InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Iran’s largest petrochemical holding group for funding IRGC
On June 7, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against Iran’s largest petrochemical holding group for providing financial support to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an entity targeted for sanctions under OFAC’s Iran-related sanctions. In addition, OFAC designated the holding group’s network of 39 subsidiary petrochemical companies and foreign-based sales agents. According to OFAC, profits derived from the holding group’s activities “support the IRGC’s full range of nefarious activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction . . . and their means of delivery, support for terrorism, and a variety of human rights abuses, at home and abroad.”
As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from transacting with them. Moreover, OFAC warned foreign financial institutions that they may be subject to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through account sanctions—which, if imposed, could restrict their access to the U.S. financial system—if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for any of the designated entities. OFAC further issued a reminder that as of November 5, 2018, purchasing, acquiring, selling, transporting, or marketing petrochemical products from Iran is sanctionable under OFAC’s sanctions against Iran (covered by InfoBytes here).
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Iran.
New York settles with online retailer over data breach
On June 6, the New York Attorney General announced a $65,000 settlement with an online retailer resolving allegations that the company failed to provide notice of an online data breach to over 39,000 customers, including nearly 3,000 New Yorkers, for over three years. According to the announcement, unauthorized parties placed malicious code designed to steal credit card information in the company’s software in September 2014. The company discovered the code in November 2014, but did not remediate it until January 2015 (or February 2015, after the code was mistakenly reintroduced and permanently deleted). The Attorney General alleges that the company did not notify its affected customers until May 2018, and that, because the company did not notify New York authorities or its affected customers “in an expedient time-period, and without unreasonable delay,” it violated New York’s General Business Law § 899-aa.
The company offered potentially affected customers two years of free credit monitoring, fraud consultation, and identity theft restoration services, which is not required by law. In addition to the penalty, the settlement requires the company to conduct trainings for appropriate employees and conduct thorough investigations of any future data security breaches involving private information to ensure compliance with state law.
Nevada authorizes pilot program for marijuana banking
On June 5, the Nevada governor signed AB 466, requiring the State Treasurer to create a pilot program, authorized to operate from October 1, 2019 through June 30, 2023, for the establishment of one or more closed-loop payment processing systems that enable certain persons to engage in financial transactions relating to marijuana.
The closed-loop payment processing system established under the pilot program must be designed to, among other things: (i) provide marijuana establishments and medical marijuana establishments a safe, secure and convenient method of paying state and local taxes; (ii) prevent revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and drug cartels, and; (iii) prevent lawful financial transactions relating to marijuana from being used as a cover or pretext for unlawful activities. The bill requires the State Treasurer to adopt regulations to carry out the pilot program and requires that the State Treasurer submit a report concerning the pilot program on or before December 1, 2020, and every 6 months thereafter.
Maine enacts consumer privacy law for internet service providers
On June 6, the Maine governor signed S.P. 275/L.D. 946, which requires certain broadband Internet access services to receive express, affirmative consent from a customer before disclosing, selling, or permitting access to a customer’s personal information. Among other things, the provisions stipulate that a customer may revoke his or her consent at any time, and forbid providers from refusing service or charging a penalty or offering a discount based on the customer’s decision to provide or not provide consent. Furthermore, providers must include a “clear, conspicuous and nondeceptive notice at the point of sale,” as well as on the provider’s public website, concerning the provider’s obligations and the customer’s rights. Requirements for safeguarding customers’ personal information are also outlined. The Act applies only to providers operating in Maine that provide Internet access service to customers that are physically located and billed for services received in Maine. The new law will take effect July 1, 2020.
9th Circuit: Class decertification appropriate when representative lacks standing
On June 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision to decertify a class of callers claiming their cellphone calls were unlawfully recorded, holding that the class representative lacked standing as to its individual claim. According to the opinion, customers of a concrete supplier alleged that calls placed to a phone system that the company began using in 2009 failed to inform callers that their cellphone calls were being recorded. In 2013, the company changed the recording to state that the calls maybe be “monitored or recorded.” The class representative sought to certify a class of all persons whose calls were recorded between the time that the company started using the call recording system in 2009 to when it updated the recording. The district court initially denied certification under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23’s predominance requirement, and later—after certifying the class based on evidence presented concerning the timing of certain recorded calls—decertified the class for failing to satisfy the “commonality” and “predominance” requirements once the concrete supplier identified nine customers who claimed they had actual knowledge of the recording practice during the class period. In addition, the court concluded that the class representative lacked standing to seek damages on its individual claim or injunctive relief because it lacked standing under the 2016 Supreme Court opinion Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which required that it show a concrete or particularized injury as a result of the concrete supplier's alleged violation.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit rejected the class’s argument that it “has standing to appeal the decertification order notwithstanding the adverse judgment against it on the merits” due to the following two exceptions to the mootness doctrine that may permit a class representative to appeal decertification even if its individual claims have been mooted: (i) the class representative “retains a ‘personal stake’ in class certification”; or (ii) “the claim on the merits is ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review,’” even though the class representative has lost “his personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.” The appellate court concluded that “neither of these mootness principles can remedy or excuse a lack of standing as to the representative's individual claims.”
