InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC and OCC expand comment period for CRA proposal
On February 19, the FDIC and the OCC jointly released a statement extending the public comment period for the proposed Community Reinvestment Act regulations by 30 days. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the two agencies initially released the notice of proposed rulemaking—which the agencies assert will provide clarity on what activities are eligible for CRA consideration—on December 12. The new comment deadline is April 8.
7th Circuit: Dialing system that cannot generate random or sequential numbers is not an autodialer under the TCPA
On February 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a dialing system that lacks the capacity to generate random or sequential numbers does not meet the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) under the TCPA. According to the 7th Circuit, an autodialer must both store and produce phone numbers “using a random or sequential number generator.” The decision results from a lawsuit filed by a consumer alleging a company sent text messages without first receiving his prior consent as required by the TCPA. However, according to the 7th Circuit, the company’s system—the autodialer in this case—failed to meet the TCPA’s statutory definition of an autodialer because it “exclusively dials numbers stored in a customer database” and not numbers obtained from a number generator. As such, the company did not violate the TCPA when it sent unwanted text messages to the consumer, the appellate court wrote.
Though the appellate court admitted that the wording of the provision “is enough to make a grammarian throw down her pen” as there are at least four possible ways to read the definition of an autodialer in the TCPA, the court concluded that while its adopted interpretation—that “using a random or sequential number generator” describes how the numbers are “stored” or “produced”—is “admittedly imperfect,” it “lacks the more significant problems” of other interpretations and is thus the “best reading of a thorny statutory provision.”
The 7th Circuit’s opinion is consistent with similar holdings by the 11th and 3rd Circuits (covered by InfoBytes here and here), which have held that autodialers require the use of randomly or sequentially generated phone numbers, as well as the D.C. Circuit’s holding in ACA International v. FCC, which struck down the FCC’s definition of an autodialer (covered by a Buckley Special Alert here). However, these opinions conflict with the 9th Circuit’s holding in Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, (covered by InfoBytes here), which broadened the definition of an autodialer to cover all devices with the capacity to automatically dial numbers that are stored in a list.
CSBS technology platform will modernize state examinations
On February 19, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced the launch of a technology platform called the State Examination System (SES) to increase transparency and collaboration with regulated entities. State regulators, who are the primary regulators of non-bank and fintech firms, can use the system for investigations, enforcement actions and complaints. According to the press release, “state regulators will be able to enhance supervisory oversight of nonbanks while making the process more efficient for regulators and companies alike.” Among other things, SES is designed to: (i) “[s]upport networked supervision among state regulators”; (ii) “[s]tandardize workflow, business rules and technology across states”; (iii) [f]acilitate secure collaboration between licensees and their regulators”; (iv) allow examiners to “focus…on higher risk cases”; and (v) promote efficiency by “[m]ov[ing] state supervision towards more multistate exams and fewer single-state efforts.” SES will be managed by the State Regulatory Registry, which also manages the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System.
SEC settles with blockchain company over unregistered ICO
On February 19, the SEC announced a settlement with a blockchain technology company resolving allegations that the company conducted an unregistered initial coin offering (ICO). According to the order, the company raised approximately $45 million from sales of its digital tokens to raise capital to develop a digital asset trade-testing platform and to build a cryptocurrency-related data marketplace. The SEC alleges that the company violated Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act because the digital assets it sold were securities under federal securities laws, and the company did not have the required registration statement 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 $500,000 penalty and requires the company to register its tokens as securities, refund harmed investors through a claims process, and file timely reports with the SEC.
New York AG settles with student debt relief companies
On February 18, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement between the State of New York and a student loan debt relief operation including five debt relief companies and one individual (defendants) in order to resolve allegations that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Federal Credit Repair Organizations Act, TILA, state usury laws, and various other state laws. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the New York attorney general brought the lawsuit in 2018 alleging that the defendants “engag[ed] in deceptive, fraudulent and illegal conduct…through their marketing, offering for sale, selling and financing” of debt relief services to student loan borrowers. The AG claimed that, among other things, the defendants allegedly (i) charged consumers who purchased the debt relief services illegal upfront fees; (ii) misrepresented that they were part of or working with the federal government; (iii) falsely claimed that fees paid by borrowers would be applied to borrowers’ student loan balances; and (iv) induced borrowers to enter into usurious financing contracts to pay for the debt relief services.
Under the terms of the agreement, the defendants—without admitting or denying the allegations—agreed to a judgment of $2.2 million, which will be suspended if the defendants promptly pay $50,000 to the State of New York and comply with all other provisions of the agreement. The defendants are also permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief product or service—or from assisting others in doing the same. Additionally, the defendants must request that any credit reporting agency to which the defendants reported consumer information in connection with the student loan debt relief services remove the information from those consumers’ credit files. The defendants also agreed not to sell, transfer, or benefit from the personal information collected from borrowers. According to the settlement, six additional defendants were not included in the agreement and the AG’s case against them continues.
