InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
11th Circuit: No FCRA violation for reporting as delinquent during forbearance plan
On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a mortgage servicer, concluding that reporting the consumer as delinquent to credit bureaus during a forbearance plan is neither inaccurate nor materially misleading under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to the opinion, a borrower enrolled in a forbearance plan with her mortgage servicer, which allowed for a “monthly forbearance plan payment” of $25 while the remaining payment balance accrued and became due at the end of the plan. Before the borrower agreed to the plan, a representative for the servicer explained to the borrower that because she was not paying the actual contractual payment under the note, the monthly payments would still be considered late. The mortgage servicer reported the borrower past due for the duration of the plan, and the borrower subsequently filed suit alleging violations of the FCRA. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the appeals court found that while the borrower made timely payments under the forbearance plan, the payments were not the ones she was contractually bound to make under the mortgage note. Additionally, the appeals court found that the borrower did not establish that the forbearance plan legally modified the original note and, therefore, the information the servicer reported to the credit bureaus was not inaccurate and was also not materially misleading “particularly in light of [the servicer’s] additional affirmative statement that [the borrower] was paying under a partial payment agreement.”
District Court rules city failed to prove bank engaged in discriminatory lending practices
On June 29, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted a national bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the City of Miami Gardens (City) on the City’s claims that the bank allegedly made loans to minority borrowers that were more expensive than those given to non-minority borrowers, resulting in greater rates of default and foreclosure, which led to reduced property values in the City and decreased the City’s property tax revenue. (See previous Buckley Sandler Special Alert on a 2017 Supreme Court ruling addressing whether cities have standing to bring discriminatory lending claims under the FHA to recover lost tax revenue and upkeep costs). The court, siding with the bank, found the City had failed to present sufficient evidence to support a claim of discriminatory lending. According to the order, the parties agreed that the bank had not made any predatory loans during the limitations period. Because the City only identified two types of loans from a total of 153 loans issued by the bank during the limitations period as having been made at a higher cost to minorities, the record was insufficient to show the bank’s policies produced “statistically imbalanced lending patterns” and failed to support a claim for disparate impact. The judge further determined that the bank established that there were “legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons that motivated the different pricing,” and that “the City ultimately cannot carry its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that [the bank’s] reasons for the price differentials were a mere pretext for discrimination.” On these bases, the court granted the motion.
HUD publishes interpretive rule on Ginnie Mae loan-seasoning requirement
On July 3, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published in the Federal Register an interpretive rule regarding the loan-seasoning requirement for Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities from the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), S.2155/ P.L. 115-174. The interpretive rule establishes that (i) any VA refinance mortgage that does not meet the requirements of the Act is not eligible to serve as collateral for Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities; (ii) any VA refinance mortgage that does not meet the Act’s requirements, but was guaranteed before the Act’s enactment are unaffected; and (iii) the Act does not prohibit Ginnie Mae from guaranteeing Multiclass Securities where the trust assets consist of certificates previously lawfully guaranteed with underlying VA refinance loans that may not meet the requirements of the Act. Comments on the interpretive rule must be submitted by August 2.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, Ginnie Mae issued All Participants Memorandum APM 18-04, which establishes (in accordance with the Act) that in order to be eligible for Ginnie Mae securities, the date of the VA refinance loan must be on or after the later of (i) 210 days after the date of the first payment made on the loan being refinanced; and (ii) the date of the sixth monthly payment made on the loan being refinanced.
FDIC issues disaster relief guidance for storm affected areas of Hawaii
On July 3, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-35-2018 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and facilitate recovery in areas of Hawaii affected by severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides from April 13 through April 16. The FDIC is encouraging institutions to consider, among other things, extending repayment terms and restructuring existing loans that may be affected by the natural disasters. Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration for certain development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.
NYDFS encourages New York state chartered financial institutions to establish relationships with medical marijuana businesses
On July 3, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), at the direction of Governor Andrew Cuomo, released guidance encouraging 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. According to the guidance, these businesses often rely solely on cash to conduct transactions, because of a lack of access to traditional financial services. The press release announcing the guidance cites to the New York Compassionate Care Act, enacted in 2014, which provides medical patients suffering from “debilitating symptoms and diseases” access to, under strict requirements, medical marijuana. NYDFS is encouraging New York financial institutions to form appropriate banking relationships with these business, because “[p]roviding access to regulated banking services is an essential part of taking the legal cannabis industry out of the shadows and establishing it as a transparent, regulated, tax-paying part of our economy, and a necessary part of fulfilling the goal of relieving the suffering of seriously ill patients.”
NYDFS will not impose any regulatory action on a New York financial institution that establishes a business relationship with legal medical marijuana and industrial hemp-related businesses, as long as the institution also complies with other applicable guidance and regulations, such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s 2014 guidance—which clarifies expectations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for financial institutions providing services to these businesses.
