InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senate confirms Kraninger as new CFPB director
On December 6, the U.S. Senate confirmed, in a 50 to 49 vote, Kathy Kraninger as the new Director of the CFPB for a five year term. Kraninger replaces acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney, under whom she served at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as the associate director for general government. Prior to OMB, Kraninger worked at the Department of Homeland Security and in Congress on the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In July, Kraninger testified before the Senate Banking Committee where she fielded questions covering a range of topics and notably stated that, “Congress, through [the] Dodd-Frank Act, gave the Bureau incredible powers and incredible independence from both the president and the Congress in its structure. . . . My focus is on running the agency as Congress established it, but certainly working with members of Congress. I’m very open to changes in that structure that will make the agency more accountable and more transparent.” (Detailed coverage on Kraninger’s hearing available here.)
While her views on consumer financial protection issues are largely unknown, Kraninger is expected to continue with Mulvaney’s initiatives, at least in the near term. Currently, the Bureau is, among other things, (i) expected to release a proposed rule reconsidering the ability-to-repay provisions of the rule covering Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans in January 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here); (ii) fighting three constitutional challenges to its single-director structure (InfoBytes coverage here and here and here); and (iii) receiving pushback from state Attorneys General on its reported decisions to no longer supervising financial institutions for compliance with the Military Lending Act (MLA) and reexamine the requirements and enforcement of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
In a press statement released shortly after the vote, Mulvaney praised the Senate for confirming Kraninger and spoke of his time as acting Director, “[t]his last year has been an important step in the history of the Bureau as we take our place among the most notable regulatory bodies of our country -- and frankly the world. Like all transitions, it was not always as smooth as we would've all liked, but the Bureau has emerged stronger for it.”
Agencies encourage financial institutions to explore innovative industry approaches to BSA/AML compliance
On December 3, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a joint statement along with federal banking agencies—the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC (together, the “agencies”)—to encourage banks and credit unions to explore innovative approaches such as artificial intelligence, digital identity technologies, and internal financial intelligence units to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial threats when safeguarding the financial system. According to the agencies, private sector innovation and the adoption of new technologies can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance programs. Moreover, new innovations and technologies can also enhance transaction monitoring systems. Specifically, the agencies urged banks to test innovative programs to explore the use of artificial intelligence. However, the agencies emphasized that while feedback on innovative programs may be provided, the “pilot programs in and of themselves should not subject banks to supervisory criticism even if the pilot programs ultimately prove unsuccessful. Likewise, pilot programs that expose gaps in a BSA/AML compliance program will not necessarily result in supervisory action with respect to that program.” The joint statement further specifies that the agencies will be willing to grant exceptive relief from BSA regulatory requirements to facilitate pilot programs, “provided that banks maintain the overall effectiveness of their BSA/AML compliance programs.” However, banks that maintain effective compliance programs but choose not to innovate will not be penalized or criticized.
According to Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, “[a]s money launderers and other illicit actors constantly evolve their tactics, we want the compliance community to likewise adapt their efforts to counter these threats,” pointing to the recent use of innovative technologies to identify and report illicit financial activity related to both Iran and North Korea.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, earlier in October the agencies provided guidance on resource sharing between banks and credit unions in order to more efficiently and effectively manage their BSA/AML obligations.
(See also Federal Reserve Board press release, FDIC press release and FIL-79-2018, NCUA press release, and OCC press release and Bulletin 2018-44.)
Court stays fee action against bank during pendency of RMBS action
On November 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed to stay proceedings covering an investment company’s challenge to a bank’s practice of billing the legal fees incurred in defending a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts lawsuit to the RMBS trusts. According to the opinion, in 2014, an investment company filed a lawsuit against the national bank alleging breach of contract and other common law duties in the bank’s role as trustee for multiple RMBS trusts. In 2017, the investment company filed a separate lawsuit in the same court, challenging the bank’s practice of billing the RMBS trusts for the legal fees incurred by defending the original lawsuit. The two lawsuits were consolidated and the bank moved to dismiss the second lawsuit or stay the proceedings during the pendency of the original lawsuit. Upon review, the court agreed to stay the proceedings, noting the “claims at issue in the fees complaint may well turn on determinations made in the underlying suit.” The investment company argued that while the trusts’ agreements contain fee indemnity clauses, the clauses are not applicable to the bank’s alleged “willful misfeasance, bad faith, or gross negligence.” The court noted that whether the bank acted grossly negligent in its duties as trustee for the RMBS trusts is a “central factual question” in the original lawsuit and therefore, staying the proceedings “could avoid a possible waste of both the parties’ and the court’s resources.”
Additionally, in the same order, the court denied NCUA’s request to intervene in the fees action, holding the agency did not establish it could meet the higher burden of demonstrating inadequate representation by the investment company, which shares the same interests as NCUA.
