InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB temporarily extends threshold for open-end HMDA reporting
On October 10, the CFPB issued a final rule extending the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit under the HMDA rules for reporting data to January 1, 2022. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB temporarily increased the threshold for open-end lines of credit from 100 loans to 500 loans for calendar years 2018 and 2019. In May 2019, the Bureau proposed to extend that temporary threshold to January 1, 2022 and then permanently lower the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit after that date (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau then reopened the comment period for the May 2019 proposed rule with respect to the permanent open-end and closed-end coverage thresholds (covered by InfoBytes here) and now intends to issue a final rule addressing the permanent threshold at a later date. The Bureau also intends to address the other closed-end aspects of the May 2019 proposed rule at a later date.
The final rule adopts the temporary extension of the 500 open-end lines of credit until January 1, 2022, and incorporates, with minor adjustments, the interpretive and procedural rule issued in August 2018 (2018 Rule), which implemented and clarified that the HMDA amendments included in Section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule is effective January 1, 2022.
Federal Reserve joins other regulators in approving final revisions to Volcker Rule
On October 8, the Federal Reserve Board announced that all five federal financial regulators have signed off on final revisions to the Volker Rule (the Rule) to simplify and tailor compliance with Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act’s restrictions on a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the other four regulators approved the revisions last month. The revisions, which take full effect on January 1, 2021, clarify prohibited activities and simplify compliance burdens by tailoring compliance obligations to reflect the size and scope of a bank’s trading activities, with more stringent requirements imposed on entities with greater activity. The Fed noted that community banks are generally exempt from the Rule by statute, and stressed that the “revisions continue to prohibit proprietary trading, while providing greater clarity and certainty for activities allowed under the law,” and that the regulators “expect that the universe of trades that are considered prohibited proprietary trading will remain generally the same as under the agencies’ 2013 rule.” However, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard issued a dissenting statement, stressing that the revised Rule “weakens the core protections against speculative trading within the banking federal safety net,” and that the elimination without replacement of the “‘short-term intent’ test for firms engaged in higher levels of trading activities… materially narrows the scope of covered activities.” Brainard also expressed concern about “examiners’ ability to assess compliance with the final rule because it relies on firms’ internal self-policing to set limits to distinguish permissible market making from illegal proprietary trading, no longer requires firms to promptly report limit breaches and increases, and narrows the scope of the CEO attestation requirement.”
CFPB releases semi-annual report to Congress
On October 8, the CFPB issued its Dodd-Frank mandated semi-annual report to Congress covering the Bureau’s work from October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. In presenting the report, Director Kathy Kraninger stressed that the Bureau will continue to use the tools provided by Congress to protect consumers, including “vigorous and even-handed enforcement” with a focus on prevention of harm. Kraninger also reiterated her commitment “to strengthening the consumer financial marketplace by providing financial institutions clear ‘rules of the road’ that allow them to offer consumers a range of high-quality, innovative financial services and products.” Among other things, the report analyzed significant problems consumers face when obtaining consumer financial products and services, assessed actions taken by state attorneys general or state regulators relating to federal consumer financial law, and provided a recap of supervisory and enforcement activities.
While the Bureau did not adopt any significant final rules or orders during the preceding year, it did issue two significant notices of proposed rulemaking relating to certain payday lending requirements under the agency’s 2017 final rule covering “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans.” (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The Bureau also adopted several “less significant rules,” and engaged in significant initiatives concerning, among other things, (i) the disclosure of loan-level HMDA data; (ii) Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy proposed rulemaking; (iii) an assessment of significant rules, including the Remittance Rule, the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, and the RESPA Mortgage Servicing Rule; (iv) trial disclosure programs; (v) innovation policies related to no-action letters and product sandbox and trial disclosure programs; and (vi) suspicious activity reports on elder financial exploitation.
