InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Global technology company confirms U.S. investigations into Hungarian sales operations
On August 23, the Wall Street Journal reported that a global technology company is under investigation by the DOJ and the SEC regarding whether bribes and kickbacks were paid to Hungarian officials connected to sales of the company’s products in Hungary. The company stated in response to the reporting that it had terminated four employees as well as certain business partnerships in response to its own internal probe into potential wrongdoing in the 2013 to 2014 timeframe. In SEC filings over the last couple of years, the company previously disclosed FCPA-related investigations and that it has been cooperating with related U.S. investigations, which have to date yielded no enforcement actions.
New Jersey amends mortgage statute, includes “transitional mortgage loan originator license”
On August 24, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed AB 2035, which amends the New Jersey Residential Mortgage Lending Act and certain related statutes. Among other technical and clarifying changes, the amendments create a framework for the issuance of a “transitional mortgage loan originator license,” which would allow an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator” or a “registered mortgage loan originator” to obtain temporary authority to engage in the business of mortgage loan origination in New Jersey for 120 days before obtaining a New Jersey mortgage loan originator license. The amendments provide specific definitions for what constitutes a “registered mortgage loan originator” and what constitutes an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator.” Specifically, the amendments define an “out-of-state mortgage loan originator” as an individual who is registered with Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and currently holds a valid mortgage loan originator license issued under the law of any other state or jurisdiction in the country. And the law amends the definition of “registered mortgage loan originator” to include a requirement that such a person must be validly registered as a mortgage loan originator with a depository institution employer for at least the one-year period prior to applying for licensure under the act.
The amendments revise the types of fees that residential mortgage lenders have the right to charge related to the origination, processing, and closing of a mortgage loan: (i) application fee; (ii) origination fee; (iii) lock-in fee; (iv) commitment fee; (v) warehouse fee; (vi) discount points; and (vii) fees necessary to reimburse the lender for charges imposed by third parties, such as appraisal and credit report fees. The amendments also create a different list of fees a mortgage broker may charge in connection with the brokering of any mortgage loan transaction.
The amendments take effect 90 days after the bill’s enactment.
8th Circuit holds a garnishment notice sent after receiving a “cease” letter does not violate the FDCPA
On August 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a law firm, holding that a garnishment notice sent after a consumer requested the company cease communication did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court held that sending a notice of garnishment was permissible because a “creditor may communicate with a debtor after receiving a cease letter to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies which are ordinarily invoked by such debt collector or creditor.” The court further held that the notice’s inclusion of a contact phone number did not “transform” the notice into a communication regarding the debt because, while the notice was a “communication regarding the debt in a general sense . . . it still fits within the remedy exception” and it would have been “odd” for the notice not to provide contact information. The court also rejected the claim that the law firm violated the FDCPA by discussing possible resolution of the debt in a subsequent phone call initiated by the consumer, noting that the consumer had asked about the debt, and agreeing with the district court that the phone call was “an unsubtle and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to provoke [the law firm] into committing an FDCPA violation.” The court added that prohibiting debt collectors from responding to a consumer’s inquiries after a cease letter would often force debt collectors to file suit in order to resolve debts, which is “clearly at odds with the language and purpose of the FDCPA.”
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the garnishment notice deceived consumers into contacting the law firm to discuss the legal aspects of the garnishment process, when in fact they would be subjected to debt collection efforts. Applying the unsophisticated consumer standard, the court held that the garnishment notice was not deceptive because it did not state that phone calls would be answered by attorneys prepared to answer questions solely about garnishment, and the consumer’s belief to the contrary was “the exact sort of peculiar interpretation against which debt collectors are protected by the objective element of the unsophisticated consumer standard.”
Federal Reserve issues interim final rule providing relief for small bank holding companies
On August 28, the Federal Reserve Board issued an interim final rule to raise the asset threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion under the agency’s Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement. The interim final rule implements a provision in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously Senate bill S.2155), and applies to savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $3 billion. Under the interim final rule, small bank holding companies will be permitted to operate with higher levels of debt, making it easier to facilitate ownership transfers. However, the Fed noted that exempt holding companies’ depository institutions will still be required to meet minimum capital requirements. Comments are due by October 29.
OCC seeks stakeholder feedback on modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act
On August 28, the OCC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) seeking input from stakeholders on ways to transform or modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulatory framework. According to OCC Bulletin 2018-24, the ANPR seeks comments on several issues including:
- encouraging more lending and services in areas where there is the most need, such as low- and moderate-income areas;
- clarifying and expanding the types of activities eligible for CRA consideration;
- reviewing and updating how assessment areas are delineated and used;
- establishing measurable CRA rating metric-based thresholds;
- increasing the transparency of a bank’s CRA performance;
- improving the timeliness of CRA regulatory decisions; and
- reducing the cost and regulatory burden associated with CRA evaluations.
In its press release, the OCC stated that modernizing CRA regulations will “better achieve the statute’s original purpose, increase lending and investment where it is needed most, and reduce the burden associated with reporting and assessing CRA performance.” Additionally, the OCC noted in the ANPR that many stakeholders believe that aspects of current CRA regulations may only be “sufficient for certain locally focused and less complex banks,” as banking practices and the financial services industry continue to evolve.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in April the Treasury Department released a memorandum of recommendations addressing findings from Treasury’s comprehensive assessment of the CRA framework. The memorandum focused on four key areas: assessment areas, examination clarity and flexibility, the examination process, and bank performance. According to the OCC, comments on the ANPR “may inform the development of more specific policy proposals or future rulemakings.” The OCC will accept comments for 75 days following publication in the Federal Register.
