InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Computer financing operator cannot use bankruptcy to discharge $13.4 million judgment
On February 1, the FTC announced that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the operator of a computer-financing scheme cannot use his bankruptcy to discharge a $13.4 million judgment entered in 2016 for violating a 2008 FTC order. The FTC alleged that the defendant and his affiliated companies collected more than $14 million from consumers based on promises that they would finance the purchase of new computers but failed to actually deliver the computers. The court determined that the contempt judgment issued in 2016 could not be discharged because it resulted from the defendant’s fraudulent conduct “based on both misrepresentation and concealment.” In a press release describing the ruling, the FTC stated that the defendant’s attempt to shield himself from complying with the order by filing for bankruptcy was an attempt to “avoid justice.”
OFAC reaches settlement with U.S. cosmetics company for alleged North Korean sanctions violations
On January 31, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $996,080 settlement with a California-based cosmetics company for 156 alleged violations of the North Korean Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC, the settlement resolves potential civil liability for the company’s alleged involvement in the importation of goods from two Chinese suppliers containing materials sourced from North Korea.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered the following as aggravating factors: (i) the alleged violations may have resulted in the North Korean government gaining control of U.S.-origin funds; (ii) the company is “large and commercially sophisticated [and] engages in a substantial volume of international trade”; and (iii) during the period of the alleged activity, the company’s compliance program, which was either non-existent or inadequate, failed to have “exercised sufficient supply chain due diligence” in its sourcing of products from a region posing a high risk to the effectiveness of the North Korean Sanctions Regulations.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on North Korea sanctions.
Final deadline approaching for NYDFS cybersecurity regulation
On January 31, NYDFS issued a reminder for regulated entities that the final deadline for implementing NYDFS’s cybersecurity regulation ends March 1. Under the new regulation, banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, money transmitters, licensed lenders and other financial services institutions regulated by NYDFS are required to implement a cybersecurity program to protect consumer data. The last step in the implementation timeline requires covered entities that use third-party providers to put in place policies and procedures ensuring the security of information systems and nonpublic information accessible to, or held by, such third parties. NYDFS also reminded regulated entities that the deadline to file their second certification of compliance via NYDFS’ cybersecurity portal is February 15.
Previously InfoBytes coverage on NYDFS’ cybersecurity regulation are available here.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On January 25, the CFPB released FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID) compliance. Three of the four FAQs relate to corrected closing disclosures and the three business-day waiting period, while the fourth FAQ relates to the use of model forms. Highlights of the FAQs include:
- Under TRID, a creditor must ensure that a consumer received a corrected Closing Disclosure at least three business days before consummation of the transaction (i) for certain APR changes; (ii) if the loan product information changes; or (iii) if a prepayment penalty has been added to the loan. Any of these changes would trigger a new three business-day waiting period.
- A corrected Closing Disclosure is required under TRID if the APR changes, including if it decreases. If the change in the APR is within applicable tolerances under Regulation Z, the creditor may provide the new Closing Disclosure without triggering a new three business-day waiting period. If the change in the APR is outside applicable tolerances, the creditor must wait three business days before consummation.
- Section 109(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act did not change the timing for consummating transactions if a creditor is required to provide a corrected Closing Disclosure under TRID.
- A creditor is deemed in compliance with the disclosure requirements of TRID if it uses the appropriate model forms provided by the Bureau and properly completes them with accurate content.
CFPB files proposed consent order banning certain Canadian and Maltese payday lenders from U.S. consumer lending
On February 1, the CFPB and a group of payday lenders, including individuals and corporate officials based in Canada and Malta (collectively, “defendants”), filed a proposed consent order with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that would resolve allegations that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act. According to the Bureau’s press release, the defendants allegedly (i) misrepresented to consumers an obligation to repay loan amounts that were voided because the loan violated state licensing or usury laws; (ii) misrepresented that loan agreements were not subject to federal or state laws; (iii) misrepresented that non-payment would result in lawsuits, arrests, imprisonment, or wage garnishment; and (iv) conditioned loan agreements upon irrevocable wage assignment clauses. Under the terms of the proposed order, the defendants would be, among other things, (i) permanently banned from consumer lending in the U.S.; (ii) permanently restrained from the collection or sale of existing U.S. consumer debts; and (iii) subject to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The proposed order does not impose a fine on the defendants.
Federal Reserve issues final rules reflecting credit and interest rate increases
On January 31, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) published a final rule amending Regulation A (Extensions of Credit by Federal Reserve Banks) to reflect its December 19 approval of a one-quarter percent increase, from 2.75 percent to 3 percent. Additionally, because the formula for the secondary credit rate incorporates the primary rate, the secondary credit rate also increased by one-quarter percentage point, from 3.25 percent to 3.5 percent. The rate changes took effect on January 31, but were applicable on December 20, 2018.
