InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
2018 HMDA Modified LAR data available
On March 29, the CFPB announced that the HMDA Modified Loan Application Registers (LARs) data is available for 2018. Specifically, the Modified LARs contain loan level information for 2018 on HMDA filers, covering approximately 5,400 financial institutions. This is the first release in which the additional data required by the 2015 HMDA rule is available. Later this year, additional information will be published, including a complete loan level dataset.
FDIC issues guidance on gaps in technology service provider contracts
On April 2, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-19-2019 (Technology Service Provider Contracts), which describes examiner observations about gaps in financial institutions’ contracts with technology service providers (TSPs) that may require financial institutions to take additional steps to manage business continuity and incident response. Although not specifically referenced in FIL-19-2019, this latest FDIC guidance echoes themes set forth in the FDIC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report released in 2017 (covered in Infobytes here). Specifically, examiners noted contractual deficiencies in recent reports of examination, including failing to: (i) adequately define rights and responsibilities regarding business continuity and incident response, or provide sufficient detail to allow financial institutions to manage those processes and risks; (ii) consistently require TSPs to maintain a business continuity plan, establish data recovery standards, and commit to contractual remedies if the TSP missed a data recovery standard; (iii) sufficiently detail the TSP’s security incident responsibilities such as notifying the financial institution, regulators, or law enforcement; and (iv) clearly define key terms used in contractual provisions relating to business continuity and incident response.
FIL-19-2019 further stresses that supervised institutions are required to comply with the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Information Security Standards promulgated pursuant to the GLBA, which among other things sets forth expectations for managing TSP relationships through contractual terms and ongoing monitoring. The FDIC references prior guidance establishing regulatory expectations, including: (i) Guidance for Managing Third-Party Risk (FIL-44-2008, issued June 6, 2008); and (ii) the Business Continuity Booklet set forth in the FFIEC IT Examination Handbook, which was updated in February 2015 to include a new appendix specific to managing service provider risks (Appendix J: Strengthening the Resilience of Outsourced Technology Services). FIL-19-2019 also contains a reminder to depository institutions that the Bank Service Company Act requires depository institutions to provide written notice to their respective federal banking agency of contracts or relationships with TSPs that provide certain services, including check and deposit sorting and posting, computation and posting of interest, preparation and mailing of checks or statements, and other clerical, bookkeeping, accounting, statistical, or similar functions such as data processing, Internet banking, or mobile banking services.
11th Circuit: SOL begins on date of mortgage loan acceleration
On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a consumer’s FDCPA action. The consumer alleged that his mortgage servicer violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect overdue payments beyond Florida’s five-year statute of limitations for foreclosure actions. According to the opinion, the consumer “stopped paying his mortgage in 2008 and has not made payments since then.” In 2009, the servicer invoked an acceleration clause and attempted to foreclose on the property, but the foreclosure action was dismissed in 2011. In 2015, the servicer sent another notice of default, accelerated the debt once again, and filed a second foreclosure action seeking the entire debt, including all delinquent payments since 2008. The consumer filed suit, arguing that the servicer, by seeking pre-2010 debt in 2015, violated the FDCPA’s prohibition on the collection of time-barred debts. The lower court dismissed the action.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit held that the pre-2010 debt sought in the 2015 foreclosure action “was not time-barred as a matter of law” and therefore did not violate the FDCPA. The 11th Circuit found that Florida’s five-year statute of limitations does not necessarily bar the recovery of payments that were originally due more than five years prior to the filing of the foreclosure action. Instead, any time a consumer defaults and the servicer invokes an acceleration clause, the entire debt “comes due” and the five-year clock starts to run.
FTC settles deceptive practices allegations with office supply company, tech-support vendor
On March 27, the FTC announced it had entered into two stipulated orders for permanent injunction and monetary judgment (see here and here) against an office supply company and its California-based tech-support services vendor (defendants) for allegedly violating the FTC Act by selling computer repair and technical services to consumers who were told the company’s software program had detected malware symptoms on their computers. According to the FTC’s complaint, from approximately 2009 to November 2016, the defendants allegedly used a software program marketed as a “PC Health Check Program”—among other names—to “facilitate the sale of computer repair services to . . . retail customers.” The program, which claimed to detect malware symptoms on consumers’ computers, actually based the results on answers to questions consumers were asked at the beginning of the program, including whether the computer had issues with displayed pop-up ads or other problems, ran slow, received virus warnings, or crashed often. The FTC claimed the scan had no connection to the malware symptoms results and that, since at least 2012, the defendants allegedly knew that the program falsely reported malware symptoms but continued to reward store managers and employees who generated sales from the program until late 2016. The proposed order imposes a combined $35 million monetary judgment, bans the office supply company from making misrepresentations concerning the security or performance of consumers’ electronic devices, and requires the company to ensure that existing and future software providers do not engage in the prohibited conduct. The order also prohibits the vendor from misrepresenting or helping others to misrepresent the performance or detection of security issues on consumers’ electronic devices.