OCC issues guidance regarding implied sovereign support and credit risk ratings
On August 28, the OCC issued Bulletin 2018-25, which provides guidance regarding the role of informal or implied expressions of support from foreign governments (implied sovereign support) in determining a borrower’s obligor and facility credit risk ratings. The Bulletin expands on Appendix E of the “Rating Credit Risk” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and encourages banks to analyze, among other things, the sovereign’s legal and financial obligations and the relationship between the obligor and the sovereign. The OCC notes that the obligor’s importance to the sovereign’s local economy does not necessarily demonstrate “willingness to provide an obligor with financial support.” Additionally, the Bulletin provides guidance regarding bank policies regarding the use and application of implied sovereign support to determine a final regulatory risk rating. The OCC states that a sound policy would incorporate the following three elements: (i) defined criteria on how a risk rating may be changed for an obligor due to recognition of implied sovereign support; (ii) methods for determining whether implied sovereign support will be considered in the risk rating decision, including periodic reevaluations of the assessment; and (iii) appropriate documentation standards, including a tracking process that promotes “consistent and appropriate” application of the defined criteria.
Freddie Mac releases Guide Bulletin with various selling updates
On August 29, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-13, which announces selling updates, including the consolidation of Freddie Mac’s “Home Possible” and “Home Possible Advantage” mortgage programs into a single offering. The Bulletin compares the previous requirements of both programs with the new requirements of the consolidated program, which now allows non-occupant borrowers to be eligible for the program with a loan-to-value ratio less than or equal to 95%. The changes to the revised “Home Possible” mortgage program are effective October 29.
The Bulletin also updates several mortgage eligibility and credit underwriting requirements, including (i) student loan debt payment calculations; (ii) cash back requirements for “no cash-out” refinance mortgages; and (iii) timelines for evaluating credit report inquiries. Additionally, the Bulletin provides an update to the requirements for property, flood, liability and fidelity or employee dishonesty insurance for condominium projects.
1st Circuit holds homeowners who defaulted on an allegedly unlicensed mortgage loan cannot escape time bars for their claims
On August 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit held that homeowners who defaulted on a refinance loan on their Massachusetts property could not void the transaction or enjoin their property’s foreclosure sale. The appellate court determined that the homeowners’ claims that the lender violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Massachusetts consumer protection statute were all time-barred. The homeowners argued that the statute of limitations never began to run because the lender was not licensed to lend money in the state, making the original note and mortgage “akin to forgeries and thus ‘void ab initio,’” but the court held that there was “no authority for this unusual proposition.” The court also refused to toll the limitations period under the doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which requires the plaintiff “to make a threshold showing of due diligence,” because the homeowners filed their claims more than five years after they retained counsel and ten years after they granted the mortgage at issue.
State banking supervisors ask congressional leaders for marijuana banking services clarity
On August 24, 13 state banking supervisors sent a letter asking congressional leaders “to consider legislation that creates a safe harbor for financial institutions to serve state-compliant [marijuana] business, or entrusts sovereign states with the full oversight and jurisdiction of marijuana-related activity.” According to the letter, while 31 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories have legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana use as of August 1, many financial institutions choose not serve marijuana businesses due to a perceived threat of asset forfeitures or criminal penalties. The letter notes that this results in inadequate regulation, cash transactions that are difficult to track, “a diminished ability to identify operators acting to circumvent federal and state licensing and regulatory frameworks,” and concerns for public safety. In addition, according to the state regulators, the rescission of the 2013 “Cole Memo”—which outlined the DOJ’s marijuana enforcement priorities and was relied upon by a limited number of financial institutions—has led to greater uncertainty for banks that serve marijuana businesses. The letter also discusses the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s 2014 guidance—which clarifies expectations under the Bank Secrecy Act for financial institutions providing services to marijuana businesses—and further stresses that “the Rohrabacher amendment prohibiting federal funds being used to inhibit state medicinal marijuana programs [is] an impermanent approach that requires a permanent resolution.”
In July, and as previously covered in InfoBytes, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued guidance which encouraged New York state chartered banks and credit unions to consider establishing relationships with regulated and compliant medical marijuana and industrial hemp-related businesses operating in New York. NYDFS stated it will not impose any regulatory action on a New York financial institution that establishes a relationship with a regulated marijuana business as long as the institution also complies with other applicable guidance and regulations.
6th Circuit holds that failing to report a trial modification plan can constitute incomplete reporting under FCRA
On August 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held that a borrower met the requirements necessary for a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim to proceed when two mortgage servicers failed to report the existence of a trial modification plan when reporting the borrower was delinquent to reporting agencies. In 2014, a borrower brought an action against three credit reporting agencies and two mortgage servicers alleging, among other claims, violations of the FCRA due to payments being reported as past due while successfully making payments under a trial modification plan (also referred to as a Trial Period Plan, or “TPP”) and working towards a permanent modification. Regarding the FCRA claim, the 6th Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision granting the servicers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the borrower met the statutory requirements for an FCRA claim because failing to report the existence of a TPP can constitute “incomplete reporting” in violation of the statute. The 6th Circuit rejected the servicers’ argument that the Home Affordable Modification Program guidelines “encouraged, but did not require” that they report a TPP. The court acknowledged this distinction but noted that “[r]eporting that [a borrower] was delinquent on his loan payments without reporting the TPP implies a much greater degree of financial irresponsibility than was present here.” The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the servicers conducted a reasonable investigation after the borrower disputed the reporting.