The same day, the Fed also issued a final rule amending Regulation D (Reserve Requirements of Depository Institutions) to reflect approval of a 0.20 percentage point increase to the “rate of interest paid on balances maintained to satisfy reserve balance requirements (“IORR”) and the rate of interest paid on excess balances (“IOER”), both now at 2.4 percent, maintained at Federal Reserve Banks by or on behalf of eligible institutions.” The rate changes took effect on January 31, but were applicable on December 20.
CFPB seeks information on debt collection disclosures
On February 4, the CFPB released a request for public comment on a new information collection titled, “Debt Collection Quantitative Disclosure Testing.” The proposed collection—which seeks Office of Management and Budget approval to conduct a web survey as part of the Bureau's debt collection disclosure research—“will explore consumer comprehension and decision making in response to debt collection disclosure forms.” Comments must be received by March 6.
Former insurance executives charged with laundering bribes to Barbados Minister of Industry
On January 28, DOJ announced charges against the former chief executive and a former senior vice president of a Barbados-based insurance company. The indictment alleges that the the company's executives participated in a scheme to launder approximately $36,000 in bribes to the then-Minister of Industry of Barbados in exchange for his assistance in securing government contracts for the company. According to the indictment, the bribes were laundered through a United States bank account in the name of a dental company located in New York. The former Minister of Industry was arrested in August 2018 and the indictment against him referenced, but did not name, his alleged co-conspirators. The superseding indictment against the three co-defendants and another still unnamed former insurance executive was unsealed on January 18, 2019. Prior Scorecard coverage of the arrest and indictment of the former Minister of Industry can be found here.
The company voluntarily self-disclosed the case to DOJ and received a declination letter from DOJ for its cooperation pursuant to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy. The declination letter required the company to disgorge $93,940.19 in profits received through the conduct at issue. The declination was based, in part, on the company’s termination of all executives and employees involved in the alleged misconduct and in helping DOJ identify the culpable individuals. Prior Scorecard coverage of the declination letter can be found here.
NYDFS fines London-based bank $40 million for alleged FX violations
On January 29, NYDFS announced a $40 million settlement with a London-based financial services company to resolve allegations the bank engaged in unsafe and unsound practices in its foreign exchange (FX) trading business. According to the consent order, the company did not implement and maintain sufficient controls to identify illegal tactics used by traders to maximize profits or minimize losses at the expense of the company’s customers, competitors, and the market as a whole. Among other things, the order states that between 2007 and 2013 the company’s FX traders (i) improperly coordinated trading through a chat room; (ii) improperly shared confidential consumer information; and (iii) engaged in “deliberate underfills” of consumer accounts. In addition to the fine, the company is required to improve its internal controls and programs to comply with applicable New York State and federal laws and regulations, submit a written plan to improve its compliance risk management program, and provide an enhanced written internal audit program. NYDFS acknowledged the company’s full cooperation with the investigation, in addition to taking disciplinary action against those identified as engaging in the misconduct.
9th Circuit holds inclusion of state disclosure requirements violate FCRA standalone requirement
On January 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the defendant employer violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) standalone document requirement when it included extraneous state disclosure requirements within a disclosure to obtain a consumer report on the plaintiff, a prospective employee. The panel also concluded that the defendant’s form failed to satisfy both the FCRA and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act’s (ICRAA) “‘clear and conspicuous’ requirements because, although the disclosure was conspicuous, it was not clear.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff signed a “Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation,” and was employed for several months before voluntarily terminating her employment. Following her departure from the company, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the defendant, alleging a failure to make proper disclosure under the FCRA and the ICRAA. The plaintiff claimed that the disclosure form included not only a disclosure as required by the FCRA stating that the defendant could obtain a consumer report on her, but also additional disclosure requirements for several other states.
The district court initially granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the FCRA and as to ICRAA’s clear and conspicuous requirement, holding that the disclosure form complied with both statutes. On appeal, the 9th Circuit first rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the disclosure form violated the standalone document requirements because it included all the application materials she filled out during the employment process. The panel declined to extend this principle to the FCRA’s definition of a “document,” stating that the employment packet was distinct from the disclosure form. However, the 9th Circuit cited to its 2017 decision in Syed v. M-I, LLC, which held that “‘a prospective employer violates Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) when it procures a job applicant’s consumer report after including a liability waiver in the same document as the statutorily mandated disclosure.’” Noting the statute’s plain language, the 9th Circuit concluded in Syed that the FCRA meant what it said—“the required disclosure must be in a document that ‘consist[s] ‘solely’ of the disclosure.’” Moreover, the panel stated that Syed considered the standalone requirement with regard to any surplusage, and that the “FCRA should not be read to have implied exceptions, especially when the exception—in that case, a liability waiver—was contrary to FCRA’s purpose.”
The 9th Circuit also concluded that the district court erred in holding that the disclosure form was clear because the form (i) contained language a reasonable person would not understand, and (ii) the language combined federal and state disclosures, which would confuse a reasonable reader. However, the panel held that the disclosure form met the conspicuous requirement since the defendant capitalized, bolded, and underlined the headings for each section of the disclosure and labeled the form so an applicant could see what she was signing. Accordingly, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.