InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Final rule subject to approval will require federally regulated lending institutions to accept private flood insurance
Recently, the FDIC and OCC approved a joint final rule governing the acceptance of private flood insurance policies. (The final rule must also be approved by—and is still under review with—the other agencies jointly issuing the rule: the Federal Reserve Board, Farm Credit Administration, and National Credit Union Association.) The final rule amends regulations governing loans secured by properties in special flood hazard areas to implement the provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert Waters) concerning private flood insurance (see previous InfoBytes coverage of the proposed rule here). The National Flood Insurance Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act require flood insurance on improved property that secures a loan made, increased, extended, or renewed by a federally regulated lending institution (lending institution) if the property is in a special flood hazard area for which flood insurance is available under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Biggert Waters required the Agencies to adopt regulations directing lending institutions to accept insurance that meets the definition of “private flood insurance” in lieu of NFIP flood insurance.
The final rule, once approved by all five regulators, will institute the following provisions to take effect July 1:
- Lending institutions must accept private flood insurance policies meeting the definition of “private flood insurance.”
- Lending institutions may rely on a “streamlined compliance aid provision” to determine, without further review, that a policy meet the definition of “private flood insurance” if the policy (or an endorsement to the policy) contains the following language: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”
- Lending institutions may choose to accept private policies that do not meet the statutory criteria for “private flood insurance” as long as the policies meet certain criteria and the lending institutions document that the policies offer “sufficient protection for a designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles.”
- Lending institutions may exercise discretion when accepting non-traditional flood coverage issued by “mutual aid societies,” subject to certain conditions including that the lending institutions’ primary federal supervisory agency has determined that the plans qualify as flood insurance. However, the final rule does not require lending institutions to accept coverage issued by mutual aid societies.
Georgia Department of Banking and Finance revokes money transmitter license
On January 11, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (Department) announced the issuance of a Final Order taken against a Florida-based money transmitter and two of its officers for allegedly failing to, among other things, timely file suspicious activity reports (SARs) or conduct required background checks on covered employees. Following a hearing, the Department issued the Final Order on January 9 to revoke the company’s money transmitter license and order the officers to cease and desist. According to the Order, the officers’ failure to timely file SARs related to four cancelled money transmission transactions violated Georgia’s Rules and Regulations 80-3-1-.03(3), which obligate money transmitters to “comply with the recordkeeping requirements, currency transaction reporting, and suspicious activity reporting set forth in the Bank Secrecy Act.” Moreover, the Department further asserted that the officers materially misrepresented why the filings were delayed, and therefore deemed the officers “incompetent or untrustworthy to engage in the money transmission business.”
Florida Attorney General settles with car rental company for misleading fee disclosures
On January 22, the Florida Attorney General announced a settlement with a car rental automotive group resolving allegations the company did not adequately disclose add-on fees for cashless tolls and other related add-on charges. According to the settlement, the Attorney General launched an investigation after receiving consumer complaints alleging the company did not clearly disclose that consumers would be charged $15 per cashless toll, in addition to the actual toll fees. Additionally, consumers who opted into an add-on product that would allow them to go through cashless tolls without penalty alleged the company misled them regarding that product’s fees. The settlement requires the company to (i) clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees regarding cashless tolls or associated products within written agreements; (ii) provide clear disclosures regarding fees on their website, online reservation system, confirmation emails and at the rental counters; (iii) refund fees paid for tolls or the associated add-on product to consumers who were charged between January 1, 2011 and January 7, 2019, and who submit claim forms; and (iv) provide accurate disclosures on damage waivers. The settlement also prohibits the company from charging consumers for a higher car class when the car class reserved by a consumer is unavailable.
District Court allows TCPA action to proceed, citing 9th Circuit autodialer definition as binding law
On January 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied a cable company’s motion to stay a TCPA action, disagreeing with the company’s arguments that the court should wait until the FCC releases new guidance on what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) before reviewing the case. A consumer filed a proposed class action against the company, arguing that the company violated the TCPA by autodialing wrong or reassigned telephone numbers without express consent. The company moved to stay the case, citing the FCC’s May 2018 notice (covered by InfoBytes here), which sought comments on the interpretation of the TCPA following the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International v. FCC (setting aside the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of an autodialer as “unreasonably expansive”). The company argued that the FCC would “soon rule on what constitutes an [autodialer], a ‘called party,’ in terms of reassigned number liability, and a possible good faith defense pursuant to the TCPA,” all of which would affect the company’s liability in the proposed class action. The court rejected these arguments, citing as binding law Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, a September 2018 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that broadly defined what constitutes an autodialer under the statute (covered by InfoBytes here), and therefore, determining there was nothing to inhibit the court from proceeding with the case. As for the FCC’s possible future guidance on the subject, the court concluded, “there seems little chance that any guidance from the FCC, at some unknown, speculative, future date, would affect this case.”
OCC announces adoption of 18-month examination cycle final rule
On January 17, the OCC announced, together with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, the final rule amending regulations governing eligibility for the 18-month on-site examination cycle, pursuant to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule was published without change from the interim rule issued in August 2018 (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule allows for qualifying insured depository institutions with less than $3 billion in total assets (which is an increase from the previous threshold of $1 billion) to be eligible for an 18-month on-site examination cycle. The agencies reserve the right to adopt a more frequent schedule than 18 months for qualifying institutions if deemed “necessary or appropriate.” The final rule is effective January 28.
