InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Cuban oil company for facilitating Maduro regime
On July 3, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against Cuban state-run oil import and export company for continuing to provide support to the Maduro regime by the importation of oil from Venezuela. The sanctions are pursuant to Executive Order 13850. OFAC alleges that the state-run company has been the recipient of oil from Venezuela and has expanded its operations to include non-traditionally traded oil products. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these individuals, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by such individuals, 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 notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
Additionally, the announcement notes that OFAC is delisting an oil tanking company in recognition of the company’s actions to ensure that its vessels are not complicit in supporting the Maduro regime. As a result of the delisting, all property and interest of the company is now unblocked and lawful transactions involving U.S. persons are no longer prohibited.
NY AG settlement resolves deceptive practices action with ticket resale companies
On July 10, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with two ticket resale companies that allegedly deceived thousands of consumers by selling event tickets that the companies did not actually own. According to the announcement, the defendants’ practice of selling “speculative tickets” to consumers involved listing and selling tickets the companies did not possess and attempting to purchase such tickets only after a consumer had already placed an order. The attorney general claimed the defendants often charged premiums or inflated prices for tickets then “kept the difference between the price they actually paid and the price at which the speculative ticket was sold to a consumer.” Additionally, one of the defendants also allegedly misled consumers in instances when tickets could not be provided by blaming technical errors or vague supplier issues. While the defendants have not admitted any liability, under the terms of the settlement—subject to court approval—they have agreed to pay $1.55 million and adopt reforms designed to protect ticket purchasers in the future, including, where appropriate, providing clear and conspicuous disclosures stipulating that the ticket seller does not possess the listed tickets and is merely offering to obtain such tickets on a consumer’s behalf.
D.C. Circuit: Receipt containing complete credit card information constitutes concrete injury
On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that a consumer lacked Article III standing to allege a violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) when a merchant included all 16 digits of her credit card account number, her full name, and the expiration date on a receipt, because the receipt was not thrown away. Under FACTA, merchants are prohibited from including on a receipt (i) more than the last five digits of a consumer’s credit card number; and (ii) a credit card’s expiration date. The consumer alleged that the merchant violated the restriction, but the district court ruled that the consumer lacked standing to sue because she failed to describe a concrete risk of “actual or imminent” injury to a protected interest as defined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. According to the district court, because the consumer did not dispose of the receipt, and was the only person who ever saw the receipt, her risk of identity theft had not increased. Moreover, the district court stated that the burden of protecting the non-compliant receipt did not constitute a concrete injury.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that printing a receipt containing all 16 digits of a consumer’s credit card number is an “egregious” enough violation of FACTA to confer standing. According to the panel, the harm inflicted on the consumer by the merchant’s mishandling of her receipt had a “close relationship” to the type of harm that gives rise to a “breach of confidence” claim. Moreover, the panel stated that it was irrelevant that the consumer had been able to protect herself by safeguarding the receipt because: (i) FACTA protects an interest in avoiding an increased risk of identity theft, which the panel considered to be sufficiently concrete; and (ii) under the facts presented, the violation of the truncation requirement created a “risk of real harm” to such concrete interest. The D.C. Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its findings. Notwithstanding, the panel was clear that not every violation of FACTA’s truncation requirement creates a risk of identity theft.
Notably, while the D.C. Circuit’s decision is in agreement with an 11th Circuit opinion issued in April (prior InfoBytes coverage here), it conflicts with other appellate decisions, including an opinion issued by the 3rd Circuit in March (covered by InfoBytes here), wherein the 3rd Circuit held that, without concrete evidence of harm, a consumer lacks standing under FACTA to sue a merchant for including too many digits of a credit card account number on a receipt. The D.C. Circuit noted, however, that the 3rd Circuit “recognized its analysis would be different if it were presented with the facts [the consumer] presents to us.”
