InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC FIL provides guidance on HMDA partial exemptions
On October 10, the FDIC issued FIL-58-2018 which summarizes guidance provided by the CFPB on the implementation of partial exemptions from certain of HMDA’s reporting requirements for specific insured depository institutions and insured credit unions pursuant to Section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. On August 31, as previously covered in InfoBytes here, the Bureau issued an interpretive and procedural rule to implement and clarify recent HMDA amendments and outline exemption qualification requirements. FIL-58-2018 reminds FDIC-supervised institutions subject to HMDA and Regulation C of the following clarifications made by the Bureau: (i) there are 26 data points covered by the partial exemptions and 22 other data points that all HMDA reporters must collect, record, and report”; (ii) loans counted towards partial exemption thresholds must otherwise be reportable under Regulation C; (iii) exception based on Community Reinvestment Act examination reports will be determined by the two most recent CRA ratings as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year; (iv) if an institution eligible for a partial exemption chooses not to report a universal loan identifier, it must report a non-universal loan identifier unique within the institution; and (v) institutions exempt from certain reporting requirements may still report exempt data fields so long as they “report all data fields associated with that data point.”
Federal, state financial regulatory agencies issue guidance for institutions affected by Hurricane Michael
On October 10, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (collectively, the “agencies”) issued a joint statement providing guidance to financial institutions impacted by Hurricane Michael. The agencies encouraged lenders to work with borrowers in impacted communities to modify loans as appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of each borrower and loan. In addition, the agencies assured lenders that they would (i) expedite any request to operate temporary facilities to provide more convenient services to those affected by Hurricane Michael; (ii) not generally assess penalties for institutions who take prudent steps to satisfy any publishing or reporting requirements, including by contacting their state or federal regulator to discuss satisfaction of such requirements; and (iii) consider granting institutions favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.
On the same day the joint statement was issued, the FDIC issued a statement encouraging depository institutions to assist affected customers (see FIL-59-2018), which may include “waiving fees, increasing ATM cash limits, easing credit card limits, allowing loan customers to defer or skip payments, and delaying the submission of delinquency notices to credit bureaus.” The FDIC also encouraged depository institutions to use Bank Secrecy Act-permitted “non-documentary verification methods” for customers unable to provide standard identification documents and stated that prudent efforts taken to meet customers’ cash and financial needs “generally will not be subject to examiner criticism.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
District Court allows certain check authorization recommendation claims against consumer reporting agency to proceed
On October 2, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted in part and denied in part a request for judgment on the pleadings brought by a nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency (defendant) that provides check authorization recommendations used by merchants when determining whether to honor a consumer’s check. According to the order, the plaintiff’s attempts to cash checks were denied based upon guidelines for authorization established by the defendant. The plaintiff subsequently (i) complained to the defendant that consumers did not have access to the recommendation guidelines; (ii) disputed the accuracy of the recommendations; and (iii) requested that denied transactions be reinvestigated. In its second amended complaint, the plaintiff claimed the defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Texas Consumer Credit Reporting Act (TCCRA), and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, asserting that the consumer file prepared by the defendant contained two inaccuracies and that the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of his consumer file or did not have procedures in place to correct inaccurate information. While the court dismissed the FCRA and TCCRA §20.07 claims to the extent they were based on allegations that the defendant did not have reasonable procedures in place to correct inaccurate information, it held that the allegations regarding the defendant’s failure properly to reinvestigate the consumer’s file did state a plausible claim for relief.
California state appeals court partially reverses proposed class action suit addressing arbitration terms
On October 2, a California state appeals court partially reversed a trial court’s denial of class certification in a putative class action alleging that a written cardmember agreement issued by a credit card company contained unconscionable and unenforceable arbitration terms. According to the opinion, after the cardmember and his company failed to make timely and sufficient payments on their accounts, the credit card company closed the accounts and filed a collection action. The cardmember subsequently filed a putative class action cross-complaint against the credit card company and two other card issuers, alleging the arbitration terms in the cardmember agreements he signed are unlawful under California’s Unfair Competition Law, and asserting, among other things, that the legally unenforceable contract terms prevented negotiations, prohibited injunctive relief, and failed to communicate to cardholders what the rules would be at the time of arbitration. The cardmember further alleged that cardholders were overcharged annual credit card fees or purchase fees “as consideration for the promises contained in the cardmember agreement.” During the course of the litigation, the credit card companies sent certain cardmembers modified contract terms, which allowed cardmembers the option to reject arbitration altogether if a written rejection notice was provided within a specific time period.
The trial court denied class certification, finding, among other things, that the cardmember was not an adequate class representative and did not have claims typical of the putative class because there was no evidence he paid annual fees and that individual issues would predominate with respect to procedural unconscionability and each individual class member’s entitlement to declaratory relief. On appeal, the court held that the trial court “used improper criteria and erroneous assumptions” when reaching its decision that “procedural unconscionability would involve predominantly individualized issues.” Moreover, the appellants and absent class members were linked by common questions, including whether it was unreasonable for the respondent to modify its arbitration terms during pending litigation, since this denied cardholders who opted out of arbitration the right to join the class.
