InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC highlights key banking risks
On May 20, the OCC released its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Spring 2019, identifying and reiterating key risk areas that pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the U.S. federal banking system, focusing on the following risk areas: credit, operational, compliance, and interest rate. The OCC noted that rapid growth within the fintech and regulatory technology space impacts each of these risk areas, which the agency is monitoring closely in order to implement necessary actions to address concerns. Overall, although the OCC acknowledged that the health of the federal banking system remains strong, specific risk areas of concern include (i) the need to have in place appropriate risk management practices as well as methods for assessing “the quality and timeliness of credit risk identification, risk mitigation, and loan loss reserve methodology”; (ii) elevated operational risk as banks adapt to a changing and increasingly complex operating environment, including cybersecurity threats, fintech innovation, and a reliance on third-party providers; (iii) high compliance risk related to Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML), as well as challenges facing banks to “effectively manage money-laundering risks in a complex, dynamic global operating and regulatory environment”; and (iv) potential challenges to earnings due to interest rate risk and liquidity risk, which lead to increased difficulties when forecasting liability costs.
Concerning BSA/AML risk, the OCC specifically noted that AML-related deficiencies “stem from three primary causes: inadequate customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence, insufficient customer risk identification, and ineffective processes related to suspicious activity monitoring and reporting, including the timeliness and accuracy of Suspicious Activity Report filings. Talent acquisition and staff retention to manage BSA/AML compliance programs and associated operations present ongoing challenges, particularly at smaller regional and community banks.” The report reminded banks that necessary training, quality assurance, independent testing, and control updates are expected to be implemented during the FY 2019 examination cycle as required under the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s customer due diligence rule (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
“Innovation can enhance a bank’s ability to compete by introducing new ways to meet customer product and service needs, improve operating efficiencies, and increase revenue,” the OCC noted, but changing business models or offering new products and services can “elevate strategic risk when pursued without appropriate corporate governance and risk management.”
Illinois amends Residential Mortgage License Act
On May 10, the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State published in the Illinois Register a notice by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation of adopted amendments to certain parts of its Residential Mortgage License Act. In general, the amendments impact independent loan processor licensing as well as residential mortgage loan bond and advertising requirements. Specifically, an independent loan processing entity must employ one or more licensed mortgage loan originators (MLO) to be in compliance with the Act’s supervision and instruction requirements. In addition, any advertisement appearing in the state by a licensee concerning residential mortgage loans must clearly and conspicuously include the following: (i) the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) Consumer Access homepage; and (ii) a licensee’s unique NMLS identifier. If a MLO is advertised, licensees are also required to include the MLO employee’s individual NMLS unique identifier, in addition to listing the licensee’s NMLS unique identifier. Furthermore, licensees are prohibited from including a NMLS unique identifier in any advertisement related to “activities other than residential mortgage lending or brokering” unless certain criteria are met. The amendments became effective immediately.
West Virginia high court: Insufficient facts to determine whether arbitration is enforceable
On May 17, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals vacated a state circuit court’s ruling to deny a motion to compel arbitration in a case related to bounced convenience checks drawn on a consumer’s credit card account, finding that the circuit court’s order failed to contain sufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law to allow the Supreme Court of Appeals to conduct a proper review. According to the opinion, the plaintiff-respondent sued the debt collector defendants for invasion of privacy and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act after the defendants attempted to collect debt arising from two convenience check transactions that were allegedly returned as unpaid. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and presented enrollment forms that contained arbitration clauses purportedly signed by the plaintiff-respondent. However, the plaintiff-respondent claimed the enrollment forms were never presented to her, that her signature was applied to the forms electronically after she used a card reader terminal to electronically cash her checks, and that the “signing process was ‘rushed’ and unfair.” Following a brief hearing on the motion to compel arbitration, the circuit court entered an order denying the motion to compel arbitration.
On appeal, the state’s highest court vacated the circuit court’s order, which it found to be “unclear and contradictory in its rulings,” in that the lower court appeared to determine that the plaintiff-respondent had not agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement, but also appeared to determine that the contract was unconscionable and could not be enforced. The high court remanded the case for further proceedings, including determining whether an arbitration agreement existed, and if it did, whether the agreement was unconscionable.
