InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division says repurchase obligations not limited to defaulted loans
On September 17, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant partial summary judgment in favor of four residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts (plaintiffs) on breach of contract allegations related to pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) repurchase obligations. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court correctly denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the seller of the mortgage loans (defendant). At issue were PSAs—entered between the plaintiffs and the defendant—containing a “repurchase protocol,” which dictate that the defendant is required to “cure, substitute, or repurchase” any defective loans “within 120 days of the earlier of the discovery by the defendant . . . or [the defendant’s] receipt of written notice from any party of a breach of any representation or warranty in the PSAs which ‘materially and adversely affects’ the interest of certificateholders in any mortgage loan.” The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which, among other things, sought dismissal of claims related to the defective loans that the defendant argued were not specifically identified in timely breach notices. According to the appellate court, the trial court had correctly held that the trustee had delivered “timely presuit letters” concerning the defective loans that were placed in the trusts and had provided sufficient “notice that the breaches plaintiffs were investigating might uncover additional defective loans for which claims would be made.” The appellate court also agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment to the extent that it sought a ruling that a breach that “materially and adversely” affects the certificateholders’ interest—as outlined in the repurchase protocol—is not limited to loans in default, but also “applies to any breach that ‘materially increased a loan’s risk of loss.’” Further, the appellate court also concurred with the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and deny the defendant’s motion concerning the use of statistical sampling to prove breach of contract claims for both liability and damages. However, both courts agreed that the defendant will have an opportunity to raise those arguments if it chooses to challenge the sample size or the loans chosen as part of the sample.
SEC, CFTC join other regulators in approving Volcker Rule revisions
On September 18, the SEC announced the approval of 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 final revisions were approved by the OCC and FDIC at the end of August, and the Federal Reserve Board is expected to adopt the changes in the near future. In approving the revisions, Chairman Jay Clayton stated that the SEC collaborated with the other federal regulatory agencies to ensure the changes would “effectively implement statutory mandates without imposing undue burdens on participants in our markets, including imposing unnecessary costs or reducing access to capital and liquidity.” Chairman Clayton emphasized that the revisions draw on the agencies’ “collective experience in implementing the rule and overseeing compliance in our complex marketplace over a number of years.”
Earlier, on September 16, the CFTC announced a 3-2 vote to approve the final revisions. Commissioner Tarbert stated that the final revisions would provide banking entities and their affiliates with “greater clarity and certainty about what activities are permitted under” the Rule as well as reduce compliance burdens. In voting against the approval, Commissioner Behnam issued a dissenting statement expressing, among other things, concerns about “narrowing the scope of financial instruments subject to the [] Rule,” which would limit the Rule’s scope “so significantly that it no longer will provide meaningful constraints on speculative proprietary trading by banks.” Commissioner Berkovitz also dissented, arguing that the revisions “will render enforcement of the [R]ule difficult if not impossible by leaving implementation of significant requirements to the discretion of the banking entities, creating presumptions of compliance that would be nearly impossible to overcome, and eliminating numerous reporting requirements.” Commissioner Berkovitz also criticized the rulemaking process that led to the final revisions, arguing that a number of the changes were not adequately discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking process, including amendments to the “accounting prong” and the rebuttable presumption of proprietary trading.
CFPB will continue to publish consumer complaint data
On September 18, the CFPB announced changes to its Consumer Complaint Database (CCDB), stating that it would continue the publication of consumer complaints, data fields, and narrative descriptions. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in March 2018, the Bureau issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking feedback on potential changes that could be implemented to the Bureau’s public reporting of consumer complaint information, including the data fields provided in the CCDB. In June 2018, then-acting Director, Mick Mulvaney, noted the Bureau was in the process of reviewing whether or not the CCDB would continue to be publicly available (covered by InfoBytes here.) The Bureau noted that it received nearly 26,000 comments from a wide array of stakeholders in response to the RFI and after considering all input, the decision was made to continue the “publication of complaints with enhanced data and context that will benefit consumers and users of the database while addressing many of the concerns raised.” Specifically, the CCDB will now (i) more prominently acknowledge that the CCDB is not a statistical sample of consumers’ experiences in the marketplace; (ii) highlight the availability of answers to common financial questions to help inform consumers before they submit a complaint; and (iii) highlight consumers’ ability to contact the financial institution directly. Additionally, in the coming months the Bureau plans to, among other things, explore the expansion of a company’s ability to respond publicly to individual complaints in the database and look for additional ways to put complaint data in context, such as incorporating product or service market share and company size.