4th Circuit overrules own precedent, holds undersecured homestead mortgage claims can be bifurcated
Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overruled its own precedent, holding that the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes modification of undersecured homestead mortgage claims—not just the payment schedule for such claims—including through bifurcation and cram down. According to the opinion, a creditor initiated a foreclosure action against a mortgage debtor alleging that the debtor failed to repay approximately $136,000 due under the mortgage. The debtor filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy and valued the mortgaged property at $40,000 in his petition. The debtor proposed a bankruptcy plan that would bifurcate the creditor’s claim into a secured component commensurate with the value of the mortgaged property, and an unsecured component for the remainder. The bankruptcy court rejected the debtor’s proposal on the grounds that the 4th Circuit’s 1997 holding in Witt v. United Cos. Lending Corp (In re Wiit) barred any modification or bifurcation of the creditor’s claim, and thus entitled her to a secured claim in the full amount due under the mortgage, plus interest. The district court and a 4th Circuit panel affirmed.
Following an en banc rehearing, the 4th Circuit reversed, overruling its decision in Witt. The en banc appellate court concluded that the plain text of Section 1322(c)(2) authorizes modification of covered homestead mortgage payments and claims, and allows for the bifurcation of undersecured homestead mortgages into secured and unsecured components. The appellate court noted that its initial interpretation in Witt had been “universally” criticized by courts and commentators, including for running “contrary to accepted canons of statutory construction.” Therefore, the appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment relying on Witt and remanded the case.
In dissent, three circuit judges stated that the majority went too far in its interpretation of Section 1322, and that Section 1322(c)(2) allows debtors to repay their mortgages over the full duration of their plan. The dissent’s view was that the majority’s decision essentially overturns the Supreme Court’s holding in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank without “any clear desire by Congress to do so.” Moreover, the dissent argued that, while it agreed that “Congress meant for [Section] 1322(c)(2) to create an exception to Nobelman’s prohibition against modifying the timing of loan repayments,” Congress did not intend to “eviscerate Nobelman altogether.”
Fed tailors state member bank exams to risk
On June 3, the Federal Reserve Board issued supervisory letter SR 19-9 to provide guidance on its enhanced process for determining the scope of safety-and-soundness examinations of community and regional state member banks (SMB). Under the “Bank Exams Tailored to Risk” (BETR) process, the Fed intends to “gauge the risk of a bank’s various activities [and] facilitate[] a more data-driven approach to the risk tailoring of supervisory work.” A SMB’s level of risk within individual risk dimensions—such as credit, liquidity, and operational risk—will be derived from a combination of surveillance metrics and examiner judgment.
Among other things, BETR’s objectives are to (i) apply appropriately streamlined examination work programs to identified low-risk activities, in order to conserve supervisory staff resources and minimize regulatory burden; (ii) direct enhanced supervisory resources and attention to identified high-risk activities; and (iii) implement average intensity examination work programs to moderate-risk activities. Examiners are to tailor examination procedures to the size, complexity, and risk profile of an SMB, with examiners focusing on “developing an appropriate assessment of bank management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control risk.”
OIG finds exempt veterans being charged VA home loan funding fees
On June 6, the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report concluding that the VA improperly charged exempt veterans VA home loan funding fees. According to the OIG, from 2012 through 2017, the VA charged approximately 72,900 exempt veterans around $286.4 million in funding fees, which represents 3 percent of the total amount of funding fees collected during that time. The OIG reports that, while the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) that the VA produces is intended to assist lenders in identifying the exempt veterans, “many COEs reflected an outdated, incorrect, or missing exemption status resulting in veterans being incorrectly charged a funding fee.”
