InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Colorado provides certain digital tokens licensing exemptions
On March 6, the Colorado Governor signed SB 19-23, which provides limited exemptions from the state’s securities registration and licensing requirements for persons dealing in certain types of digital tokens. The “Colorado Digital Token Act” (the Act) provides issuer exemptions for digital tokens sold for a “consumptive purpose”—the token is used in exchange for a good, service, or content—rather than a “speculative or investment purpose.” Specifically, the Act attempts to reduce regulatory uncertainty by providing a safe harbor from state securities laws for persons that meet the specified conditions. Subject to the filing of a referendum petition, the Act will take effect August 2.
District Court dismisses FDCPA and TCPA claims against online retailer
On March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an online retailer’s motion to dismiss an action alleging the retailer violated the FDCPA and the TCPA. According to the opinion, the plaintiff received a $300 credit line with the retailer for a laptop computer, which the plaintiff alleges he never received. The plaintiff alleges that the retailer continued to seek payment for the laptop and repeatedly contacted the plaintiff by phone after the plaintiff disputed the payment and informed the retailer to only communicate in writing. The retailor subsequently sent the plaintiff a letter acknowledging his request to only be contacted in writing, revoking prior consent to be contacted by phone. The plaintiff then filed the FDCPA and TCPA claims against the retailer after the plaintiff sought to collect $150,000 from the retailer for expenses defending against the retailer’s collection attempts, which the plaintiff argued the retailer “tacitly agreed” to pay. The retailer moved to dismiss the claims arguing the plaintiff failed to allege the retailer was a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and that the plaintiff failed to establish the retailer called the plaintiff without his prior consent under the TCPA. The court agreed, noting that the retailer had serviced the plaintiff’s account “well before” the plaintiff owed an actual debt and therefore, is not a debt collector under the FDCPA. As for the TCPA claim, the court found that the plaintiff failed to show the retailer called him after the parties agreed to revoke the prior consent. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he had revoked consent prior to the retailer’s acknowledgment of the revocation, noting that a party cannot unilaterally revoke consent under the TCPA. Because the plaintiff failed to state plausible claims under the FDCPA and the TCPA, the court dismissed the action and denied the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
FTC warns subpoena and CID recipients of compliance obligations
On March 6, the FTC’s Office of Legal Counsel warned recipients that subpoenas and civil investigative demands (CID) issued by the agency are legally enforceable demands and should be taken seriously. The FTC stated it is willing “to work with parties and their counsel to determine the scope of the agency’s subpoena or CID and a timeframe for compliance” and issued a reminder that under the FTC’s Rules of Practice, parties are required to meet and confer to identify issues or concerns that may affect a party’s ability to comply. The FTC additionally discussed measures the Office of Legal Counsel may undertake in order to compel compliance, including the possibility of federal court action.
CFTC, SEC settle with foreign trading platform conducting Bitcoin transactions without proper registration
On March 4, the CFTC resolved an action taken against a foreign trading platform and its CEO (defendants) for allegedly offering and selling security-based swaps to U.S. customers without registering as a futures commission merchant or designated contract market with the CFTC. The CFTC alleged that the platform permitted customers to transact in “contracts for difference,” which were transactions to exchange the difference in value of an underlying asset between the time at which the trading position was established and the time at which it was terminated. The transactions were initiated through, and settled in, Bitcoin. The CFTC alleged that these transactions constituted “retail commodity transactions,” which would have required the platform to receive the proper registration.
According to the CFTC, the defendants, among other things, (i) neglected to register as a futures commission merchant with the CFTC; and (ii) failed to comply with required anti-money laundering procedures, including implementing an adequate know-your-customer/customer identification program. The consent order entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia imposes a civil monetary penalty of $175,000 and requires the disgorgement of $246,000 of gains. The consent order also requires the defendants to certify to the CFTC the liquidation of all U.S. customer accounts and the repayment of approximately $570,000 worth of Bitcoins to U.S. customers.
In a parallel action, the SEC entered into a final judgment the same day to resolve claims that, among other things, the defendants failed to properly register as a security-based swaps dealer. The defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from future violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and are required to pay disgorgement of approximately $53,393. This action demonstrates the potential application of CFTC and SEC registration requirements to non-U.S. companies engaging in covered transactions with U.S. customers.
OFAC sanctions Russian bank for providing assistance to Venezuelan oil company
On March 11, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against a Moscow-based bank for materially assisting Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, which was sanctioned earlier this year by OFAC pursuant to Executive Order 13850. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The bank, which is jointly owned by Russian and Venezuelan state-owned companies, “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of,” the previously sanctioned entity. According to OFAC, the bank was also identified as “the primary international financial institution willing to finance” the Venezuelan cryptocurrency, Petro, which was allegedly created to help former President Maduro’s regime circumvent U.S. sanctions. As a result, any assets or interests therein belonging to the bank, as well as any entities directly or indirectly owned 50 percent or more by the bank that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also prohibited generally from dealing with any such property or interests.
Visit here for continuing InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Venezuela.