5th Circuit finds company delay unfairly prejudiced plaintiff, reverses decision to compel arbitration
On November 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed a lower court decision to grant a technology analytics company’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the company substantially invoked the judicial system prior to moving to compel arbitration, and the individual plaintiff was prejudiced by such actions. According to the opinion, in 2015, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the company alleging various violations of Illinois law relating to deceptive practices and unjust enrichment. In response, the company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and, in the alternative, moved to transfer the case for forum non conveniens arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were subject to arbitration in Texas. After the case was transferred to Texas, the company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss and reply brief, both of which did not mention arbitration. In 2017, after receiving the plaintiff’s requests for production, the company filed with the district court its motion to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion to compel, holding that while the company substantially invoked the judicial process, the plaintiff had only “suffered some prejudice” in the form of delay and delay alone is insufficient to deny arbitration.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit agreed that the company substantially invoked the judicial system, but determined the lower court erred when it found the plaintiff had not been prejudiced unfairly. As a result, the company waived its right to arbitrate. The 5th Circuit noted that after the case was transferred from Illinois to Texas, the company waited 13 months before moving to compel arbitration, in order to first obtain a dismissal from the district court. Acknowledging the damage to the plaintiff’s legal position and additional litigation expenses incurred because of this tactic, the appellate court stated, “[a] party cannot keep its right to demand arbitration in reserve indefinitely while it pursues a decision on the merits before the district court.”
3rd Circuit reverses district court’s collateral estoppel ruling preventing plaintiff from pursuing debt collection claims
On November 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to a university and its debt collection firm (appellees) on the grounds that the issue had already been decided in state court, ordering the district court to reconsider the plaintiff/appellant’s discovery motions and whether it can “exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the appellees’ alleged violation of Pennsylvania law.
The plaintiff/appellant, a former university student, provided the appellees with a new address in Philadelphia after being contacted about unpaid tuition. When the debt remained unpaid, the appellees filed suit against him in Philadelphia municipal court but sent notices to a New Jersey address on file in the university’s system. The plaintiff/appellant did not appear in court and a default judgment was entered against him. The plaintiff/appellant petitioned to reopen the default judgment, arguing that the appellees had intentionally served his old address to avoid the personal service requirement in Philadelphia County. The municipal court dismissed the default judgment, despite finding that the appellees had not engaged in any intentional misconduct. Following a trial on the merits, the Philadelphia municipal court judge again ruled against the plaintiff/appellant for the full amount. Subsequently, the plaintiff/appellant filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging violations of the FDCPA and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; however, the federal court barred the deceptive service of process claim, finding that the municipal court had already ruled that the debt collectors’ actions were unintentional.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit found that the district court had erred in ruling that collateral estoppel prevented the plaintiff/appellant from pursuing claims against the appellees simply because the municipal court judge said that he did not think the notices were intentionally served to the old address so a default judgment could be obtained. “Although the [m]unicipal [c]ourt’s finding may meet the first four elements of collateral estoppel, its determination that [a]ppellees did not intentionally serve [the plaintiff/appellant] at the wrong address was not essential to its judgment at that hearing, i.e., vacating the default judgment. In fact, its finding was contrary to this ultimate judgment,” the appellate court concluded. The appellate court also reversed the grant of summary judgment to the appellees on the plaintiff/appellant’s remaining FDCPA claims and remanded them to the district court to determine whether there had been “false and deceptive service of process; misconduct in opposing the opening of default judgment; and misstatements of the case caption, case number and court in the [c]ollection [l]etter.”
OCC's Semiannual Risk Perspective highlights key risks affecting the federal banking system
On December 3, the OCC released its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2018, identifying and reiterating key risk areas that pose a threat to the safety and soundness of national banks and federal savings associations. The report focuses on risks to the federal banking system based on five areas: the operating environment, bank performance, special topics in emerging risk, trends in key risks, and supervisory actions. Overall, loans and bank profitability grew in 2018 as the U.S. economy continued to grow. Moreover, recent examination findings indicate incremental improvements in banks’ general risk management practices. Specific risk areas of concern noted by the OCC include: (i) the origination quality of new loans and potential embedded risks from previously successive years of relaxed underwriting standards; (ii) an increasingly complex operating environment, including the continually evolving threat to cybersecurity; (iii) elevated money-laundering risks; and (iv) rising market interest rates, including certain risks associated with heightened competition for deposits.
The report also notes that outstanding enforcement actions continue to decline since peaking in 2010, which, according to the OCC, reflects an overall improvement in, among other things, banks’ risk management practices. The leading cause of current enforcement actions continues to be compliance or operational failures.
FDIC releases October enforcement actions, includes BSA and TILA violations
On November 30, the FDIC announced a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in October. Included among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty of $9,600 issued against a Louisiana-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act in connection with alleged failures to obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at or before origination or renewal.