VA provides status update to address 2014 loan guaranty interim final rule
On October 9, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) published a status update in the Federal Register to inform the public that it will not publish a final rule to adopt provisions outlined in its May 2014 interim final rule (IFR). The IFR was issued to implement provisions of Dodd-Frank concerning ability-to-repay standards and qualified mortgages (QM) as defined under TILA. According to the status update, section 309 of Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) superseded certain elements of the IFR. Specifically, the EGRRCPA’s “seasoning and recoupment requirements for [Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loans] effectively eliminated the category of rebuttable presumption QM.” The VA reminded program participates to refer to Circular 26-18-13, previously issued in May and covered by InfoBytes, which addressed “loan churning” of VA-guaranteed refinance loans and set out new requirements for VA eligibility as addressed by EGRRCPA. The VA commented that it will publish future rulemaking to supersede the IFR, but that in the meantime, the IFR remains in effect to the extent the provisions do not conflict, or are not superseded by, EGRRCPA.
Federal Reserve releases eligibility criteria for 18-month on-site examination cycles
On October 1, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) issued SR 18-7 to qualifying state member banks and U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks outlining updated 18-month on-site examination eligibility criteria. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Board, OCC, and FDIC issued an interim final rule effective August 29—as authorized by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Reform, and Consumer Protection Act—which qualifies banks with less than $3 billion in total assets (an increase from the previous threshold of $1 billion), provided they satisfy additional criteria. SR 18-7 separately lists the relevant eligibility criteria for state member banks and for U.S. branches or agencies of foreign banks, and requires that qualifying banks (i) not be subject to a federal banking agency’s formal enforcement proceeding or order; and (ii) not have experienced a change of control during the previous 12 months that would have required a full-scope examination. Additional eligibility criteria address component and composite examination ratings and risk-based capital ratios.
OCC provides guidance to institutions affected by Hurricane Michael
On October 9, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions to close their offices affected by Hurricane Michael in the Gulf Coast region. The OCC noted that only institutions directly impacted by the potentially unsafe conditions should close, and that those offices should attempt to reopen as soon as possible to serve their customers’ banking needs. OCC Bulletin 2012-28 provides further guidance on natural disasters and other emergency conditions.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
FinCEN issues advisory warning U.S. financial institutions of risks linked to Nicaraguan corruption
On October 4, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued advisory FIN-2018-A005 to U.S. financial institutions to increase awareness of the growing risk that certain Nicaraguan senior foreign political figures may potentially move assets using the U.S. financial system in reaction to a “perceived threat of further unrest, potential sanctions, or other factors.” FinCEN warns that the assets could be the proceeds of corruption and may be directed into U.S. accounts, or laundered through the U.S. financial system. The advisory—which is underscored by actions taken against Nicaraguan officials involved in corruption and human rights abuse pursuant to the Global Magnitsky sanctions program, as previously covered by InfoBytes—provides due diligence guidance for U.S. financial institutions consistent with existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations. It also reminds financial institutions of their suspicious activity report filing obligations and of the potential need to refer to advisory FIN-2018-A003 released last June on the use of financial facilitators to gain access to global financial systems for the purpose of moving or hiding illicit proceeds and evading U.S. and global sanctions. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
Washington state Attorney General says debt buyers are collection agencies, files lawsuit for operating without a license
On September 21, the Washington state Attorney General announced that it filed a lawsuit against several collection agencies and their owner (defendants) for allegedly purchasing and suing on charged-off consumer debts in violation of the Washington Collection Agency Act (WCAA) and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). The complaint alleges that defendants bought and then obtained judgements on at least 3,500 consumer debts without first obtaining a collection agency license under the WCAA. Under the WCAA, a debt buyer is a collection agency and must therefore “be licensed as a collection agency if it enters into contracts with sellers of debt accounts or takes other affirmative steps to acquire accounts for collection, either directly or through an agent.” Failure to obtain a license as required under the WCAA amounts to a per se violation of the WCPA. Because defendants bought and sued on consumer debts before obtaining a license in 2013, the Attorney General claimed that they violated the WCAA and the WCPA. The complaint seeks civil money penalties of up to $2,000 per violation for each violation of the WCPA, restitution for affected consumers, and reimbursement of legal costs and fees.
FCC seeks comments on interpretation of TCPA definition of autodialer following 9th Circuit decision
On October 3, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a notice seeking comment on the interpretation of the TCPA in light of a recent 9th Circuit decision, which broadened the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (autodialer) under the TCPA. As previously covered in InfoBytes, on September 20, the 9th Circuit held that the TCPA’s definition of an autodialer includes equipment with the capacity to store numbers to be called and to automatically dial such numbers whether or not those numbers have been generated by a random or sequential number generator. The court, however, declared the statutory definition of an autodialer to be “ambiguous on its face” and, thus, it looked to the context and structure of the TCPA in reaching its conclusion regarding the scope of the definition.
The FCC issued the notice “to supplement the record developed in response” to a prior notice issued last May, which sought comments on the interpretation of the TCPA following the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International v. FCC. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the May 2018 notice here.) Specifically, the FCC seeks comments on the following issues relevant to developing an interpretation of the TCPA’s definition of autodialer: (i) To the extent the definition of an autodialer is ambiguous, how should the FCC exercise its discretion to interpret such ambiguities? (ii) Does the 9th Circuit’s interpretation mean that any device with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically qualifies as an autodialer? (iii) What devices have the capacity to store numbers, and do smartphones have such capacity? and (iv) What devices that have the capacity to dial stored numbers also have the capacity to automatically dial such numbers and do smartphones have such capacity?
Comments are due October 17 with reply comments due October 24.