District court denies auto lender’s “de minimis” $4 million TCPA class action settlement
On February 14, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the approval of a proposed $4 million class action settlement in a TCPA case based on a “confluence of a number of negative factors,” including that the court believed the defendant—a subprime auto lender—would be able to withstand a significantly higher judgement to compensate consumers allegedly harmed by its use of an automatic telephone dialing system. The complaint alleged that the defendant allegedly placed automated and prerecorded phone calls to class members on their cellphones in violation of the TCPA. In 2018, the parties reached a preliminary settlement that would give each of the 67,255 class members who opted into the settlement roughly $35.
In denying the approval, the court cited three primary concerns with the proposed settlement: “first, the lack of information available to counsel to inform their view and advise the class of the strengths and weaknesses of the case given the early posture in which the parties reached agreement; second, the emphasis on [the defendant’s] inability to pay more than $4 million when no underlying financial information was provided to the class members, compounded by the [c]ourt’s belief, after in camera review of the financials, that this statement is inaccurate; and third, the [c]ourt’s skepticism that $4 million is a fair settlement in this case, given that it will result in a de minimis per claimant recovery of $35.30.” Arguing that “de minimis class action recoveries, such as TCPA recoveries, may not be worth the costs they impose on our judicial system,” the court also noted that the TCPA provides for a private right of action and statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or actual monetary loss—whichever is greater), and does not impose a cap on statutory damages in class actions. Moreover, the court argued that the $35.30 that each class member would receive would likely not even cover the cell phone bill for one class member for one month and is, among other things, “simply trivial in light of a possible recovery of $500.”
Agencies finalize Call Report capital-related reporting revisions
On February 19, the FDIC issued FIL-11-2020 announcing the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC have finalized capital-related reporting revisions (see Federal Register notice and FIL-10-2020) to the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for certain banks (FFIEC 031, 041, 051) as well as the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101). Among other things, the final revisions include changes to the capital simplifications rule and the community bank leverage ratio rule, in addition to Call Report instructional revisions taking effect in 2021 concerning reporting home equity lines of credit that convert from revolving to non-revolving status. These reporting revisions are subject to approval by OMB.
Four trade groups sue Maine over privacy law
On February 14, four trade groups filed suit against Maine in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, alleging that a recently enacted state privacy law (covered by InfoBytes here) infringes the rights of Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The complaint claims that L.D. 946 “imposes unprecedented and unduly burdensome restrictions on ISPs’, and only ISPs’, protected speech,” and is “not remotely tailored to protecting consumer privacy.” Among other things, the trade groups claim that because the law only stifles the use of consumer data by ISPs and not by other similarly situated companies, it violates their First Amendment protected speech rights. The groups also argue that the Maine law is much stricter to ISPs than other state privacy laws which “provide opt-out rights for most consumer data and reserve opt-in consent for a narrow subset of sensitive personal information,” whereas L.D. 946 uses an opt-in system. L.D. 946 also restricts the ISPs’ use of non-sensitive information that is not personally identifying and prohibits the ISPs from providing customer discounts or rewards programs to consumers who opt-in to sharing information.
Treasury sanctions Russian company for doing business with Venezuela
On February 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended, against a Swiss-incorporated, Russian-controlled oil brokerage and its board chairman and president for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy. According to the press release, the company assisted Venezuela state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., in brokering, selling, and transporting Venezuelan petroleum products.
In connection with the designations, OFAC issued Venezuela General License (GL) 36, titled “Authorizing Certain Activities Necessary to the Wind Down of Transactions Involving [company].” GL 36, which expires on May 20, authorizes certain transactions and activities otherwise prohibited under E.O.s 13850 and 13857 that are required in order to wind down business with the company. Concurrently, OFAC issued a new Venezuela-related frequently asked question regarding GL 36, addressing the significance of OFAC’s designation of the company, and whether the E.O. 13850 blocking sanctions on the company apply to its corporate parent and affiliates. In its press release, OFAC added that “all property and interests in property of [the company] and [its president] that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the designated individual and entity, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC.”
Indiana Supreme Court: Statute of limitations begins when lender exercises optional acceleration clause
On February 17, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a lender’s action as time-barred, holding that under the state’s two statutes of limitation, “a cause of action for payment upon a promissory note with an optional acceleration clause can accrue on multiple dates”—one of which “is when a lender exercises its option to accelerate before a note matures.” According to the opinion, the consumer executed a promissory note and mortgage in 2007 and stopped making payments in 2008. The note was subsequently transferred to the lender, and in 2016, the lender accelerated the debt and demanded payment in full. The lender sued to recover the note in 2017. The consumer argued that the claim was barred by a six-year statute of limitations for a cause of action upon a promissory note under Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-2-9, and the trial court agreed, granting the consumer’s motion to dismiss. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, finding that the lender did not accelerate the debt within six years of the initial default, and clarified, on rehearing, that the relevant Uniform Commercial Code statute of limitations (Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-3.1-118(a)) should also apply.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s ruling, determining, among other things, that the six-year statute of limitations did not start running until the lender exercised the optional acceleration clause in 2016, which was well within the applicable statutes of limitations. “We find that. . .under either applicable statute of limitations, [the lender’s] claim is timely,” the Court wrote. “We thus reverse the trial court’s order dismissing [the lender’s] complaint and remand.”