White House calls for end to GSE conservatorships; Senate holds housing finance hearings
On March 27, the White House released a Memorandum on Federal Housing Finance Reform, which directs the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a plan to end the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). Specifically, the memo states that the U.S. housing finance system is “in urgent need of reform,” as taxpayers are “potentially exposed to future bailouts” and programs at HUD have outdated operations and are “potentially overexposed to risk.” The President directs the Treasury and HUD to create specific plans addressing a number of reforms “as soon as practical.” Among other things, the directives include:
- Treasury to reform GSEs. With the ultimate goal of ending the conservatorships, the memo directs Treasury to develop proposals to, among other things, (i) preserve access to 30 year fix-rate mortgages for qualified homebuyers; (ii) establish appropriate capital and liquidity requirements for the GSEs; (iii) increase private sector participation in the mortgage market; (iv) evaluate the “QM Patch” with the HUD Secretary and CFPB Director; and (v) set conditions necessary to end conservatorships.
- HUD to reform programs. In addition to outlining specific objectives, the memo directs HUD to achieve three goals: (i) ensure that the FHA and the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) assume the primary responsibility for providing housing finance support for low income or underserved families; (ii) improve risk management, program, and product design to reduce taxpayer exposure; and (iii) modernize the operations of the FHA and GNMA.
Similarly, on March 26 and 27, the Senate Banking Committee held a two-part hearing (here and here) on housing finance reform. The hearing reviewed the legislative plan released by Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) in February. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the plan would, among other things, end the GSEs conservatorships, make the GSEs private guarantors, and allow other nonbank private guarantors to enter the market. Additionally, the plan would (i) restructure FHFA as a bipartisan board of directors, which would charter, regulate, and supervise all private guarantors; (ii) place a percentage cap on all outstanding mortgages for guarantors; and (iii) replace current housing goals and duty-to-serve requirements with a fund intended to address housing needs of underserved communities. In his opening statement at the hearing, Crapo said that, “approximately 70 percent of all mortgages originated in this country are in some way touched by the federal government” and “the status quo is not a viable option” for the housing finance market. Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) emphasized that “any changes we consider must strengthen, not weaken, our ability to address the housing challenges facing our nation and make the housing market work better for families.”
Over the two days, the Senators and witnesses discussed the positive objectives of Crapo’s plan while recognizing hurdles that exist in implementing housing finance reform. While many Senators and witnesses expressed support for a requirement that private guarantors serve a national market, others suggested that regionalized or specialized guarantors could have advantages, including reaching underserved markets. Many Democrats stressed the importance of keeping a catastrophic government guarantee in place, while Republicans emphasized the need for legislative reforms to be implemented as soon as possible. With respect to equal access for small lenders, Senators discussed the concern over credit unions being able to sell loans in a multiple guarantor market.
HUD says social media platform's advertising violates FHA
On March 28, HUD announced that it charged a world-wide social media platform with violating the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by allowing advertisers to exclude certain protected classes from viewing housing-related ads. According to the charges, the social media platform collects information about its users and sells advertisers the ability to target housing-related advertisements to people who “share certain personal attributes and/or are likely to respond to a particular ad.” Specifically, HUD alleges that the platform first allows advertisers to use tools to select attributes of users who they would like to include or exclude from viewing their advertisements. These attributes include attributes such as, “women in the workforce,” “foreigners,” “Puerto Rico Islanders,” or “Christian.” HUD also alleges that the platform allows advertisers to draw a “red line” around specific areas on a map to exclude people who live there from seeing a particular ad. In a subsequent phase, HUD alleges that the platform groups users by shared attributes to create a target audience most likely to engage with the ad, even if the advertiser would prefer a broader audience, which, according to HUD, inevitably creates “groupings defined by their protected class.” HUD alleges that the data collection and targeted ad processes function “just like an advertiser who intentionally targets or excludes users based on their protected class” in violation of the FHA. HUD is seeking an injunction, damages for any aggrieved persons, and civil money penalties against the platform.
