InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Iranian petroleum shipping network
On September 4, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 against a complex shipping network “that is directed by and financially supports the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its terrorist proxy Hizballah.” According to OFAC, the IRGC-QF managed to obfuscate its involvement in moving hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian oil over the past year through the use of the sanctioned shipping network for the benefit of illicit actors. The sanctioned shipping network includes 16 entities and 10 individuals, as well as 11 vessels identified as “as property in which blocked persons have an interest.”
As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these entities that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC noted that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated persons, and warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant financial transactions for any of the designated entities, they may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions. Additionally, OFAC issued a reminder that “the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran is sanctionable pursuant to E.O. 13846,” and released a new shipping advisory warning the maritime community of these types of schemes and the sanctions risks associated with blocked persons.
District Court says TCPA dismissal bid cannot rely upon Supreme Court ruling
On September 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a medical laboratory’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the company cannot use a Supreme Court ruling to avoid a proposed TCPA class action suit concerning allegations that it made unsolicited calls using an “autodialer.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss last December after it concluded that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the equipment used to make unsolicited calls qualified as an “autodialer.” The defendant argued, however, that the court should reconsider its decision in light of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling in which separate concurring opinions written by Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas concluded that district courts are not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of the term “autodialer” under the TCPA. According to the defendant, because of these concurring opinions, the court “was not bound by the FCC’s 2003 and 2008 guidance on the definition of an ‘autodialer,’” and should therefore revisit its prior opinion. However, the court stated that the Supreme Court’s case does not change any of the “controlling law” dealing with the TCPA issue in the current lawsuit. “Because defendant’s arguments are not based on any actual change in controlling law,” its motion for reconsideration is denied, the court stated, noting that concurring opinions “do not change ‘controlling law.’”
6th Circuit: FCRA claims require consumer to notify consumer reporting agency of dispute
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a bank was not obligated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to investigate a credit reporting error because the consumers failed to ever notify a consumer reporting agency. According to the opinion, after plaintiffs paid off their line of credit, the bank (defendant) continued reporting the plaintiff as delinquent on the account. After plaintiffs contacted the bank regarding the reporting error, the bank employee ensured plaintiffs that the defendant submitted amendments to the credit reporting bureaus to correct the situation. However, the plaintiffs claimed the error was not corrected until almost a year later. Plaintiffs also alleged that they did not contact the credit reporting bureau in reliance on the bank employee’s statements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, concluding that the FCRA requires that notification of a credit dispute be provided to a consumer reporting agency as a prerequisite for a claim that a furnisher failed to investigate the dispute. Since the plaintiffs failed to trigger the defendant’s FCRA obligations because they never filed a dispute with a consumer reporting agency, the defendant’s responsibility to investigate was never activated.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit agreed with the district court that direct notification to the furnisher of the inaccurate credit report does not meet the FCRA’s prerequisite. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ state common law claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contractual relationships were preempted by the FCRA, and their fraudulent misrepresentation claim was forfeited on appeal.
CFPB updates HMDA webinars
On August 29, the CFPB updated two HMDA webinars to reflect amendments made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, and the interpretive and procedural rule issued by the CFPB in August 2018. (Previous InfoBytes coverage on the amendments and the interpretive and procedural rule available here.) The Bureau also released a new HMDA webinar to provide an overview “on reporting certain application or covered loan features, pricing information, features of the property, and transaction indicators.”
Treasury, HUD release housing finance reform plans
On September 5, the U.S. Treasury Department and HUD released complementary proposals in response to a presidential memorandum issued last March (previously covered by InfoBytes here) directing the departments to develop plans to end the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) and reform the housing finance system.
According to a press release released by the Treasury Department, the Treasury Housing Reform Plan outlines several broad goals and legislative and administrative reforms intended to protect taxpayers and assist homebuyers. Included in the Reform Plan are measures to privatize the GSEs, with the Treasury Department emphasizing that FHFA “should begin the process of ending” the conservatorships. “Central to this objective will be ensuring that the GSEs and their successors are appropriately capitalized to remain viable as going concerns after a severe economic downturn and also to ensure that shareholders and unsecured creditors, rather than taxpayers, bear losses.” Other notable agency and limited congressional action highlights include:
- Congress should authorize an explicit, paid-for guarantee by Ginnie Mae on qualified mortgage-backed securities for single-family and multifamily loans.
- Private sector participation should increase in the mortgage market to compete with the GSEs, and ensure a level playing field for lenders of all sizes.