New Hampshire amends licensing requirements for nondepository mortgage bankers, pawnbrokers
On May 15, the New Hampshire governor signed HB 649 to, among other things, amend the state licensing requirements for nondepository mortgage bankers, brokers, and servicers, as well as pawnbrokers and moneylenders. Specifically, licensing applicants must file with the banking commissioner a written verified application through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) using the NMLS form, or by providing all the same information required on the application using the NMLS. Applicants must also file a statement of net worth. Finally, HB 649 defines what constitutes a “significant event” pertaining to a licensee’s practices with respect to consumer credit, small loans, debt adjustments, and money lending. The act became effective immediately.
Georgia amends mortgage lender licensing laws
On May 7, the Georgia governor signed HB 185, which amends various state laws related to financial institutions, including the licensing requirements for mortgage lenders and mortgage loan originators. The bill specifies that any licensed mortgage lender is authorized to engage in all activities that are authorized for a mortgage broker and therefore, is not required to obtain a mortgage broker license. Additionally, the bill specifies that a mortgage loan originator license shall become inactive in the event that a mortgage loan originator is no longer sponsored by a mortgage lender or mortgage broker that is licensed. The bill becomes effective July 1.
10th Circuit: Compliance employees must show they went beyond established protocols to obtain FCA whistleblower retaliation protection
On April 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a former employee’s False Claims Act (FCA) whistleblower retaliation claims, holding that employees with compliance responsibilities bear the burden of showing that their alleged protected activities are not simply part of their job responsibilities. The case concerned a qui tam relator who alleged her former employer systemically violated the FCA when it knowingly and fraudulently billed the government for inadequately or improperly completed work, and then fired her in retaliation for trying to end the alleged fraud. According to the plaintiff—who was previously employed as a senior quality control analyst responsible for reviewing investigators’ work and documenting incomplete investigations—the company violated the FCA by: (i) “falsely certifying that it performed complete and accurate investigations”; (ii) “falsely certifying that it did proper case reviews and quality-control checks”; and (iii) “falsifying corrective action reports.” The district court, however, entered summary judgment for the company on all counts, determining that the plaintiff’s qui tam claims were “‘substantially the same’ as those that had been publically [sic] disclosed” in previous investigations and news reports, and dismissing her claims under the public disclosure bar. Her retaliation claim was dismissed after the district court determined that she had failed to properly plead that the company was on notice that she was engaging in protected activity.
On appeal, the 10th Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its legal determinations on the qui tam claims, vacated the order for summary judgment, and remanded those claims for further proceedings. However, the 10th Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim, stating that in order to establish FCA whistleblower liability, an employer must know that the employee’s actions were connected to a claimed FCA violation, and an employee “must overcome the presumption that her internal reports of fraud were part of her job.” The appellate court held that because the plaintiff’s allegations did not show that she went outside of established protocols or broke her chain of command, she failed to allege adequately that the company was on notice of her claimed FCA-protected activity.
Colorado enacts student loan servicer act
On May 13, the Colorado governor signed SB19-002, the “Colorado Student Loan Servicers Act,” which requires an entity that services a student education loan owned by a Colorado resident to be licensed by the state. Under the bill, “student loan servicer” is generally defined as a person that receives a scheduled periodic payment from a student loan borrower and applies the payments of principal and interest with respect to the amounts received from such a borrower, and provides other similar administrative services. The bill requires any person seeking to act as a student loan servicer to be licensed through the state on or after January 31, 2020, and specifies the procedures for obtaining and renewing the license. Federal student loan servicers are automatically issued the license under the bill.
Among other things, the bill also specifies particular acts that are required of the student loan servicer, including (i) providing substantive responses within 30 days of receiving a written inquiry from a borrower; (ii) inquiring of borrowers as to how to apply overpayments; and (iii) applying partial payments in a manner that minimizes late fees and negative credit reporting. Additionally, the bill specifies prohibited acts, including (i) engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice toward any person or misrepresenting or omitting any material information in connection with servicing student loans; (ii) misapplying payments to the loan balance; and (iii) failing to report both favorable and unfavorable payment history to a consumer reporting agency. A violation of the bill is considered a deceptive trade practice, and the bill provides a private right of action for borrowers to seek punitive damages for violations. The bill is expected to take effect on August 2.