9th Circuit: Administrator vicariously liable for debt collectors’ alleged TCPA violations
On March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss TCPA claims against a student loan administrator (defendant), finding that the administrator could be held vicariously liable for a contractor’s alleged debt collection attempts. The plaintiff claimed in her suit that the companies hired by the contracted student loan servicer violated the TCPA by using an autodialer when attempting to contact borrowers to collect payment. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was “vicariously liable” for the alleged TCPA violations of the companies that were hired to collect the plaintiff’s debts, and that the defendant was “similarly liable under the federal common law agency principles of ratification and implied actual authority.” The claims against the collectors and the servicer were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the lower court ruled on summary judgment that a jury could not hold the defendant responsible for the actions of the servicer.
On appeal, the split three-judge panel held that a reasonable jury could find that the defendant knew of the alleged TCPA violations, and that because the defendant “ratified the debt collectors’ calling practices by remaining silent,” or alternatively, willfully ignored potential violations through its collections arrangement with the servicer, a jury could find a “principal-agent” relationship—even if one did not exist in the contract—and the court should hold it liable for the collectors’ TCPA violations. According to the panel, there was evidence in the record that the defendant “had actual knowledge” of the alleged violations through audit reports provided by the servicer and “did nothing” to ensure that the debt collectors complied with the law. However, the entire panel agreed that the defendant was not per se vicariously liable for the debt collectors’ alleged TCPA violations.
In dissent, Judge Bybee agreed with the panel that the defendant is not per se vicariously liable for the debt collectors’ practices, and noted in addition that there is not enough evidence to show that the defendant consented to practices that violate the TCPA or that it granted the debt collectors authority to violate the law. He wrote, “there is no evidence whatsoever that [the defendant] approved of such practices. In fact, the only evidence in the record is to the contrary: when [the defendant] learned of wrongful practices, it reported them to [the servicer] and asked [the servicer] to correct the problem.”
Law firms settle with CFPB over debt relief fee allegations
On March 27, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a consent judgment ending a CFPB lawsuit against a group of affiliated law firms and their managing attorneys. As previously covered by InfoBytes in 2017, the Bureau’s enforcement action alleged that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, (i) collecting improper fees in advance of providing debt relief services; (ii) misrepresenting that advance fees would not be charged; and (iii) providing substantial assistance to another company it knew or should have known was engaged in acts or practices that violated the rule. Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendants—who have neither admitted nor denied the Bureau’s allegations or the factual findings outlined in the judgment—agreed to pay approximately $35.3 million in redress to affected consumers and a $40 million civil money penalty. However, based on the defendants’ inability to pay this amount, full payment is suspended subject to the defendants paying $50,000 to affected consumers and $1.00 toward the CMP.
California appoints Manuel Alvarez as DBO Commissioner
On March 28, the California governor announced that Manuel Alvarez has been appointed Commissioner of the California Department of Business Oversight. Since 2014, Alvarez has been general counsel, chief compliance officer, and corporate secretary at an online purchase lender. Prior to those roles, he was an enforcement attorney with the CFPB, and a deputy attorney general at the California Department of Justice. Alvarez’s appointment will require the confirmation of the state Senate.
OFAC reaches settlement with tool company for alleged Iranian sanctions violations
On March 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $1,869,144 settlement with a U.S. tool manufacturer and its China-based subsidiary for 23 alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). The settlement resolves potential civil liability for the company’s alleged transactions, valued at over $3.2 million, involving the subsidiary’s exporting and attempts to export 23 shipments of power tools and spare parts “with knowledge that such goods were intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran.” Because the ITSR generally prohibit non-U.S. subsidiaries of U.S. persons from knowingly engaging in transactions with Iran, this settlement illustrates the importance of implementing OFAC compliance measures at such subsidiaries.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors and characterized the alleged violations as “an egregious case.” While the company voluntarily self-disclosed the alleged violations on behalf of its subsidiary, OFAC stated, among other things, that the company allegedly failed to implement procedures to monitor and audit the subsidiary’s compliance with applicable sanctions policies post-acquisition. Moreover, OFAC claimed that the subsidiary’s senior management continued to export goods to Iran, despite executing written agreements stating they would not engage in such conduct and attending compliance training sessions.
OFAC also considered numerous mitigating factors, including that (i) neither the company nor the subsidiary have received a penalty or finding of a violation in the five years prior to the transactions at issue; (ii) the company immediately implemented “substantive remedial efforts,” including halting all of the subsidiary’s exports and hiring an independent investigator; and (iii) the company cooperated with OFAC’s investigation. OFAC noted that the company has committed to taking corrective actions to minimize the risk of recurring conduct.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Iran.