- Congress should replace GSEs’ statutory affordable housing goals with a “more efficient, transparent, and accountable mechanism” to support underserved borrowers and expand HUD’s affordable housing activities.
- GSEs under FHFA’s capital rule should be required to maintain “capital sufficient to remain viable as a going concern after a severe economic downturn,” the cap on the GSEs’ investments in mortgage-related assets should be further reduced, and GSEs’ retained mortgage portfolios should be restricted to “solely supporting [the] business of securitizing mortgage-backed securities.”
- Mortgages eligible for GSE guarantees should have to comply with strict underwriting requirements.
- The Qualified Mortgage rule should be simplified and the so-called QM patch that allows GSEs to avoid certain regulations should be eliminated (see previous InfoBytes coverage on the CFPB’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking to allow the QM patch to expire here).
- Access to 30-year fix-rate mortgages for qualified homebuyers should be preserved.
HUD’s Housing Finance Reform Plan, released in conjunction with Treasury’s proposal, addresses the role of FHA and Ginnie Mae, and outlines steps to reduce risk in the FHA portfolio. According to HUD’s press release, the proposal focuses on four objectives: refocusing FHA to its core mission, protecting American taxpayers, providing tools to FHA and Ginnie Mae to appropriately manage risk, and providing liquidity to the housing finance system. Among other objectives, HUD’s plan (i) stresses that FHA, which serves low- and moderate-income borrowers, “must ensure that borrowers are creditworthy and that they have access to loans that meet their financial needs without creating undue risk”; (ii) recommends that FHA and FHFA establish a “formalized collaborative approach” to streamline government-supported mortgage programs to ensure they are “not competing and do not crowd private capital out of the marketplace;” (iii) encourages continued efforts to reduce loan churning; (iv) encourages a continued partnership between FHA and DOJ “to provide more clarity on how the agencies will consult on the appropriate use of the [False Claims Act]” to provide regulatory certainty to lenders; (v) encourages FHA to develop servicing standards for home equity conversion mortgage programs to reduce operational and financial burdens; and (vi) recommends that FHA develop a mortgage origination risk tool that integrates an automated underwriting system.
FDIC enforcement actions include flood insurance, BSA violations
On August 30, the FDIC announced its release of a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in July. The list reflects that the FDIC issued fourteen orders and one notice of charges, which include “four stipulated consent orders; four terminations of consent orders; four Section 19 orders; one stipulated civil money penalty order; one stipulated removal and prohibition order; and one notice of charges and hearing.”
Among other actions, the FDIC assessed a civil money penalty (CMP) against a Louisiana-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act, including, among other things, (i) failing to obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at the time of origination, increase, renewal, or extension; or (ii) failing to maintain flood insurance coverage for the term of a loan secured by property located or to be located in a special flood hazard area.
The FDIC also entered into consent orders with an Oklahoma-based bank and a West Virginia-based bank relating to alleged weaknesses in their Bank Secrecy Act compliance programs.
District Court: FTC allegations against credit card processor can proceed
On August 28, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied motions to dismiss an enforcement action brought by the FTC against a group of individuals and entities that allegedly facilitated a telemarketing scheme that previously resulted in the principal actors in the scheme settling with the FTC and later pleading guilty to state criminal charges. The alleged scheme involved “credit card laundering”—the creation of fictitious entities to process customer credit card transactions so that the actual entity receiving the funds would not be identified. The defendants in the current matter are an Independent Sales Organization and several of its officers allegedly involved in that effort (prior Info Bytes coverage here). The defendants first argued that the relevant part of the FTC Act only permits injunctive relief and that the FTC’s requests for restitution and disgorgement were improper because those forms of relief are penalties, not equitable relief, under Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission. The court noted, however, that the Supreme Court in Kokesh expressly limited the holding to the question of the statute of limitations applicable to the SEC, and that the Ninth Circuit has subsequently approved decisions granting restitution and disgorgement under the FTC Act. The defendants also argued that injunctive relief was not warranted where the unlawful conduct in question ceased in 2013, but the court ruled that the FTC need only show that it has “reason to believe” that a defendant is violating or is about to violate the law. The court declined to address the FTC’s argument that its “reason to believe” decision is unreviewable, but it found that the FTC had pled sufficient facts to establish that it has reason to believe that the defendants would violate the statute. In particular, the court noted that a “court’s power to grant injunctive relief survives the discontinuance of illegal conduct,” that “an inference arises from illegal past conduct that future violations may occur,” and that “courts should be wary of a defendant’s termination of illegal conduct when a defendant voluntarily ceases unlawful conduct in anticipation of formal intervention.” Those factors were all present, along with the fact that the defendants “remain in the same professional occupation.”
