InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court overturns foreign bribery conviction of former transportation and energy industry executive
On February 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut acquitted a British national and former executive of a French multinational transportation and energy company who had been convicted by a jury of FCPA violations, citing the government’s failure to prove at trial that the defendant was an “agent” of a domestic concern. The court left intact the jury’s money laundering verdicts against the defendant.
At trial in November 2019, the jury found the defendant guilty of one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, and six counts of substantive FCPA violations, as well as several money laundering counts, for his alleged involvement in a scheme by the company’s U.S. subsidiary, a power generation equipment manufacturer, to bribe Indonesian officials to obtain a power plant construction contract. The defendant filed a Rule 29(a) motion for a judgment of acquittal on all of the counts, arguing as to the FCPA counts that the government “failed to prove that he was an agent of [the subsidiary], the relevant domestic concern,” as required pursuant to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in the matter (covered by InfoBytes here). The trial court agreed, ruling that the evidence adduced at trial did not established that the subsidiary exercised “control over [the defendant’s] actions sufficient to demonstrate agency.” The court also granted the defendant’s in-the-alternative request for a new trial on the FCPA counts, in the event that court’s acquittal is later disturbed on appeal.
CFPB agrees to publish small-business data proposal by September
On February 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated settlement between plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC), and the CFPB to resolve a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plaintiffs argued that the Bureau’s failure to implement Section 1071—which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses—violates two provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, and has harmed the CRC’s ability to advocate for access to credit, advise organizations working with women and minority-owned small businesses, and work with lenders to arrange investment in low-income and communities of color.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Bureau has agreed to outline a proposal for collecting data and studying discrimination in small-business lending by September 15, and will also create a Small Business Advocacy Review panel by October 15 to prepare a report on the proposal within 60 days. The Bureau and the plaintiffs will also negotiate the deadlines for issuing the proposed rule, and, if an agreement cannot be reached, the parties will accept a court-supervised process for public reporting as well as for the development and issuance of the proposed and final rules.
Last November, the Bureau held a symposium covering small business lending and Section 1071. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) At the time, Director Kathy Kraninger noted in her opening remarks that the symposium would assist the Bureau with information gathering for upcoming rulemaking and emphasized that the Bureau is focused on a rulemaking that would not impede small business access to credit by imposing unnecessary costs on financial institutions.
OFAC settles with Swiss technology provider over sanctions violations
On February 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $7.8 million settlement with a Swiss provider of commercial telecommunications and information technology services to the civilian air transportation industry for 9,256 alleged violations of the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, between April 2013 and February 2018, the company allegedly provided commercial services and software subject to U.S. jurisdiction that may have benefitted certain airlines designated as specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs) pursuant to Executive Order 13224. These sanctioned airlines, OFAC noted, were member-owners in the company’s organization.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various mitigating factors, including (i) OFAC has not issued a violation against the company in the five years preceding the earliest transaction at issue; (ii) the company has undertaken remedial efforts to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future; (iii) the company cooperated with the investigation and executed multiple tolling agreements; and (iv) the company terminated the membership of the SGDT airlines.
OAC also considered various aggravating favors, including that (i) the company did not voluntarily self-disclose the alleged violations; (ii) the company had actual knowledge that it was providing services and software to SDGTs; (iii) the company’s actions “facilitated the operations of, or otherwise benefitted, airlines that were sanctioned for supporting terrorism”; and (iv) the company is “commercially sophisticated” with operations in every county in the world.
District court approves $18.5 million “rent-a-tribe” payday loan settlement
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted preliminary approval of an $18.5 million class action settlement to resolve allegations including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state usury and lending laws, and unjust enrichment against a financial technology company and a tribal corporation (defendants). According to the complaint, the company evaded state law usury limits by attempting to use the sovereignty of an Indian tribe (“rent-a-tribe”) in order to issue payday loans carrying annual percentage interest rates as high as 460 percent. While the defendants have denied any wrongdoing, they have agreed to, among other things, (i) cancel loans originated during the class period “on the basis that the debt is disputed”; (ii) no longer sell any outstanding loans and cease all collection activity; (iii) contact all consumer reporting agencies to request the permanent removal of any missed payment marks on loans originated during the class period; (iv) no longer sell class members’ personal identifying information to third parties; and (v) establish an $18.5 million fund to go towards costs, service awards, attorneys’ fees, and cash awards to class members.
CSBS seeks additional comments on money services businesses model law
On February 25, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a second request for comments on its draft model law language for money services businesses (MSB Model Law)—a primary part of CSBS’s Vision 2020 initiatives, which are intended to modernize state regulation of non-banks and fintech firms. (Vision 2020 InfoBytes coverage is available here.) According to CSBS, the draft MSB Model Law is comprised of “an integrated, 50-state licensing and supervisory system that recognizes standards across state lines.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October CSBS requested comments on the draft MSB Model Law language focusing on issue areas identified by the Fintech Industry Advisory Panel—Control, Activity and Exemption Definitions, Safety & Soundness, and Supervision. To finalize the areas of control and supervision, CSBS is seeking a second round of comments by March 11 to address the following issues identified from comments received during the first round.
