InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
VA encourages loan holders to extend relief to Iowa borrowers
On March 29, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-10, encouraging relief for VA borrowers impacted by severe storms and flooding in Iowa. Among other things, the Circular encourages loan holders to (i) extend forbearance to borrowers in distress because of the severe storms and flooding; (ii) establish a 90-day moratorium from the disaster date on initiating new foreclosures on affected loans; (iii) waive late charges on affected loans; and (iv) suspend credit reporting. The Circular is effective until April 1, 2020. Mortgage servicers and veteran borrowers are also encouraged to review the VA’s Guidance on Natural Disasters.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
Utah creates regulatory sandbox
On March 25, the Utah governor signed HB 378, which creates a state regulatory sandbox program through the state’s Department of Commerce (Department) that allows participants to temporarily test innovative financial products or services on a restricted basis without requiring a license or authorization to act under Utah law. Under the program, approved applicants will have 24 months from the date an application is approved to test the product or service on Utah residents without being subject to state laws and regulations that normally would regulate such products or services, unless the Department determines otherwise. Additionally, the Department, upon written notice, may end a participant’s participation program at any time and for any reason. The program allows for participants to request an extension of time up to six months after the end of the regulatory sandbox testing period in order to obtain a license or other authorization required by the law to continue to market the product or service. The act takes effect on May 13.
District Court: Using department store name as creditor is not prohibited under the FDCPA
On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in an action alleging that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by failing to name the creditor to whom the debt was owed. According to the opinion, the debt collector sent a consumer an initial demand letter stating it was attempting to collect a debt and named the department store associated with the credit card as the current and original creditor. The consumer initiated an action against the debt collector alleging violations of the FDCPA for failing to specifically name the creditor associated with the department store credit card. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Because the department store’s name was on the credit card, the application, and the billing statements, and consumers are directed to make payments to the department store by mail or online, the court determined that using the creditor’s name “could very well cause confusion and influence a consumer’s decision to pay or challenge the debt.” Using the department store’s name, while potentially a technical misrepresentation, is not a material misrepresentation under the FDCPA because it “would not mislead the least sophisticated consumer or influence a decision about whether to pay or challenge the debt,” as it named the entity the consumer had conducted business with in connection with the debt.
District Court: “Ringless” voicemail is a “call” under the TCPA
On March 25, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in a part a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that an auto dealer violated the TCPA by using a “ringless” voicemail platform to leave pre-recorded telemarketing voicemails on consumers’ cell phones without obtaining prior express consent. The defendant moved to dismiss the putative class claims arguing that (i) the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to state a claim because he did not receive a “call” within the meaning of the TCPA; (ii) the plaintiff lacked standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief; (iii) the TCPA was unconstitutional; and (iv) the complaint failed to adequately allege that the defendant “willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA.”
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff did not receive a “call” as defined by the TCPA, concluding that a ringless voicemail is a call subject to the TCPA restrictions. The court found that the plaintiff had Article III standing because he sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and actual harm, including, among other things, invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, and intrusion. The court further found that the plaintiff’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to support the TCPA claim and the allegation that defendant acted willfully or knowingly. The court also rejected defendant’s challenge to the TCPA’s constitutionality. However, the court found the plaintiff could not seek declaratory or injunctive relief because the plaintiff failed to show real and immediate threat of future harm or proffer a basis that would allow the court to infer that the defendant would ever send ringless voicemails again.
Federal Reserve amends payment system risk policy applicable to foreign banking organizations
On April 1, the Federal Reserve Board published a revised policy statement on payment system risk (PSR policy) in connection with procedures used to determine the “net debit cap and maximum daylight overdraft capacity” of U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations (FBO). Among other things, the amended PSR policy (i) removes references to the Strength of Support Assessment ranking, citing the ranking is an “inefficient use” of supervisory resources; (ii) removes references to a FBO’s financial holding company status, since that status has limited ability to measure the health of a FBO; and (iii) adopts alternative methods for determining a FBO’s “eligibility for a positive net debit cap, the size of its net debit cap, and its eligibility to request a streamlined procedure to obtain maximum daylight overdraft capacity.” The Board adopted the changes substantially as proposed, following a notice and request for comment period at the end of 2017. The revisions are effective April 1, 2020.
