InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD permits use of third-party verification services
On February 15, HUD released Mortgagee Letter 2019-01, which provides guidance on the use of third-party verification (TPV) services for FHA-insured mortgages. Effective immediately, FHA now allows mortgagees to use TPV services for verification of a borrower’s employment, income, and asset information. The Letter provides specific requirements for each category of information but, in all circumstances, a borrower must authorize the mortgagee’s use of a TPV vendor for the verification (whether direct or electronic).
OCC releases February 2019 enforcement actions
On February 15, 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 a civil money penalty order against an individual, a notice of prohibition against an individual, and three removal and prohibition consent orders against individuals, and a cease and desist consent order described below.
On January 7, the OCC entered into a consent order with a federal savings bank related to allegations of unsafe or unsound banking practices. The OCC alleges the bank failed to implement and maintain an effective compliance management system, risk governance framework, and information technology (IT) program. Among other provisions, the order requires the bank to develop written plans to strengthen the compliance, risk governance, and IT programs, and requires the Board to ensure the bank has adopted and implemented all the corrective actions required by the order. The bank neither admits nor denies the allegations and the OCC did not assess any monetary penalties against the bank.
1st Circuit rejects dismissal of a Massachusetts foreclosure notice action
On February 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a Massachusetts homeowners’ action alleging that the mortgage holder failed to comply with the notice requirement in their mortgage before foreclosing on their property. The district court dismissed the action after concluding that the mortgage holder’s notice satisfied the notice requirements by including the default amount, a cure date, and the fact that failure to cure could result in acceleration. The homeowners appealed, arguing that the mortgage holder failed to strictly comply with the provision’s requirements because the notice provided did not include the conditions and time limitations associated with reinstatement after acceleration that were required by a separate provision in the mortgage.
On appeal, the 1st Circuit reviewed the notice under Massachusetts law, which requires mortgage holders to strictly comply with two types of mortgage terms: (i) ones “directly concerned with the foreclosure sale. . .” and (ii) ones “prescribing actions the mortgagee must take in connection with the foreclosure sale—whether before or after the sale takes place.” In overturning the District Court’s dismissal, the 1st Circuit noted that, because the notice did not contain the additional conditions and time limitations associated with reinstatement from the separate provision, dismissal was inappropriate.
CSBS agrees to implement recommendations from fintech advisory panel
On February 14, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) agreed to implement specific recommendations from the CSBS Fintech Industry Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel, which was formed in 2017 and consists of 33 fintech companies, works to “identify and remove unnecessary pain points in the multistate experience of fintechs and other nonbanks operating regionally or nationwide while improving financial supervision.” Of the 19 recommended actions by the Advisory Panel, CSBS supported 14, including: (i) creating a 50-state model law to license money services businesses; (ii) creating a standardized call report for consumer finance businesses; (iii) expanding the use of the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System across all license types; and (iv) building an online database of state licensing and fintech guidance. Recommendations related to small business lending were among the items saved for future action or implementation.
OFAC reaches settlement with non-U.S. chemical manufacturer resolving Cuban sanctions violations
On February 14, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $5.5 million settlement with a German chemical manufacturer for 304 alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR). According to OFAC, the settlement resolves the manufacturer’s alleged involvement in fulfilling Cuban orders for chemical reagents on 304 invoices. Prior to and upon acquiring the manufacturer, an Illinois-based company sent warnings to the manufacturer that all Cuban transactions must be ceased, along with guidelines for complying with U.S. sanctions. OFAC noted, however, that the manufacturer designed and implemented a system to conceal its on-going transactions, engaged an external logistics company to handle shipping documents and declarations, and conducted training sessions for staff to ensure the system was concealed from the Illinois company.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered the following as aggravating factors: (i) the willful conduct of the manufacturer’s management; (ii) the utilization of written procedures to “engage in a pattern of conduct in violation of the CACR”; (iii) the number of transactions over an extended period of time “caused significant harm to the sanctions program objective of maintaining a comprehensive embargo on Cuba”; and (iv) the sophistication and revenue stream of the manufacturer, and the fact that it is a subsidiary of a large, international company.
OFAC also considered several mitigating factors, including the Illinois company’s cooperation with OFAC, voluntary self-disclosure, and execution of a tolling agreement on behalf of the manufacturer. OFAC further stressed the importance of implementing risk-based controls and due-diligence procedures to ensure subsidiaries comply with OFAC sanction obligations.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Cuban sanctions.