VA completes funding fee refund initiative
On October 8, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced that it completed its home loan funding fee refund initiative, returning more than $400 million to VA borrowers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in June the VA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report concluding that the VA improperly charged exempt veterans VA home loan funding fees. The OIG recommended that the VA develop a plan to, among other things, identify exempt veterans who were inappropriately charged funding fees and issue refunds. The VA reviewed nearly 20 years of loan originations, and identified 130,000 loans for potential refunds. VA notes that most fees were charged correctly, except for veterans whose exemption status changed after the closing of their loan. VA also announced changes to its program, in order to provide veterans with “the most up-to-date information possible on a Veteran’s funding fee exemption status,” including (i) enhancements to communications to veterans regarding the loan funding fee; (ii) new policy guidance directing lenders to inquire about a veteran’s disability claim status during the underwriting process; (iii) instructing lenders to obtain an updated Certificate of Eligibility for a veteran within three days of closing, if there was a disability claim pending; (iv) and procedural changes to ensure regulator internal oversight of funding fee activities.
California attorney general releases proposed CCPA regulations
On October 10, the California attorney general released the highly anticipated proposed regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA—which was enacted in June 2018 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), amended in September 2018, amended again in October 2019 (pending Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature), and is currently set to take effect on January 1, 2020 (Infobytes coverage on the amendments available here and here)—directed the California attorney general to issue regulations to further the law’s purpose. The proposed regulations address a variety of topics related to the law, including:
- How a business should provide disclosures required by the CCPA, such as the notice at collection of personal information, the notice of financial incentive, the privacy policy, and the opt-out notice;
- The handling of consumer requests made under the CCPA, such as requests to know, requests to delete, and requests to opt-out;
- Service provider classification and obligations;
- The process for verifying consumer requests;
- Training and recordkeeping requirements; and
- Special requirements related to minors.
The California attorney general will hold four public hearings between December 2 and December 5 on the proposed regulations. Written comments are due by December 6.
Notably, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking states that “the adoption of these regulations may have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states” and requests that the public consider, among other things, different compliance requirements depending on a business’s resources or potential exemptions from the regulatory requirements for businesses when submitting comments on the proposal.
Buckley will follow up with a more detailed summary of the proposed regulations soon.
New York AG sues student loan servicer for alleged PSLF and IDR failures
On October 3, the New York attorney general announced an action filed against a national student loan servicer for allegedly failing to properly administer the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and mishandling income driven repayment (IDR) plans. In the complaint, the attorney general asserts that, in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and New York law, the servicer, among other things, (i) failed to accurately count borrower’s PSLF-qualifying payments; (ii) failed to provide timely explanations to borrowers for PSLF payment count determinations; (iii) failed to process IDR repayment plan paperwork accurately and timely; and (iv) lacked clear policies and procedures for addressing errors, resulting in inconsistent treatment of borrowers. As a result of the servicer’s alleged actions, the attorney general argues that borrowers’ loan balances increased, time was extended on repayment plans, and improper denials of PSLF were issued. The attorney general is seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and civil money penalties.
District Court denies TCPA class certification involving collection calls placed to wrong number
On September 27, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied class certification in an action alleging violations of the TCPA, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the FDCPA brought against two companies. The action alleged that defendants used an automated telephone dialing system (autodialer) to call the plaintiff’s cell phone using a “prerecorded voice” while trying to contact a different individual to collect an unpaid debt. The defendants allegedly called the plaintiff’s cell phone number—which was listed as the other individual’s home phone number but had been reassigned to the plaintiff—multiple times even after the plaintiff informed the defendants that they had the wrong phone number. The plaintiff alleged violations of the TCPA, claiming the defendants placed the calls without first obtaining prior express consent.
Among other arguments, the defendants challenged the proposed class definition, which included more than 9,000 non-customers who allegedly received calls from the defendants and were identified by a code that the plaintiff contended is assigned to calls made to “bad phone” numbers. According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s expert developed a process for “identify[ing] calls where [autodialed] calls and prerecorded messages were made to cell phones after a record documenting an event consistent with a wrong number and/or a request to stop calling.” However, the defendants argued, among other things, that there are many different reasons why a “bad phone” code could be assigned to an account, and that the plaintiff’s assertions do not “satisfy the clearly ascertainable standard,” which must be met for class certification.