Proposed settlement would resolve claims in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC
On March 1, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action settlement agreement with a debt collection firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which would potentially end litigation dating back to 2011 concerning alleged violations of state usury limitations. The proposed settlement would resolve claims originally brought by the plaintiffs alleging that the defendants violated the FDCPA and New York state usury law when it attempted to collect charged-off credit card debt, purchased from a national bank, from borrowers with interest rates above the state’s 25 percent cap. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court’s 2013 decision, and held that a nonbank entity taking assignment of debts originated by a national bank is not entitled to protection under the National Bank Act from state-law usury claims. This ruling contradicted the “Valid-When-Made Doctrine,” which is a longstanding principle of usury law that if a loan is not usurious when made, then it does not become usurious when assigned to another party. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear the case, the district court issued a ruling in 2017 (covered by InfoBytes here) holding that New York’s fundamental public policy against usury overrides a Delaware choice-of-law clause in the plaintiff’s original credit card agreement. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and allowed the FDCPA and related state unfair or deceptive acts or practices claims to proceed. However, the court did not allow the plaintiff’s claims for violations of New York’s usury law to proceed, as it held that New York’s civil usury statute does not apply to defaulted debts and that the plaintiff cannot directly enforce the criminal usury statute.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the defendants are required to, among other things, (i) provide class members with $555,000 in monetary relief; (ii) provide $9.2 million in credit balance reductions; (iii) pay $550,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and (iv) agree to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and case law regarding the collection of interest, including the collection of usurious interest.
District Court moves FDCPA credit inquiry action forward
On March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied a debt buyer’s motion to dismiss a consumer action alleging the company violated the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) by requesting a credit reporting agency account review after the alleged debt had been discharged in bankruptcy. According to the opinion, the consumer’s debts were discharged in November 2017 after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and in December 2017, the company requested an account review through a credit reporting agency for collection purposes. The consumer alleges the company violated the FDCPA and the OCSPA because the company could not legally collect on a debt that had already been discharged in bankruptcy. The company moved to dismiss the action arguing it was not a debt collector under the FDCPA nor was it a “supplier” under the OCSPA, but rather is merely a “passive debt purchaser” and only reviewed the report but took no further action, which does not qualify as collection conduct. The court disagreed, noting that it must accept the consumer’s allegations as true at this stage, and determined the allegations plausibly support her claim that the company is a debt collector under the FDCPA. Moreover, the court acknowledged that while the company only sought to receive information from the credit reporting agency, it did convey that the contact was for the purposes of collection. Therefore, the allegations by the consumer that the company violated the FDCPA for representing a debt was for collection when it was previously discharged were sufficient to survive the motion. As for the OCSPA, the court found that the company’s activities may effect consumer transactions, which makes it plausible that the company is a “supplier” under the statute.
FDIC Chairman: Proposed Volcker reform may need an overhaul
On March 11, FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams spoke at the Institute of International Bankers Annual Washington Conference about Volcker Rule reform, emphasizing that federal agencies need to provide greater clarity about the types of prohibited trading and the types of funds that fall within the scope of the rule. McWilliams noted that compliance with the Volcker Rule (Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act), which restricts a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds, has been challenging for institutions and that many of the rule’s requirements are “extremely complex and overly subjective.” Emphasizing that there appears to be a broad consensus for reform, McWilliams stated that—after considering a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing significant changes to the Volcker Rule’s trading and compliance elements issued last May (covered by InfoBytes here), along with comment letters, and stakeholder input—it remains clear that certain elements of the rule and proposal still require work. Concerning the Volcker Rule’s effect on banks engaged in international activity, McWilliams noted that “[w]e need to right size the rule’s extraterritorial scope while also minimizing competitive inequities between the U.S. banking entities and their foreign counterparts,” adding that the Volcker Rule should not prohibit activities clearly not governed by U.S. rules, and that the FDIC will consider options for simplifying the current rule’s scope and requirements for foreign funds.
4th Circuit: No waiver of sovereign immunity for lawsuits under the FCRA
On March 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit held that Congress did not waive sovereign immunity for lawsuits under the FCRA, affirming the lower court’s dismissal of a consumer action. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education (the Department), a student loan company, and the three major credit reporting agencies, alleging numerous claims, including violations of the FCRA for failing to properly investigate disputes that federal student loans were fraudulently opened in his name. The Department filed a motion to dismiss to the FCRA claims against it arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based upon a claim of sovereign immunity. The lower court agreed, holding Congress had not affirmatively waived sovereign immunity for suits under the FCRA.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed with the lower court. The appellate court noted that, although the FCRA includes a “government or governmental subdivision or agency” as part of the definition of “person” in the statute, there is a “longstanding interpretive presumption that ‘person’ does not include the sovereign,” and that waivers of sovereign immunity need to be “unambiguous and unequivocal.” The appellate court noted that Congress waived immunity in other sections of the FCRA, which were not at issue in this case and, had Congress waived immunity for enforcement purposes under the FCRA, it would raise a new host of “befuddling” and “bizarre” issues, such as the prospect of the government bringing criminal charges against itself. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the federal government may be a “person” under the substantive provisions, but that without a clear waiver from Congress, the federal government is still immune from lawsuits under the FCRA’s enforcement provisions.
VA encourages loan holders to extend relief to Alabama borrowers
On March 8, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-07, requesting relief for homeowners impacted by severe weather in Alabama. Among other things, the Circular encourages loan holders to (i) extend forbearance to borrowers in distress because of the wildfires; (ii) establish a 90-day moratorium from the date of the disaster on initiating new foreclosures on affected loans; (iii) waive late charges on affected loans; and (iv) suspend reporting affected loans to credit bureaus. 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.