- The industry expressed implementation concerns, with several parties noting, “that CSBS has no authority to implement the MSB Model Law in individual states and utilizing NMLS to drive consistency could compound differences between states.”
- The proposed control language failed to address uncertainty over the identification of control persons. Moreover, “attempts to exclude passive investors [did] not achieve the intended results.”
- The industry strongly suggested that parity language contained in the draft MSB Model Law—designed to facilitate state adoption—“was overly broad and would create uncertainty if used.”
- Definitions and exemptions fell short on several critical issues.
- The existence of proponents and detractors of both the safety and soundness proposals signaled a divergence within the industry as to the appropriate safeguards for customer funds.
CSBS notes that the MSB Model Law language will help harmonize operations between states. After the comment period ends, CSBS will prioritize the MSB Model Law for release, with control and coordination language expected to be released in the second quarter of 2020, followed by activities and exemption definitions in May. CSBS also plans to work with states and the industry on safety and soundness language, which may be released as early as August.
DoD changes interpretation of MLA related to Guaranteed Asset Protection contracts
On February 28, the Department of Defense (DoD) published an amendment to its December 2017 interpretive rule (2017 Rule) for the Military Lending Act (MLA) to withdraw a provision concerning the exemption of credit secured by a motor vehicle or personal property. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2017 Rule stated that additional costs may be added to an extension of credit so long as these costs relate to the object securing the credit, and not the extension of credit itself. In particular, the 2017 Rule stated that if credit is extended to cover “Guaranteed Auto Protection insurance or a credit insurance premium” the loan is covered by the MLA.
Following the publication of the 2017 Rule, the DoD received several requests to withdraw this Rule. The requests raised concerns that creditors “would be unable to technically comply with the MLA . . . because 232.8(f) of the [MLA] regulation would prohibit creditors from taking a security interest in the vehicle in those circumstances and creditors may not extend credit if they could not take a security interest in the vehicle being purchased.” The DoD stated that it found merit in these concerns and agreed that additional analysis is warranted. As a result, the DoD has withdrawn amended Q&A #2 from the 2017 Rule, and reinstated the 2016 Rule, which states that loans secured by “personal property” do not fall within the exception to “consumer credit” if the creditor “simultaneously extends credit in an amount greater than the purchase price.”
The amended interpretive rule is effective immediately.
CFPB holds symposium on consumer access to financial records
On February 26, the CFPB held a symposium covering consumer access to financial records and Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which deals with consumers’ rights to access information about their financial accounts. In her opening remarks, Director Kathy Kraninger pointed out three major changes in data aggregation since the OCC first warned banks about aggregating consumer data in 2001: (i) “the range of actors involved has expanded greatly”; (ii) “the extent to which they are using aggregated data to provide new products and services to millions of American consumers has grown in scope and scale”; and (iii) “technologies that enable safer and more efficient consumer authorized data sharing continue to evolve and proliferate.” According to the CFPB’s press release, the purpose of this symposium was “to elicit a variety of perspectives on the current and future state of the market for services based on consumer-authorized use of financial data.” The symposium consisted of three panels: (i) the current landscape and benefits and risks of consumer-authorized data access; (ii) market developments; and (iii) considerations for policymakers. Panel highlights include:
- Panel #1. The panelists considered potential benefits and risks for consumers around data access as well as the current landscape and benefits and risks of consumer-authorized data access. Panelists agreed that consumers should be given control over their data and also mentioned the need to educate consumers on data security. One panelist suggested that consumers need to understand not only the breadth of data that is accessible, but also what sensitive consumer data is being accessed, stored, and shared. She stressed that entities storing/accessing the data should be subject to the same supervision for cyber security standards as banks.
- Panel #2. The panel, which was comprised of experts in market developments and trends, including in the areas of cash flow underwriting and the business of securing consumer permission to access checking account data, discussed market developments in consumer-authorized data access. One panelist suggested that the U.S. is behind countries like Australia and Canada (where government intervention in the market clarified consumers’ legal right to access their financial data) because of a lack of connectivity and of data field availability in the U.S. Others discussed alternatives to the current screen scraping model—which does not advance transparency or traceability for consumers—such as a model based on an application program interface (API) (APIs can be used to combine data from various sources into one application). The panelists also discussed tokenized authentication as a possible middle phase when going from screen scraping to APIs. Panelists suggested that the market is making significant technological improvements, but lacks guidance from policymakers.
Panel #3. The third panel, focused on “where we are going and how we get there” or the “future of the market” and “considerations for policymakers on how to” ensure consumer data is safeguarded “while ensuring that consumers have continual access to their data.” Among other things, the panel discussed that regulatory intervention in this space has not been common. Many panelists also mentioned areas of uncertainty, including whether banks or consumers should decide the limitations of rights to consumer data. Regarding Section 1033, one panelist suggested that the bank view is that the CFPB does not need to regulate here and should not provide consumers and their agents with access to their information, however, any entities that have access to the data should be regulated. Others believed that banks and other financial institutions do not view Section 1033 correctly. Another area of uncertainty discussed was whether the consumer data right is an ownership right, and whether a bank can decide to whom it will or will not provide consumer data.