OCC releases recent enforcement actions
On January 18, 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 civil money penalties, a formal agreement, and removal/prohibition orders.
Formal Agreement. On December 31, the OCC entered into an agreement with a San Francisco bank to address alleged unsafe or unsound practices related to the bank’s enterprise governance, concentrations of credit, and credit risk management. Among other conditions, the agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a three-year strategic plan outlining goals and objectives related to the bank’s risk profile and liability structure, among other concerns; (ii) receive a “written determination of no supervisory objection” prior to increasing concentrations in unguaranteed portions of Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, and establish a concentration risk management program; (iii) engage an independent consultant to conduct quarterly asset quality reviews of the bank’s loan portfolio to, among other things, identify and stratify risk; (iv) establish and maintain a credit risk rating system; (v) revise its loan policies and procedures, including changes to its SBA lending program; (vi) submit revised policies and procedures concerning the maintenance and documentation of appropriate allowances for loan and lease losses; and (vii) prepare an employee compensation plan, which establishes criteria used when determining compensation levels, including those involving the bank’s SBA managers, business development officers, underwriters, and loan officers.
State Attorneys General weigh in on small-dollar lending RFI
On January 22, a coalition of 14 state Attorneys General submitted a comment letter responding to the FDIC’s Request for Information (RFI) on small-dollar lending. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the RFI here.) According to the letter, while the coalition welcomes the FDIC’s interest in encouraging FDIC-supervised financial institutions to offer responsibly underwritten and prudently structured small-dollar credit products that are economically viable and address consumer credit needs, the coalition simultaneously raises several legal risks affecting state-chartered banks seeking to enter this space.
- Banks face challenges when entering into relationships with “fringe lenders,” specifically with respect to the potential evasion of state restrictions related to state usury laws, “rent-a-bank” lending, and tribal sovereign immunity. The coalition recommends that the FDIC discourage banks from entering into such relationships.
- State-chartered banks are still subject to state unfair or deceptive acts or practices laws and state-law unconscionability claims. The coalition recommends that the FDIC encourage banks to evaluate consumers’ ability to repay, factoring in conditions such as consumers’ monthly expenses, their ability to repay a loan’s entire balance without re-borrowing, and their “capacity to absorb an unanticipated financial event. . .and, nonetheless, still be able to meet the payments as they become due.” The coalition recommends that the FDIC include the factors banks should consider before extending small-dollar loans to consumers in any guidance that it issues.
California small-dollar lender reaches settlement resolving interest rate allegations
On January 22, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a $900,000 settlement with a California-based lender for allegedly steering borrowers into high-interest loans to avoid statutory interest rate caps. According to the DBO, the lender’s practice of overcharging interest and administrative fees violated the California Financing Law, which caps interest on small-dollar loans up to $2,499 at rates between 20 percent and 30 percent, but does not provide a cap for loans of $2,500 and higher. The DBO also asserts that the lender’s brochures, which advertised loans of “‘up to $5,000’ without stating that the minimum loan amount offered by [the lender] was $2,501,” were false, misleading, or deceptive. Moreover, the lender allegedly failed to allow certain borrowers the opportunity to make advance payments “in any amount on any loan contract at any time.”
Additionally, the DBO alleges that the lender overcharged roughly $700,000 in payday loan transactions by (i) collecting charges twice; (ii) allowing borrowers to take out a new loan before paying off the old one; and (iii) depositing some borrowers’ checks prior to the specified date in the loan agreement without their written authorization.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender will, among other things, provide $800,000 in refunds to qualifying borrowers, pay $105,000 in penalties and other costs, and provide accurate verbal disclosures to borrowers concerning loan amounts and interest rate caps.
Connecticut allows federal employees impacted by shutdown to apply for zero-interest loans
On January 22, the Connecticut Governor signed HB 5765 to allow essential and nonessential federal employees, who are otherwise ineligible to receive unemployment assistance, to apply for zero-interest bank loans of up to $5,000 while the government remains shut down. Federal employees may be eligible for more if the partial government shutdown extends for a longer period. Under the new program, the loans have a 90-day grace period in which banks may not require repayment or charge interest on principal. The grace period begins when the affected employee’s federal agency is funded and is followed by a 180-day repayment period. Among other things, HB 5765 permits municipalities to defer property tax payments from impacted federal employees based on outlined eligibility criteria. According to a press release issued by the Governor, the coordination—where loans will be backed by the state—marks the first public-private partnership in the nation between a state and private banks and credit unions. The act takes effect immediately.
CFPB settles with loan broker over veteran pension loans
On January 23, the CFPB announced a settlement with an online loan broker resolving allegations that the broker violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by operating a website that connected veterans with companies offering high-interest loans in exchange for the assignment of some or all of their military pension payments. Specifically, the CFPB alleges the broker (i) misrepresented the contracts he facilitated as valid, when, in fact, under federal law veterans’ pension payments are unassignable; (ii) misrepresented to consumers that the offer was a “sale” of a product not a high-interest credit offer; (iii) misrepresented to consumers when they would receive their loan funds; and (v) failed to disclose the applicable interest rate on the loans. Under the program, veterans were also required to obtain life insurance policies in order to ensure the outstanding amount would be repaid even if the veteran died. Under the terms of the consent order, the broker is prohibited from engaging in the specified conduct in the future and is required to assist the Bureau in identifying and locating the veterans who were harmed. The Bureau required the broker to pay $1 in civil money penalties, based on his financial statements.