SEC, FINRA address digital asset securities compliance requirements
On July 8, the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a joint statement in response to compliance questions received from broker-dealer participants who handle digital asset securities. While recognizing that the application of federal securities law and FINRA rules to digital asset securities, as well as related innovative technologies, “raise novel and complex regulatory and compliance questions and challenges,” the joint statement encourages “reasonably practicable” efforts to address these issues. Among other things, the guidance emphasizes that broker-dealer participants who try to maintain custody of clients’ digital asset securities must comply with the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule to safeguard customers’ assets and prevent investor loss or harm. In situations involving noncustodial digital asset securities activities, relevant laws, rules, and requirements must also be followed, even if these activities generally do not raise the same level of concern. The SEC and FINRA also acknowledge that compliance with these rules may be challenging as technological enhancements and situations unique to digital asset securities continue to develop, and emphasize that they will continue to engage with broker-dealer participants as the marketplace evolves.
Maine adopts legislation to license and regulate student loan servicers
On June 20, the Maine governor signed LD 995, which establishes a student loan bill of rights to license and regulate student loan servicers. Notably, supervised financial organizations, financial institution holding companies, mutual holding companies, and their wholly owned subsidiaries are exempt from the entire requirements of the bill; and licensed banks, credit unions, and their wholly owned subsidiaries, as well as certain Maine financial institutions, are exempt from the licensing requirements.
The bill requires that any student loan servicer who is not exempt from the provisions of the bill—defined as, “a person, wherever located, responsible for the servicing of a student education loan to a student loan borrower”—obtain a license from the Superintendent of Consumer Credit Protection within the Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. Licenses may be renewed for 24-month periods, and renewal applications must be filed on or before September 1 of the year in which the license expires (or will be subject to a late fee); if not renewed, a license will expire on September 30 of the odd-numbered year following its issuance. Student loan servicers under contract with the U.S. Department of Education will be automatically issued limited, irrevocable licenses.
The bill requires non-exempt student loan servicers, including licensed banks or credit unions and their wholly owned subsidiaries, to comply with certain requirements, including (i) responses to written inquires; (ii) application of payments; and (iii) repayment program evaluations. Additionally, the bill prohibits student loan servicers from, among other things, (i) engaging in unfair or deceptive practices; (ii) misapplying payments; (iii) failing to report payment histories to credit bureaus; and (iv) failing to respond within 15 days to borrower complaints submitted to the servicer by the student loan ombudsman. Violations of the bill are considered an unfair trade practice under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The bill gives the Superintendent the authority to conduct investigations and examinations and requires the Superintendent to adopt rules implementing the legislation. The law is effective January 1, 2020.
Hawaii amends motor vehicle service contract definition
On July 2, the Hawaii governor signed HB 154, which clarifies that motor vehicle service contracts regulated by the Insurance Commissioner include contracts for certain motor vehicle repair and replacement services. The bill amends the law’s definition of “service contract” to include a specified list of repair or placement activities related to motor vehicles. The amendments are effective on July 1, 2020.
California Court of Appeal: Prejudgment interest accrual did not violate Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
On July 1, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part a previous superior court judgment in favor of a debt collector, holding that the debt collector did not violate the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act) by adding prejudgment interest from the date of charge-off to a consumer’s account, and reporting the account, with such additional interest, to several credit bureaus.
The lawsuit initially arose when the debt collector sued to collect the entire amount owed, and the consumer filed a cross-complaint alleging the debt collector had violated the Rosenthal Act, among other laws, by “‘falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of the alleged debt,’ ‘failing to verify that the amount demanded was accurate,’ and ‘failing to provide an accurate accounting of the alleged debt.’” The superior court rejected the consumer’s claims and entered judgment in favor of the debt collector in the amount of the debt plus attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal concluded that the debt collector did not violate the Rosenthal Act because the consumer failed to show that the original creditor waived the right to accrue additional interest on the account by not accruing the interest after charge-off. Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the statutory prejudgment interest rate is only available when there is no specified contractual rate. However, the Court determined that the debt collector did not improperly accrue interest when it applied a seven percent interest rate, as seven percent is lower than the statutory interest rate and the contractual interest rate. With respect to attorney’s fees, the Court of Appeal concluded the superior court improperly awarded fees associated with the legal action to collect the debt and the cross-complaint, noting that the superior court, “should have limited the fee award to time spent on efforts necessary to prove the allegations in the complaint.” Therefore, the court reversed the fee judgment and remanded the case back to superior court for “further consideration of the fee award in accordance with our narrower interpretation of the contractual fee provision.”