California AG says federal privacy legislation should not include preemption
On February 25, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sent a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, asking lawmakers to not preempt state laws as they draft federal privacy legislation. While Becerra expressed his appreciation for Congress’ efforts to address consumer privacy issues through legislation, he stated, “I encourage Congress to favor legislation that sets a federal privacy-protection floor rather than a ceiling, allowing my state—and others that may follow—the opportunity to provide further protections tailored to our residents.” To emphasize his position, Becerra provided an update on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which confers significant new privacy rights to California consumers concerning the collection, use, disclosure, and sale of their personal information by covered businesses, service providers, and third parties. The CCPA took effect January 1 but will not be enforced until July 1 following promulgation of the attorney general’s CCPA regulations. (See continuing InfoBytes coverage on the CCPA here.)
Becerra outlined several criteria for Congress to consider when drafting privacy legislation, encouraging Congress to “develop a final bill that builds on the rights afforded by [the] CCPA” as well as the additional guidance within the proposed regulations. These include the right for consumers to (i) “access, correct, and delete personal information that has been collected”; (ii) “minimize data collection, processing, and retention”; (iii) “data portability among services”; and (iv) “know what data is collected and processed and for what reasons.” In addition, Becerra stated that Congress should make clear that state attorneys general have “parallel enforcement authority” and that consumers are granted a private right of action to protect their rights.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On February 26, the CFPB released 10 new lender credit FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- “[L]ender credits include [(i)] payments, such as credits, rebates, and reimbursements, that a creditor provides to a consumer to offset” a consumer’s closing costs paid “as part of the mortgage loan transaction”; and (ii) “premiums in the form of cash” provided by a creditor “to a consumer in exchange for specific acts, such as for accepting a specific interest rate, or as an incentive, such as to attract consumers away from competing creditors.”
- Lender credits can be specific or non-specific. Non-specific lender credits are also known as “general lender credits.” The FAQs provide examples of both types of lender credit, and note that the distinction is important, as the two types of lender credits are disclosed differently on the Closing Disclosure.
- Creditors are not required to disclose “a closing cost and a related lender credit on the Loan Estimate if the creditor” absorbs the cost, but will be required to disclose these costs if they are “offsetting a cost charged to the consumer.”
- Creditors are required to disclose a closing cost and a related lender credit on a Closing Disclosure if they absorb the cost, “even if the consumer will not be charged for the closing cost.”
- To disclose lender credits on a Loan Estimate, creditors must calculate the sum “of all general and specific lender credits.”
- The nature of how lender credits are disclosed on a Closing Disclosure varies based on whether it is a general lender credit or a specific lender credit.
- The nature of how lender credits for a “no-cost loan” are disclosed varies based “on whether [a] creditor is absorbing closing costs as well as whether [it] is offsetting costs for specific settlement services.”
- When disclosing all of the closing costs charged to consumers, creditors must include a corresponding total amount of lender credits.
- Creditors that provide “a lender credit to offset a certain dollar amount of closing costs” without specifying which costs are providing a general lender credit. The FAQs outlines the disclosure process.
- Lender credits can only change in certain circumstances. Regulation Z does not limit increases in lender credits on a Loan Estimate, but a decrease in “lender credits disclosed on [a] Loan Estimate” may “lead to a violation of the good faith disclosure standard” if it is not tied to a triggering event outlined in Regulation Z.
Maryland orders vehicle title lender to pay $2.2 million
On February 21, the Maryland attorney general announced the issuance of a final order against a vehicle title lender, its owner, and related businesses (defendants) for making unlicensed and usurious consumer loans in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. According to the AG’s Consumer Protection Division (Division), the defendants offered consumers short-term, high-interest loans secured by a consumer’s motor vehicle title. The defendants allegedly kept the vehicle’s title, and, if the consumer failed to make a payment on the loan, would repossess or sell the vehicle. The Division claimed that these transactions, which the defendants claimed were pawn transactions, were actually consumer loans under Maryland law and carried interest rates of 360 percent. Under the terms of the final order, all loans the defendants made to Maryland consumers are void and unenforceable. The defendants are also ordered to, among other things, permanently cease engaging in unlicensed lending activities in the state and may not make loans that exceed the maximum allowed rate of interest, charge fees that are not permitted under state law, repossess secured vehicles or other personal property, or operate without requisite surety bonds. In addition, the defendants may not repossess consumers’ vehicles and must return any repossessed vehicles still in their possession. Finally, the defendants must pay at least $2.2 million in restitution to affected consumers, a $1.2 million civil penalty, a $50,000 claims procedure fee, and $73,000 in costs.