“Indeed, when presented with similar evidence regarding ‘wrong number’ call log designations, this [c]ourt recognized that ‘in the debt collection industry ‘wrong number’ oftentimes does not mean non-consent because many customers tell agents they have reached the wrong number, though the correct number was called, as a way to avoid further debt collection,’” the court stated. “The difficulty in ascertaining this information is compounded by the fact that the phone numbers at issue were initially provided to [the defendants] by consenting customers.”
District Court: New York’s interest on escrow law not preempted by National Bank Act
On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt a New York law requiring interest on mortgage escrow accounts. According to the opinion, plaintiffs brought a pair of putative class actions against a national bank seeking interest on funds deposited into their mortgage escrow accounts, as required by New York General Obligation Law § 5-601. The bank moved to dismiss both complaints, arguing that the NBA preempts the state law. The district court disagreed, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract can proceed, while dismissing the others. The court concluded there is “clear evidence that Congress intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.” As for the OCC’s 2004 preemption regulation, the court determined that there is no evidence that “at this time, the agency gave any thought whatsoever to the specific question raised in this case, which is whether the NBA preempts escrow interest laws,” citing to and agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America (which held that a national bank must comply with a California law that requires mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts, previously covered by InfoBytes here). Lastly, the court applied the preemption standard from the 1996 Supreme Court decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson, and found that the law does not “significantly interfere” with the banks’ power to administer mortgage escrow accounts, noting that it only “requires the Bank to pay interest on the comparatively small sums” deposited into the accounts and does not “bar the creation of mortgage escrow accounts, or subject them to state visitorial control, or otherwise limit the terms of their use.”
Washington Supreme Court: No reliance required under state securities act for RMBS claims
On October 3, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of an action against two international banks, concluding that the Securities Act of Washington (the Act) does not require a plaintiff to prove reliance on misleading statements during the purchase of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). According to the opinion, a Seattle Federal Home Loan Bank (FHL Bank) purchased over $900 million in RMBS from two international banks in 2005 and 2007, and in 2009, brought separate actions against the banks for allegedly making untrue or misleading statements in connection with the RMBS in violation of the Act. Specifically, the FHL Bank argued that the banks (i) made false statements concerning the loan-to-value ratios of the mortgage loans pooled in the RMBS; (ii) misrepresented the quality of their underwriting standards; and (iii) made false statements about the occupancy status of the mortgaged properties in the pool. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both banks, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that reasonable reliance on the misleading statements was required under the Act and that the FHL Bank did not rely on the statements from one bank and unreasonably relied on statements of the other. The FHL Bank appealed both decisions.
The Supreme Court consolidated the actions and disagreed with the appeals court conclusions in both. Specifically, the Court determined that the plain language under the Act is clear and “unambiguously does not require reliance.” The Court emphasized that the refusal to “read reliance into the statue” furthers the Act’s foal of protecting investors, ensuring “that those harmed when a seller misrepresents material facts can recover.”
In dissent, one state Justice argued that the Court’s opinion undermines nearly “50 years of case law and legislative acquiescence,” noting that federal courts “frequently resolve state securities fraud claims, and they too have consistently treated reliance as an element of our state-law claim.”
New York launches online whistleblower submission system
On October 2, New York’s Office of the Attorney General launched an online, open-source whistleblower submission system designed to enable witnesses to report information without compromising their identity. The N.Y.A.G. Whistleblower Portal allows whistleblowers to securely and anonymously submit information, while protecting individuals’ identity, location, and information provided. Whistleblowers will also be able to engage in two-way anonymous communications with the attorney general’s office through the portal. According to the press release, the attorney general’s office “is the first governmental agency in the United States to offer whistleblowers the capability to directly transmit documents and send and receive communications electronically without their identity being traceable.”