4th Circuit holds lenders sufficiently proved tribal immunity
On July 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of two tribal lenders’ motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit brought by Virginia residents, concluding the lenders properly claimed tribal sovereign immunity. The complaint alleged that the tribal lenders violated Virginia’s usury laws by charging Virginia residents interest rates 50-times-higher than those permitted under Virginia law. The tribal lenders moved to dismiss the action in district court on the grounds that they are entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of the tribe. The district court denied the motion, concluding the tribal lenders (i) bore the burden of proof of immunity; and (ii) failed to prove they were an “arm-of-the-tribe.”
On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed with the district court that the burden of proof in the arm-of-the-tribe analysis should be placed on the defendant, stating “[u]nlike the tribe itself, an entity should not be given a presumption of immunity until it has demonstrated that it is in fact an extension of the tribe.” However, the appellate court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the tribal lenders failed to meet their burden, noting that while the tribal lenders were funded and controlled by a non-tribal company, ten percent of the tribe’s general fund comes from one of the lenders, and a judgment against either lender “could in fact significantly impact the tribal treasury.” Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that the lenders had “promoted ‘the Tribe’s self-determination through revenue generation and the funding of diversified economic development” and a finding of no immunity, “would weaken the Tribe’s ability to govern itself according to its own laws, become self-sufficient, and develop economic opportunities for its members.”
Agencies adopt final rules excluding community banks from the Volcker Rule; simplify regulatory capital rules
On July 9, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), CFTC, FDIC, OCC, and SEC adopted a final rule implementing sections of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act to grant an exclusion for community banks from the Volcker Rule, which generally restricts banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading and from owning, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds. Qualifying financial institutions must have fewer than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and total trading assets, as well as liabilities that are equal to or less than five percent of their total consolidated assets. The rule also permits, under certain circumstances, a hedge fund or private equity fund organized and offered by a banking entity to share a name with a banking entity that is its investment advisor that is not an insured bank or bank holding company. The rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
The same day, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC also finalized a rule “intended to simplify and clarify a number of the more complex aspects of the agencies’ existing regulatory capital rules” for banks with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets and less than $10 billion in total foreign exposure. Among other changes, the rule alters the capital treatment for mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets, as well as investments in the capital instruments of unconsolidated financial institutions. The final rule will be effective as of April 1, 2020, for the amendments to simplify capital rules, and as of October 1, 2019 for revisions to the pre-approval requirements for the redemption of common stock and other technical amendments.
OCC releases guidance documents for final rule implementing HOLA amendments
On July 1, the OCC issued Bulletin 2019-31, which describes the process for federal savings associations to make an election to operate as “covered savings associations,” with the rights and privileges of national banks under the May 24 Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA) final rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC issued a final rule—pursuant to section 206 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, amending the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA)—which establishes standards permitting federal savings associations with total consolidated assets of $20 billion or less as of December 31, 2017, to elect to operate as “covered savings associations,” with the rights and privileges of national banks. The final rule provides that associations who choose this election will retain their federal savings association charters and existing governance frameworks, and will generally be subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, liabilities, conditions, and limitations that apply to national banks.
Bulletin 2019-31 reminds entities of the July 1 effective date of the final rule and provides details on the process for making an election pursuant to the rule. Additionally, along with the Bulletin, the OCC released a set of Frequently Asked Questions covering the final rule.