International bank settles with Illinois Attorney General for $20 million for alleged RMBS misconduct
On July 3, the Illinois Attorney General announced a settlement with an international bank to resolve allegations of misconduct in the bank’s marketing and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. According to the press release, the bank allegedly failed to disclose accurately the risk of the RMBS investments when selling the securities. Under the terms of the settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $20 million to the state, which will be divided between three state retirement systems. This settlement follows several other RMBS-related actions taken by the Attorney General.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, earlier in March, the bank reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General to resolve similar allegations.
FTC announces settlement with California company over EU-U.S. Privacy Shield false certification claims
On July 2, the FTC announced it had reached a settlement with a California-based company over allegations that it falsely claimed participation in the European Union-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. According to the FTC, the company’s false claim that it was in the process of certification is a violation of the FTC Act’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices. The settlement prohibits the company from misrepresenting its participation in “any privacy or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting organization” and requires the submission of timely compliance notices. This action marks the fourth FTC EU-U.S. Privacy Shield enforcement action following the EU’s finalization and adoption in July 2016 (see previous InfoBytes coverage here) of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which established a mechanism for companies to transfer consumer data between the EU and the U.S. in compliance with specified obligations.
CFPB, OCC, and FDIC release statement on HMDA exemption in regulatory relief act
On July 5, the CFPB issued a statement regarding the implementation of the partial HMDA exemptions in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), S.2155/ P.L. 115-174, which was signed into law by President Trump on May 24. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Act provides an exemption from HMDA’s expanded data reporting requirements for banks and credit unions that originate fewer than 500 open-end and 500 closed-end mortgages (the provision would not apply to nonbanks and would not exempt institutions from HMDA reporting altogether). Although the statement emphasizes that the Act will not affect the format of the Loan/Application Register (LAR) for HMDA data collected in 2018—which should still be formatted in accordance with the Filing Instructions Guide issued in February (covered by InfoBytes here)—the Bureau stated that it intends to provide guidance later this summer on the Act, including an exemption code for institutions that are not reporting a particular field due to the Act’s partial exemptions.
Additionally, the statement reiterated the Bureau’s December 2017 announcement that it will not require resubmissions for 2018 HMDA data, unless there are material errors; and penalties will not be assessed with respect to errors in the 2018 data. The CFPB notes that institutions should focus the 2018 data collection on identifying areas for improvement in their HMDA compliance management systems for future years. The Bureau further advised that it expects that supervisory examinations of 2018 HMDA data will be “diagnostic” to help “identify compliance weaknesses, and will credit good-faith compliance efforts.”
The OCC issued a similar announcement with OCC Bulletin 2018-19. The FDIC issued a similar announcement with FIL-36-2018.
Court dismisses “convenience fee” action against bank for lack of damages
On June 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a proposed class action alleging a national bank violated the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit (CLEC) law by charging “convenience fees” in connection with secured vehicle financing. According to the opinion, after the consumer defaulted on vehicle payments, the bank repossessed the consumer’s vehicle and demanded the consumer pay the deficiency balance. In August 2017, the consumer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a class action against the bank for allegedly charging convenience fees in connection with over 500 retail installment sales contracts for vehicles governed under the CLEC. Upon removal to federal court, the consumer sought to amend her complaint to replace the CLEC claim with a breach of contract claim based on the same violation in her original complaint and the bank sought dismissal of the claim. The court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss, concluding that even if the bank did charge a convenience fee in violation of the CLEC, the bank (i) did not collect payments in excess of the original principle amount of the loan; and (ii) did not seek a deficiency judgment against the consumer. Additionally, the consumer did not seek injunctive or declaratory relief. Therefore, the court held that the consumer is not entitled to damages under CLEC and her corollary breach of contract claim is “futile and must be dismissed.”
District Court agrees with FTC, enters $5 million judgment against credit monitoring scheme
On June 26, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury would find that the defendants’ scheme of using false rental property ads to solicit consumer enrollment in credit monitoring services without their knowledge did not involve unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC argued that the defendants’ scheme, which used the promise of a free credit report to enroll the consumers into a monthly credit monitoring program, violated the FTC Act’s ban on deceptive practices. The court agreed, holding that the ad campaign was “rife with material misrepresentations that were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.” Additionally the court agreed with the FTC that the defendants’ website was materially misrepresentative because it did not give “the net impression that consumers were enrolling in a monthly credit monitoring service” for $29.94 a month, as opposed to defendants’ claim that consumers were obtaining a free credit report.
The court entered a judgment ordering the defendants to pay over $5 million in equitable monetary relief to the FTC and prohibiting defendants from, among other things, charging consumers for any credit monitoring services and disclosing or using any collected consumer information. The defendants must also submit to compliance reporting and monitoring by the FTC.