Special Alert: California Legislature passes several amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act and other privacy-related bills
Lawmakers in California last week amended the landmark California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA or the Act), 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. While the amendments, which California Governor Gavin Newsom must sign by October 13, leave the majority of the consumer’s rights intact, certain provisions were clarified — including the definition of “personal information” — while other exemptions were added or clarified regarding the collection of certain data that have a bearing on financial services companies.
This Special Alert provides an overview and status update of CCPA-related and other privacy bills that were recently considered by the California legislature.* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have any questions about the CCPA or other related issues, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security practice page, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.OFAC settles with London bank for Sudanese sanctions violations
On September 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $4,000,000 settlement with a London-based commercial bank for 72 alleged violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (SSR). The settlement resolves allegations that between September 2010 and August 2014, the bank processed 72 bulk funding payments totaling $190,700,000 related to Sudan, which involved transactions processed to or through U.S. financial institutions in apparent violation of the SSR, which prohibits U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, from processing such transactions. OFAC notes that it lowered the penalty to $4,000,000 from the proposed $228,840,000, in light of the bank’s operating capacity and the fact that it represented that it ceased the conduct at issue.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various mitigating factors including that (i) OFAC has not issued a violation against the bank in the five years preceding the earliest date of the transactions at issue; (ii) the bank fully cooperated with the investigation into the alleged violations, including by entering into a statute of limitations tolling agreement and agreeing to extend the agreement; (iii) the bank provided significant investigative leads regarding a foreign financial institution that hosted an account involved in processing the transactions; and (iv) the bank undertook several remedial measures in response to the alleged violations, such as exiting the Sudanese market in 2014, hiring new senior management, and implementing improvements to its compliance program.
OFAC also considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the bank exhibited “reckless disregard" for U.S. sanctions regulations when it entered the Sudanese market; (ii) the bank ignored warning signs that it may have been violating U.S. law; and (iii) several of the bank’s senior managers were aware of and involved in the conduct giving rise to the alleged violations.
NYDFS names first Student Advocate and Director of Consumer Advocacy
On September 17, NYDFS announced that Winston Berkman-Breen has been appointed as the agency’s first-ever Student Advocate and Director of Consumer Advocacy. Prior to joining NYDFS, Berkman-Breen was a Justice Catalyst Fellow and Staff Attorney with the Consumer Protection Unit at the New York Legal Assistance Group, where he represented low-income New York consumer borrowers in state and federal court against lenders and debt collectors. In his new role with NYDFS, Berkman-Breen “will advocate on behalf of students and serve as a liaison between DFS and New York consumers with concerns,” including reviewing and analyzing complaint data from student borrowers to recommend appropriate action by the regulator.
Kraninger tells Supreme Court CFPB structure is unconstitutional
On September 17, the DOJ and the CFPB filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove the Bureau’s single Director violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The brief was filed in response to a petition for a writ of certiorari by a law firm, contesting the May decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that (i) the Bureau’s single-director structure is constitutional, and that (ii) the district court did not err when it granted the Bureau’s petition to enforce a law firm’s compliance with a 2017 civil investigative demand (CID) (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The brief cites to a DOJ filing in opposition to a 2018 cert petition, which also concluded that the Bureau’s structure is unconstitutional by infringing on the president’s responsibility to ensure that federal laws are faithfully executed, but urged the Court to deny that writ as the case was a “poor vehicle” for the constitutionality consideration (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
In contrast to the December brief, the DOJ now asserts that the present case is a “suitable vehicle for resolving the important question,” noting that only the constitutional question was presented to the Court and the 9th Circuit has stayed its CID mandate until final disposition of the case with the Court. Moreover, the government argues that until the Court resolves the constitutionality question of the Bureau’s structure, “those subject to the agency’s regulation or enforcement can (and often will) raise the issue as a defense to the Bureau’s efforts to implement and enforce federal consumer financial law.” While the Bureau previously defended the single-director structure to the 9th Circuit, the brief notes that since the May decision was issued, “the Director has reconsidered that position and now agrees that the removal restriction is unconstitutional.”