9th Circuit revives FCRA suit against credit reporting agency
On May 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit revived a putative class action lawsuit against a national credit reporting agency for allegedly failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the plaintiffs’ credit reports, in violation of the FCRA. According to the opinion, the credit reporting agency failed to delete all the accounts associated with a defunct loan servicer, despite statements claiming to have done so in January 2015. As of October 2015, 125,000 accounts from the defunct loan servicer were still being reported, and the accounts were not deleted until April 2016. A consumer filed the putative class action alleging the credit reporting agency violated the FCRA by continuing to report her past-due account, even after deleting portions of the positive payment history on the account. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the credit reporting agency on the consumer’s claim that the credit reporting agency failed to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in her credit report.
On appeal, the court determined that a “reasonable jury could conclude that [the credit reporting agency]’s continued reporting of [the account], either on its own, or coupled with the deletion of portions of [the consumer’s] positive payment history on the same loan, was materially misleading.” Moreover, the appellate court noted that a jury could conclude that the credit reporting agency’s reading of the FCRA “runs a risk of error substantially greater than the risk associated with a reading that was merely careless,” and that the length of delay in implementing the decision to delete the defunct loan servicers accounts “entail[ed] ‘an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known.’”
25 state AGs reject CFPB payday proposal in comment letter
On May 15, a group of 25 Democratic Attorneys General submitted a comment letter in response to the CFPB’s February proposal to rescind certain provisions related to the underwriting standards of the “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (the Rule) (covered by InfoBytes here). In the comment letter, the Attorneys General argue, among other things, that the elimination of the underwriting provisions of the Rule: (i) is inconsistent with the Bureau’s obligations to protect consumers under the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) ignores state experiences with payday and vehicle title lending; and (iii) would reduce states’ ability to protect their residents from predatory lending.
Specifically, the letter argues that the Bureau’s reasoning for repealing the underwriting requirements—that the findings of the Rule “were not supported by sufficiently ‘robust and reliable’ evidence”—would saddle the Bureau with an unreasonably high evidentiary standard that would prevent the Bureau from regulating unfair and abusive practices. Additionally, the letter states that the Bureau’s conclusion that the underwriting requirements would harm consumers by reducing consumer’s access to credit and ability to choose lenders offering credit ignores “the experiences of numerous states that have implemented restrictions on payday and vehicle title lending—restrictions that have protected consumers without unreasonably limiting consumers’ access to credit.” States’ restrictions on payday and vehicle title lending, according to the letter, have “benefited consumers and expanded access to manageable credit.” Lastly, the letter asserts that maintaining a federal regulatory floor on lending activities is “crucial to supporting and complementing state oversight,” and removal of the floor will “enable lenders to continue trying to avoid state regulation and continue marketing expensive and often unlawful products to consumers without providing borrowers an opportunity for negotiation or comparison.”
The comment letter was written by the Attorneys General of the District of Columbia, New Jersey, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the same group of Attorneys General had urged the CFPB via a previous comment letter not to delay the August 19, 2019 compliance date for any aspect of the Rule, and had warned that they would consider taking legal action if the Bureau did so.
OCC releases April 2019 enforcement actions
On May 16, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. The new enforcement actions include personal cease-and-desist orders, removal and prohibition orders, notice of charges against an individual, and terminations of existing enforcement actions against individuals and banks. The release also includes two civil money penalty orders discussed below.
On April 9, the OCC assessed $35,000 in civil money penalties against an Oklahoma-based bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act and its implementing regulations. Additionally, on April 24, the OCC assessed $136,000 in civil money penalties against a Texas-based bank for an alleged pattern or practice of failing to ensure timely notification and force-placement of flood insurance on property in special flood hazard areas, in violation of the National Flood Insurance Act.