InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Accurate adverse reporting not a violation of FCRA, says 3rd Circuit
On August 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a credit reporting agency (CRA), concluding that the CRA did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by reporting past negative incidents. According to the opinion, after struggling financially, a married couple missed payments on at least five credit accounts. The consumers allegedly resolved the late payments and filed complaints with the CRA arguing the continued presence of the late payments misrepresented the “real status of their credit.” Additionally, the consumers argued some of the “key factors” the CRA discloses to credit providers, “such as ‘[s]erious delinquency’ or ‘[a]mount owed on revolving [a]ccounts is too high,’ are misleading.” The consumers filed suit against the CRA, alleging a variety of federal and state law claims, including violations of the FCRA for failing to maintain reasonable procedures and failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into disputes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the CRA and the consumers appealed their FCRA claims.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding the consumers must show their credit report contains inaccurate information to prevail on their claims, which the consumers failed to do. The panel noted the consumers admitted they made the late payments and did not allege the adverse information is more than seven years old. The panel concluded the consumers’ claim “is not that the information in their credit reports and disclosures is inaccurate, but rather that it is irrelevant,” which does not support their claims for a violation under the FCRA.
Brokers to pay $4.5 million to settle ADR mishandling claims
On August 16, the SEC announced a settlement with two brokers to resolve allegations concerning the improper handling of pre-released American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), or “U.S. securities that represent shares of a foreign companies.” According to the SEC, both brokers improperly “obtained pre-released ADRs when they should have known that the pre-release transactions were not backed by foreign shares.” The SEC asserted the brokers improperly obtained the pre-released ADRs from other broker-dealers—with one of the brokers also obtaining the pre-released ADRs from depository banks—which “resulted in an inflated total number of foreign issuer’s tradeable securities and short selling and dividend arbitrage.” The SEC further alleged the brokers violated the Securities Act of 1933 and failed to reasonably supervise their securities lending desk personnel. While neither broker admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings, the orders require them to pay, combined, more than $4.5 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties. The orders acknowledge the brokers’ cooperation in the investigation.
OFAC announces settlement with trade credit insurer for sanctions violations
On August 16, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $345,315 settlement with a Maryland-based trade credit insurer for two alleged violations of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Sanctions Regulations. The settlement resolves potential civil liability for the company’s receipt of payment from the liquidation of assets belonging to a company that was added to the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons in 2016. According to OFAC, by accepting the assignment to collect debt owed by the designated company and receiving payment, the company violated sanctions regulations.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various mitigating factors, including (i) the company has not received a penalty or finding of a violation in the five years preceding the transactions at issue; (ii) the company voluntarily conducted a full internal review, cooperated with OFAC during the investigation, and undertook remedial efforts to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future; and (iii) the company agreed to implement certain compliance commitments to ensure the strength of its sanctions compliance program.
OFAC also considered various aggravating factors, including that the company did not voluntarily self-disclose the issue to OFAC and the company failed to undertake measures to confirm the assignment of debt and acceptance of payment was permitted under existing authorizations.
California DBO releases draft regulations for commercial financing disclosures
In July, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) issued a request for comment on draft of regulations implementing the state’s new law on commercial financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2018, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction—defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”—the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the DBO.
The draft regulation provides general format and content requirements for each disclosure, as well as specific requirements for each type of covered transaction. In addition to the detailed information in the draft regulation, the DBO has released model disclosure forms for the six financing types, (i) closed-end transactions; (ii) open-ended credit plans; (iii) general factoring; (iv) sales-based financing; (v) lease financing; and (vi) asset-based lending. Additionally, the draft regulation uses an annual percentage rate (APR) as the annualized rate disclosure (as opposed to the annualized cost of capital, which was considered in the December 2018 request for comments, covered by InfoBytes here). Moreover, the draft regulation provides additional information for calculating the APR for factoring transactions as well as calculating the estimated APR for sales-based financing transactions.
Comments on the draft regulations are due by September 9.
District Court approves TCPA class action settlement
On August 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final approval order and judgment to resolve class action allegations claiming a security system company and its third-party dealer violated the TCPA through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded messages. According to the claims, consumers—including those on the do-not-call registry—allegedly received telemarketing calls at their residences or on cellphones from the dealer or the dealer’s sub-dealers promoting goods or services offered by the company. The company argued it was not responsible for calls the dealer made on its behalf, but the district court denied summary judgment and set a trial date. However, prior to the trial’s commencement, the parties reached a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to implement changes to its practices to ensure TCPA compliance and banned the dealer from marketing or activating new accounts for the company. The company also agreed to pay $28 million into a settlement fund for consumer redress, no more than $1.4 million towards settlement administrator costs and expenses, $30,000 total in service awards to class representatives, and combined attorneys’ fees and litigation costs of approximately $7.5 million.
