obtain physical signatures on Forms U4 under the Alabama Securities Act and related regulations, subject to certain conditions. Further, the emergency order permits investment advisors registered with the ASC to perform any of the Form ADV filing, updating and customer delivery requirements set forth by the Alabama Securities Act and related regulations up to 45 days after such action is due to be performed. The emergency order will remain in effect until April 30, 2020, unless extended or rescinded.
Michigan directs licensees to provide Covid-19 response summary by March 20
On March 18, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services circulated a notice to all Michigan consumer finance licensees and registrants requiring them to provide a summary of the actions that they have taken in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The notice provides a series of questions for licensees and registrants to include in their summaries. The deadline for submitting the summary is 5:00 p.m. on March 20 (slightly more than 48 hours from the issuance of the notice). The summary must be submitted via email to DIFS-OCFInquiriesandInfo@michigan.gov.
However, we understand from DIFS personnel that an in-depth response is not expected, and that the agency is primarily concerned with understanding licensees’ and registrants’ plans so that they can better address related inquiries from consumers.