Consent orders were also issued against three separate banks related to alleged weaknesses in their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or BSA/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance programs. (See orders here, here, and here.) Among other things, the banks are ordered to: (i) implement comprehensive written BSA/AML compliance programs, which include revising BSA risk assessment policies, developing a system of BSA internal controls, and enhancing suspicious activity monitoring and reporting and customer due diligence procedures; (ii) conduct independent testing; and (iii) implement effective BSA training programs. The FDIC further requires the Florida and New Jersey-based banks to conduct suspicious activity reporting look-back reviews.
In addition, a Kentucky-based bank was ordered to pay a civil money of $300,000 for allegedly violating TILA by “failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose required information related to the [b]ank’s Elastic line of credit product” and Section 5 of the FTC ACT by “using a processing order for certain deposit account transactions contrary to the processing orders disclosed in the [b]ank’s deposit account disclosures.”
There are no administrative hearings scheduled for December 2018. The FDIC database containing all 17 enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
FinCEN, OCC, FBI discuss BSA/AML regime modernization needs before Senate Banking Committee
On November 29, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing entitled “Combating Money Laundering and Other Forms of Illicit Finance: Regulator and Law Enforcement Perspectives on Reform” to discuss efforts to improve the Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement regime. Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, opened the hearing by emphasizing the need for a continued dialogue on modernizing the BSA/AML regime to “encourage the innovation necessary to combat illicit financing while also encouraging regulators to focus on more tangible threats, and law enforcement to increase interagency cooperation and improve information sharing throughout the process.”
Among other things, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Director Kenneth A. Blanco highlighted the following three key priorities as part of FinCEN’s “multi-prong approach” to the regulatory reform process: (i) examining and understanding the value and effectiveness of the BSA through data-driven analysis in conjunction with both considering changes to enhance efficiency (such as evaluating suspicious activity and currency transaction reporting requirements) and engaging with regulators through, for example, monthly meetings with the FFIEC’s Anti-Money Laundering Working Group; (ii) “promot[ing] responsible innovation and creative solutions to combat money laundering and terrorist financing” by exploring ways to collaborate with financial institutions to improve AML/countering the financing of terrorism compliance, fostering innovation, and leveraging technology while also minimizing vulnerabilities; and (iii) “[e]nhancing public-private partnerships that reveal and mitigate vulnerabilities” and sharing information with the private sector to help identify suspicious activity.
OCC Compliance and Community Affairs Senior Deputy Comptroller Grovetta N. Gardineer discussed the agency’s efforts to enhance the efficiency of its current supervisory practices, and commented on how new technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning provide opportunities for banks to cut costs and identify suspicious activity. Gardineer also highlighted the OCC’s Money Laundering Risk System, which allows for the identification of potentially higher-risk community bank areas by “identifying the products and services offered by these institutions, as well as the customers and geographies they serve.” In addition, Gardineer offered recommendations for BSA amendments to improve supervisory efforts, such as (i) requiring a periodic review of BSA/AML regulations to identify those that may be outdated or burdensome; (ii) amending BSA safe harbor rules to clarify that a financial institution can file a suspicious activity report without being exposed to civil liability; and (iii) expanding safe harbor to permit information sharing beyond money laundering and terrorism financing between financial institutions without incurring liability. Moreover, Gardineer stated that FinCEN’s notice requirement with respect to information-sharing under section 314(b) of the USA Patriot Act should be eliminated or modified in order to enhance institutions’ ability to share information.
FBI Criminal Investigative Division Section Chief Steven M. D'Antuono also discussed, among other things, the Treasury Department’s recent Customer Due Diligence Final Rule (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), and stated that the Rule is “a step toward a system that makes it difficult for sophisticated criminals to circumvent the law through use of opaque corporate structures.”
FINRA proposes permitting the use of electronic signatures for certain accounts
On November 28, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) filed a proposed rule change with the SEC to amend paragraph (a)(3) of FINRA Rule 4512(a)(3)—“Customer Account Information”—which will permit the use of electronic signatures consistent with the E-SIGN Act. Specifically, under the proposed rule, firms will be allowed to obtain electronic signatures of personnel exercising discretionary trading authority over customer accounts maintained by a member. FINRA acknowledges that “[g]iven technological advances relating to electronic signatures, including with respect to authentication and security” it now believes that the requirement for manual signatures is obsolete. If approved by the SEC, the proposed rule change will be published in a regulatory notice no later than 60 days following approval, and will take effect within 30 days following publication.
FHA’s second appraisal requirement for reverse mortgages now fully automated
On November 29, FHA announced that the protocols in place for the second appraisal requirement for certain reverse mortgage transactions are now fully automated. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September, FHA announced that it would require a second appraisal for certain Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) transactions (also known as “reverse mortgages”) to mitigate the risk that valuation of the collateral poses to FHA borrowers and the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, according to Mortgagee Letter 2018-06. FHA will perform a collateral risk assessment of the appraisal prepared for use in all reverse mortgage originations; whether a second appraisal is required will depend on the results of the assessment. Now, once an appraisal is logged into the system, a lender will immediately receive a message indicating whether a second appraisal is required or not required.