Additionally, the OIG found that the VA does not have a policy in place to identify and issue refunds for inappropriate funding fee charges. Currently the VA relies on the veterans to contact the VA and file a claim for a refund, although the VA has not published a standard form for the request. Based on the findings, the OIG recommends that the VA develop a plan to (i) identify exempt veterans who were inappropriately charged funding fees and issue refunds; (ii) create system enhancements or procedural changes that minimize inappropriate funding fee charges; (iii) conduct periodic reviews to identify exempt veterans charged funding fees from January 1, 2018, forward and issue refunds in a timely manner; and (iv) consistently obtain documentation and verify lenders apply the funding fee refunds to loan balances in a timely manner.
CFPB partially modifies two CIDs
On May 21, the CFPB issued two orders partially modifying civil investigative demands (CID) issued by the Bureau in 2017 and 2018. In 2017, a revised CID was issued to a provider of tax debt relief products and services concerning potential violations of UDAAP provisions under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). Thereafter, the company petitioned the Bureau to set aside or modify the CID, arguing, among other things, that (i) the CFPA does not empower the CFPB to issue a CID to a tax preparation company given it does not provide a “‘consumer financial product or service’”; (ii) the investigation should be limited initially to information relevant to determining whether the Bureau has enforcement authority over the company; and (iii) the CID is overly broad because the notification of purpose does not comply with the CFPA’s requirements for authorizing Bureau CIDs. In the order, the Bureau rejected the company’s argument that it is not subject to the Bureau’s enforcement authority, stating that the agency is authorized to issue a CID to any person who may have information relevant to a violation, and moreover, the Bureau need not accept as true the company’s factual assertions that its business conduct does not include any activities covered by the CFPA. It also declined the company’s request that the CID be modified to focus solely on information relevant to determining whether the Bureau has enforcement authority over the company, stating that an agency may simultaneously investigate jurisdictional facts and possible violations. The Bureau further noted that the CFPA does not require a notification of purpose to identify particular persons who engaged in the conduct at issue or whether the company itself is under investigation. However, the CFPB modified the notification of purpose to include a statement reflecting that an additional purpose of the investigation is to determine whether false and misleading representation have been made to consumers regarding tax debt relief products and services.
In 2018 a second CID was issued to a financial services company to investigate whether it has engaged in any potential UDAAP violations concerning its marketing and servicing of deferred- interest financing. The company petitioned the Bureau to set aside the CID on the grounds that it (i) provides an inadequate notification of purpose; (ii) seeks information not relevant to any investigation; (iii) is unduly broad and burdensome; and (iv) “is fundamentally at odds” with the Bureau’s mission. Among other things, the Bureau’s order rejected the company’s argument that oral misrepresentations related to deferred-interest financing “are not relevant because no such representations were made to consumers (or, if they were, they were not so numerous as to merit the Bureau’s attention),” or they were not made by the company. According to the Bureau, these objections go to whether the company complied with the law, not whether the information the Bureau seeks is relevant. The Bureau also rejected the company’s arguments related to whether the agency could seek information related to transactions outside of the limitations period for potential violations of the CFPA, stating that the information may allow the Bureau to develop an understanding of the company’s practices and operations. However, while the Bureau emphasized that the company failed to demonstrate that complying with the CID would be overly burdensome, it did make some modifications to the notification of purpose on the recommendation of enforcement counsel, and extended the production timeline.
Freddie and Fannie address new rules for private flood insurance
On June 5, Fannie Mae issued a Selling Notice to address new regulations on private flood insurance taking effect July 1. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) While the joint final rule issued by the federal banking agencies in February applies the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters Act) to supervised financial institutions, Fannie Mae stated that it is not subject to the final rule and will continue to apply its current Selling Guide eligibility standards and procedures to all loans in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas (SFHA), or to loans secured by residences that are in a SFHA at the time of origination. Under the Selling Guide, “private flood insurance policies may be delivered as an alternative to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies” provided the terms and amount of coverage meet the specified qualifications and the property insurer meets the rating requirements.
On June 6, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2019-11, which, among other things, also emphasizes that it is not subject to the final rule, and is separately authorized by the Biggert-Waters Act to accept private flood insurance policies and establish requirements for issuers of these policies on premises securing Freddie Mac Mortgages. Specifically, Freddie Mac stated that it will continue to apply its current criteria when accepting private flood insurance policies, and that its requirements will “apply to all Seller/Servicers, including an institution subject to the federal banking agencies’ rule regardless of the rule provision (mandatory or discretionary) used to accept a private flood insurance policy.”