On the same day, Director Kraninger sent letters (here and here) to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supporting the argument that the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove the Bureau’s single Director, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. Kraninger notes that while she is urging the Court to grant the pending petition for certiorari to resolve the constitutionality question, her position on the matter “does not affect [her] commitment to fulfilling the Bureau’s statutory responsibilities” and that should the Court find the structure unconstitutional, “the [Consumer Financial Protection Act] should remain ‘fully operative,’ and the Bureau would ‘continue to function as before,’ just with a Director who “may be removed at will by the [President.]’”
CFPB requests comments on using Tech Sprints
On September 18, the CFPB published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on the use of Tech Sprints—forums which gather “regulators, technologists, financial institutions, and subject matter experts from key stakeholders for several days to work together to develop innovative solutions to clearly-identified challenges”—as a means to encourage regulatory innovation and collaborate with stakeholders on forming solutions to regulatory compliance challenges. The Bureau notes that Tech Sprints have been successfully used by the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority, which has organized seven Tech Sprints since 2016, resulting in a pilot project on digital regulatory reporting. The Bureau is interested in using Tech Sprints to, among other things: (i) leverage cloud solutions and other developments that may reduce or modify the need for regulated entities to transfer data to the Bureau; (ii) continue to innovate the HMDA data submission process; (iii) identify new technologies and approaches that can be used by the Bureau to provide more cost-effective oversight of supervised entities; and (iv) reduce other unwarranted regulatory compliance burdens. Comments must be received by November 8.
Washington DFI proposes MLO and student loan servicer amendments
On September 24, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) will hold a rulemaking hearing to discuss amendments concerning mortgage loan originators (MLOs) as well as provisions related to student loan servicers. The proposed amendments will amend rules impacting Washington’s Consumer Loan Act and the Mortgage Broker Practices Act, including those related to the regulation of student loan servicers under a final rule that went into effect January 1. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on DFI’s adoption of amendments concerning student loan servicers here.) According to DFI, the proposed amendments are currently scheduled to take effect November 24.
Among other proposed changes impacting MLOs are additional disclosure requirements concerning interest rate locks. Under the proposed amendments, MLOs will be required to provide a new interest rate lock agreement to a borrower within three business days of a locked interest rate change. Valid reasons for a change in a locked interest rate include changes in loan value, credit score, or other factors that may directly affect pricing. The amendments will also permit MLOs to include a prepayment penalty or fee on an adjustable rate residential mortgage loan provided “the penalty or fee expires at least sixty days prior to the initial reset period.” Among other provisions, the amendments also stipulate that a loan processor may work on files from an unlicensed location provided the processor accesses the files directly from the licensed mortgage broker’s main computer system, does not conduct any of the activities of a licensed MLO, and the licensed MLO has in place safeguards to protect borrower information.
The proposed amendments also contain several changes applicable to student loan servicers regulated under the Consumer Loan Act, including that: (i) licensees servicing student loans for borrowers in the state “may apply to the director to waive or adjust the annual assessment amount”; (ii) licensees are required to disclose to all service members their rights under state and federal service member laws and regulations connected to their student loans; and (iii) student loan servicers must review all student loan borrowers against the Department of Defense’s database to ensure borrower entitlements are applied appropriately, and maintain written policies and procedures for this practice. The proposed amendments also state that compliance with federal law is sufficient for complying with several Washington requirements applicable to student loan servicers, including borrower payment provisions.
OFAC sanctions persons linked to corruption network in Venezuela
On September 17, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13850 against three individuals and 16 entities connected to two previously sanctioned Colombian nationals (covered by InfoBytes here) for enabling the Maduro regime “to corruptly profit from imports of food aid and distribution in Venezuela.” According to OFAC, the designated individuals are immediate family members with business connections to the sanctioned Colombian nationals “who are responsible for or complicit in, or have directly or indirectly engaged in, any deceptive or corrupt transaction or series of transactions with the Government of Venezuela or projects or programs administered by the Government of Venezuela.” The 16 designated entities, OFAC noted, are either owned or controlled by the designated individuals or one of the sanctioned Colombian nationals. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of the individuals and entities designated today, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by those individuals or entities, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC.” OFAC noted that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated entities and individuals. OFAC also referred financial institutions to Financial Crimes Enforcement Network advisories FIN-2019-A002, FIN-2017-A006, FIN-2017-A003, and FIN-2018-A003 for further information concerning the efforts of Venezuelan government agencies and individuals to use the U.S. financial system and real estate market to launder corrupt proceeds, as well as human rights abuses connected to corrupt foreign political figures and their financial facilitators.