OFAC sanctions officials aligned with Maduro regime
On February 15, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced additions to the Specially Designated Nationals List pursuant to Executive Order 13692. OFAC’s additions to the list include five current or former officials connected to former President Maduro, including the president of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, which was sanctioned at the end of January. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to OFAC, the designated individuals have engaged in “significant corruption and fraud against the people of Venezuela,” and continue to assist the Maduro regime’s repression of Venezuelan people. As a result, any assets or interests therein belonging to the identified individuals—along with any entities directly or indirectly owned 50 percent or more by such individuals—subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are prohibited generally from dealing with any such property or interests.
See here for continuing InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Venezuela.
FCC proposes to strengthen enforcement of caller ID spoofing
On February 14, the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to strengthen its rules against caller ID spoofing and expand the agency’s enforcement efforts against illegal spoofed text messages and phone calls, including those from overseas. The proposed rules would enact requirements in the recently passed RAY BAUM’S Act of 2018, and expand Truth in Caller ID Act prohibitions against the transmittal of “misleading or inaccurate caller ID information (‘spoofing’) with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value” to text messages and calls to U.S. residents originating from outside the U.S.
The FCC seeks comments on the proposed rules—adopted unanimously at the agency’s February 14 meeting—on, among other things, what changes to the Truth in Caller ID rules can be made “to better prevent inaccurate or misleading caller ID information from harming consumers.” Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Senate Banking Committee seeks data privacy feedback
On February 13, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) invited stakeholder feedback on “the collection, use and protection of sensitive information from financial regulators and private companies” as a means of informing potential future legislation. In a press release issued by the committee, Crapo noted, “Given the exponential growth and use of data, and corresponding data breaches, it is worth examining how the Fair Credit Reporting Act should work in a digital economy, and whether certain data brokers and other firms serve a function similar to the original consumer reporting agencies.” He further stressed the importance of understanding how consumer data is compiled and protected, and how consumers are able to access and correct sensitive information. The release sought answers to five questions designed to help examine ways in which legislation, regulation, or the implementation of best practices can (i) provide consumers better control over their financial data, as well as timely data breach notifications; (ii) ensure consumers receive disclosures concerning both the type of information being collected and its purpose for collection; (iii) provide consumers control over how their data is being used—including the sharing of information by third-parties; (iv) protect consumer data and ensure the accuracy of reported information in a consumer’s credit file; and (v) allow consumers the ability to “easily identify and exercise control of data that is being . . . collected and shared” as a determining factor when establishing whether a consumer is eligible for, among other things, credit or employment.
District Court concludes communications transmitter can be liable under the TCPA
On February 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada rejected a cloud communication company’s motion to dismiss a TCPA class action. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs’ alleged the company “collaborated as to the development, implementation, and maintenance of [a] telemarketing text message program,” which was used by a theater production company to send text messages without prior consent in violation of the TCPA and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The company moved to dismiss the claims, arguing, among other things, that it was not liable under the TCPA because it was a “transmitter” and not an “initiator” of communications. Citing the FCC’s previous determination that, under certain circumstances transmitters may be held liable under the TCPA, the court rejected this argument, concluding that the company took steps necessary to send the automated messages and that its “alleged involvement was to an extent that [it] could be considered to have initiated the contact.” Moreover, the court determined the plaintiff sufficiently alleged injury under the TCPA, concluding that violations of privacy and injury to the “quiet use and enjoyment of [a] cellular telephone” are consistent with the purpose of the TCPA. The court did dismiss the plaintiff’s NDTPA claims, however, holding that the transaction did not involve the sale or lease of goods or services as the law requires.
District Court holds FCRA preempts state law claims
On February 8, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a consumer’s state law claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and civil conspiracy claims because they were preempted by the FCRA. According to the opinion, which affirmed and adopted a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and also allowed the consumer’s FDCPA claims to proceed, the consumer alleged the furnisher improperly filed delinquencies on his credit report, wrongfully refused to remove the delinquencies, and improperly handled the investigation of his claims. The consumer had objected to the Magistrate’s conclusions with regard to the state law claims, arguing that the FCRA preemption was not applicable because the unfair and deceptive conduct occurred after the furnisher allegedly reported inaccurate information to the credit bureaus. The district court rejected this argument, concluding that the state law claims “run [] into the teeth of the FCRA preemption provision” and are “squarely preempted” by the federal statute.