District Court again dismisses CSBS suit over OCC fintech charter
On September 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia again dismissed the Conference of State Bank Supervisors’ (CSBS) lawsuit against the OCC over its decision to allow non-bank institutions, including fintech companies, to apply for a Special Purpose National Bank Charter (SPNB). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the court dismissed the original complaint in April 2018 on standing and ripeness grounds. Then, after the OCC announced last July that it would welcome non-depository fintech companies engaging in one or more core-banking functions to apply for a SPNB, CSBS renewed its legal challenge. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) In dismissing the case again, the court held that CSBS “continues to lack standing and its claims remain unripe,” adding that “not much has happened since [the original dismissal] that affects the jurisdiction analysis.” Specifically, the court noted its previous holding that CSBS’s alleged harms was “contingent on whether the OCC charters a [f]intech,” but CSBS “does not allege that any [fintech company] has applied for a charter, let alone that the OCC has chartered a [f]intech.” In addition, the court reiterated its prior conclusion that the dispute remains “neither constitutionally nor prudentially ripe for determination.”
The court further acknowledged a contrasting decision issued in May by the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York allowing a similar challenge filed by NYDFS to survive (previous InfoBytes coverage here), stating that it “respectfully disagrees” with that court’s decision “to the extent that its reasoning conflicts” with either of the dismissal decisions in the CSBS cases. Finally, the court denied CSBS’s request for jurisdictional discovery because it will lack jurisdiction “at least until a [f]intech applies for a charter,” which will be publicly disclosed.
New York says creditors prohibited from obtaining confessions of judgments against out-of-state borrowers
On August 30, the New York governor signed S 6395, which prohibits creditors from obtaining confessions of judgments through the New York court system against individuals and businesses located outside of the state in order to seize borrower assets. According to a press release issued by Governor Cuomo, prior to the enactment of S 6395, creditors were able to “freeze and seize a borrower’s assets by obtaining a judgment entered in a court far from where the contested agreement was executed, making it difficult for a borrower to legally contest the unfair penalty.” Under S 6395, an entry of judgment may only be filed in “the county where the defendant’s affidavit stated that the defendant resided when it was executed or where the defendant resided at the time of filing.” For non-natural persons, the county of residence is where it has a place of business. Notably, government agencies engaged in enforcing civil or criminal law against a person or a non-natural person, are exempt from the bill’s measures and may file an affidavit in any county within the state. S 6395 is effective immediately.
Department of Education revises student loan protections
On August 30, the Department of Education issued final regulations revising protections for student borrowers that were significantly misled or defrauded by the higher education institution they attended. The final Institutional Accountability regulations—first proposed in July 2018 (previous InfoBytes coverage here)—establish standards for loan forgiveness applicable for “adjudicating borrower defenses to repayment claims for Federal student loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020.” Loans disbursed prior to July 1, 2020 remain subject to defenses under prior regulations issued in 2016. Provisions under the new regulations include:
- Borrowers will be required to file their claims within three years of leaving an institution, and may assert defense to repayment claims regardless of whether a loan is in default or in collection proceedings.
- The 2016 final regulation’s preponderance of the evidence standard for all borrower defense to repayment claims will be maintained. The Department also rejected the presumption against full relief, stating that financial harm will be determined by the Department as “the amount of monetary loss that a borrower incurs as a consequence of misrepresentation. . . . [but will] not include damages for nonmonetary loss.”
- The pre-dispute arbitration and class action waiver ban contained within the 2016 final regulations will be eliminated. Institutions are permitted to choose their own internal dispute resolution process, including the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers, provided the agreements are explained in plain language to enable students to make informed enrollment decisions.
- The “closed school loan discharge” eligibility time period is extended from 120 days to 180 days for students who have left an institution prior to its closure. However, borrowers must submit applications, as automatic closed-school discharges are not allowed under the new regulations. Borrowers asserting false certification discharge must also submit applications. Additionally, borrowers will be allowed to choose between accepting a teach-out opportunity offered by an institution or submitting a closed school loan discharge to the Department.
The Department notes that the regulations will take effect July 1, 2020. However, “regulations relating to financial responsibility will be available for immediate implementation.”