Conn. Supreme Court reverses foreclosure based on bank misconduct
On August 13, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment, concluding a borrower’s special defenses and counterclaims raised against a bank during a foreclosure action “bore a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the note or the mortgage.” According to the opinion, the bank sought to foreclose on real property owned by the borrower, and during that proceeding, the borrower and loan servicer began loan modification negotiations. The borrower contacted the Connecticut Department of Banking, which intervened on his behalf in the negotiations, but the bank subsequently increased the mortgage payment and the parties were unable to reach an agreement. The borrower asserted special defenses and counterclaims, which included, among other things, that the bank allegedly engaged in conduct that increased the borrowers overall indebtedness and caused the borrower to “incur costs that impeded his ability to cure the default, and reneged on loan modifications.” The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, which the appellate court affirmed.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held the appellate court incorrectly concluded the borrower’s allegations did not provide a legally sufficient basis for those defenses and counterclaims. The Court noted that the borrower’s allegations—that the bank “engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation and delay in postdefault loan modification negotiations before and after initiating a foreclosure action,” which added to the borrower’s debt and hampered his ability to avoid foreclosure—involved misconduct that “bore a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the note or the mortgage.” To the extent the intervention of the Department of Banking actually resulted in a binding loan modification, the potential breach of such agreement would also “provide a legally sufficient basis for special defenses in the foreclosure action.” Therefore, the Court reversed the appellate judgment upholding the strict foreclosure.
HUD revises proposed FHA mortgage lender certification
On August 14, HUD published revisions in the Federal Register to the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) lender certification requirements originally issued in May. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) In response to comments received on its initial proposal, HUD released a proposed streamlined FHA Annual Lender Certification, which removes a broad statement regarding lenders certifying compliance with all HUD requirements in order to maintain FHA approval. Commenters generally recommended HUD: “(1) Rescind the annual certification statements since the National Housing Act does not require certification of compliance with FHA eligibility requirements or completion of an annual certification; or (2) revise the annual certification statements to a general acknowledgement of the existence of policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure material compliance.” Comments are due September 13.
CFPB names Cameron private education loan ombudsman
On August 16, the CFPB announced Robert G. Cameron as the Bureau’s private education loan ombudsman. Cameron, who served in the U.S. Army for 29 years and is a Colonel and Staff Judge Advocate for the Pennsylvania Army National Guard, joins the Bureau from the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency—a national student loan servicing company. While there, Cameron was responsible for overseeing efforts related to litigation, risk mitigation, and compliance with federal and state laws, including Dodd-Frank. Cameron’s new responsibilities as ombudsman will include overseeing student loan borrower complaints and analyzing complaint data to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Education, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger, and Congress.
FinCEN director discusses gaming industry AML compliance
On August 13, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Director Kenneth Blanco delivered remarks at the 12th Annual Las Vegas Anti-Money Laundering Conference stressing the need for compliance within the gaming industry, particularly as new technologies emerge such as mobile gaming and the use of convertible virtual currencies (CVC) increases. With the U.S. Supreme Court issuing a decision in May holding that states can legalize sports gambling (previously covered by InfoBytes here), Blanco stated that casinos need to consider ways to integrate their sports betting programs—including mobile sports betting apps—into their existing anti-money laundering programs. These measures must include establishing and implementing procedures for detecting and reporting suspicious activities, Blanco noted, reminding the audience of FinCEN’s FAQs designed to assist financial institutions when reporting cyber indicators and cyber-enabled financial crime.
Blanco also discussed FinCEN’s work with respect to cybersecurity and virtual payments, noting, among other things, that both online and physical casinos that accept CVC need to consider how they review transactions to determine the source of the currency and recognize indicators of suspicious activity. Blanco referred casinos to consolidated guidance issued by FinCEN in May (previously covered by InfoBytes here), and expressed a concern that “CVC-related SAR filings by casinos have not been as robust as expected since the May CVC guidance and advisory were published.” He further stressed the importance of information-sharing between casinos, and highlighted that sharing SARs can contribute to the identification of suspicious transactions as well as Bank Secrecy Act compliance responsibilities.
New York increases homeowner safeguards, closes loopholes to prevent deed fraud and mortgage scams
On August 14, the New York governor signed a package of bills intended to increase consumer homeowner protections. According to a press release issued by the governor, the three measures enact homeowner safeguards and close loopholes to prevent deed fraud and mortgage scams.
- A 92 imposes obligations on banks or financial institutions that sell or transfer a mortgage after a borrower has applied for a loan modification. Specifically, the law requires the original holder of the loan to provide the borrower with a list of all modification application documents provided to the buyer or transferee of the mortgage. The measure also requires the new mortgage servicer to honor the terms and conditions of a loan modification that was approved by the original servicer. The act takes effect in 90 days.
- A 1800 requires servicers of vacant or abandoned residential properties to continue to pay homeowners’ association fees or cooperative fees on properties in the state to ensure they do not become dilapidated before a foreclosure is finalized. The act takes effect immediately.
- A 5615 amends state law related to distressed home loans to extend consumer protections for homes in default and foreclosure by, among other things, (i) providing homeowners additional time to cancel a covered contract with a purchaser; (ii) preventing distressed property consultants from inducing the consumer to transfer the deed to the consultant or anyone else; and (iii) allowing consumers to void contracts, deeds, or other agreements material to the consumer’s property where an individual was convicted of or pled guilty to making false statements in connection with that agreement. The act takes effect immediately.