SEC, UK FCA update cooperation agreements
On March 29, the SEC and the United Kingdom (UK) Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) signed two updated Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to continue their cooperation and information sharing with respect to the “effective and efficient oversight of regulated entities across national borders.” The MOUs will come into force on the date EU legislation ceases to have direct effect in the UK, should the UK withdraw from the EU.
The first MOU is a supervisory arrangement covering regulated entities operating across national borders. The MOU—originally signed in 2006—includes updates to increase the scope of covered firms under the MOU to include firms that carry out derivatives, credit rating, and derivatives trading repository businesses. The update will reflect “the FCA’s assumption of responsibility from the European Securities and Markets authority for overseeing credit rating agencies and trade repositories in the event of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
The second MOU—originally signed in 2013—provides a supervisory cooperation and exchange of information framework related to the supervision of covered entities operating within the alternative investment fund industry. The updates ensure that covered entities including investment advisers, fund managers, and private funds “will be able to continue to operate on a cross-border basis without interruption” in the event of a withdrawal.
CFPB issues Consumer Response Annual Report
On March 29, the CFPB published its Consumer Response Annual Report, providing a review of the Bureau’s complaint process and a description of complaints received from consumers from across all 50 states and the District of Columbia between January 1 and December 31, 2018. According to the report, the Bureau handled approximately 329,800 consumer complaints. Of these complaints, roughly 80 percent were submitted to companies for review and response, 14 percent were referred to other regulatory agencies, and four percent were determined to be incomplete. The top categories, representing approximately 89 percent of all complaints, were credit or consumer reporting, debt collection, mortgages, credit card, and checking or savings complaints. The Bureau also received complaints related to: (i) student, personal, and payday loans; (ii) money transfers and virtual currency; (iii) vehicle finance; (iv) prepaid cards; (v) credit repair; and (vi) title loans. As reported by the CFPB, the majority of consumers who submitted complaints indicated that they first tried to resolve their issues with the companies.
Federal Reserve releases additional information on stress testing
On March 28, the Federal Reserve Board released a report titled, “Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2019: Supervisory Stress Test Methodology,” which details the models and methodologies the Board will use for 2019 stress tests. The release is intended to “increase the transparency of [the Board’s] stress tests without compromising [its] ability to test the resiliency of the nation's largest banks.” Specifically, the report provides more information than in years past on the models that are used to project bank losses, including (i) ranges of loss rates for loans that are grouped by distinct risk characteristics; (ii) examples of portfolios with hypothetical loans with projected loss rates; and (iii) enhanced descriptions of models.
CFPB settles with online lead aggregator for $4 million
On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order resolving the CFPB’s allegations against a California-based company for allegedly buying and selling personal information from payday and installment loan applications without properly vetting buyers and sellers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB’s December 2015 complaint alleged that, among other things, the company (i) knew or should have known that the lead generators in its network used false or misleading statements to obtain consumer information; and (ii) connected consumers with lenders that offered less favorable loan terms than were otherwise available, did not comply with state usury limits, or claimed they were exempt from state regulation and jurisdiction. The stipulated order requires the company to pay $1 million for consumer redress and $3 million in civil money penalties. Additionally, the company is banned from acting as a lead generator, lead aggregator, or data broker in connection with the offering of certain loans. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations.
FDIC proposes changes to record keeping requirements for deposit insurance determinations
On March 29, the FDIC Board of Directors approved proposals to amend two rules, which would simplify the process for making deposit insurance determinations in the event a bank enters receivership. The first proposal amends Part 370 of the FDIC’s Rules and Regulations for “Recordkeeping for Timely Deposit Insurance Determination,” to address issues raised during implementation of the final rule adopted in November 2016 (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the proposal provides an optional one-year extension of the rule’s compliance date of April 1, 2020. The second proposal amends Part 330, which would allow satisfaction of proof of co-ownership for deposits of a joint account to be insured separately from deposits in respective individual accounts, to be established by other information contained in deposit account records, and not solely by signed signature cards of each co-owner. Comments on each proposal will be due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.