InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Mortgage servicer must face TCPA allegations after court dismisses other claims
On May 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part a mortgage loan owner and mortgage loan servicer’s motion to dismiss a consumer’s lawsuit alleging various violations of TILA, RESPA, FDCPA, TCPA and certain New York state laws. The court’s decision explains that the mortgage loan owner first initiated foreclosure proceedings against the consumer in 2009, but in August 2013 that action was dismissed and the parties executed a modification agreement. The consumer argues in the amended complaint that the mortgage debt is time-barred based on the six year statute of limitations to enforce the mortgage note, starting the clock with the 2009 foreclosure filing. The consumer alleges that after the statute of limitations expired, the mortgage servicer contacted the consumer by mail and by telephone to collect the mortgage debt, totaling over 600 calls placed by an autodialer and up to four threatening collection letters per month since 2015. The court, however, agreed with the mortgage companies that the execution of the 2013 modification agreement restarted the statute of limitations and therefore, the consumer’s alleged violations of New York state laws and the FDCPA failed because the mortgage debt was not time-barred. The court also held that the consumer failed to plead sufficient facts to support the alleged violations of TILA, RESPA, and New York’s General Business Law. In contrast, the court denied the mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss the consumer’s claim under the TCPA, holding that the mortgage application signed by the consumer did not clearly consent to contact by an autodialer on his cell phone.
FINRA amends anti-money laundering rule to comply with FinCEN’s CDD rule
On May 3, FINRA issued a Regulatory Notice 18-19 amending Rule 3310—Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Compliance Program rule—to reflect the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s final rule concerning customer due diligence requirements for covered financial institutions (CDD rule), which becomes applicable on May 11. According to Regulatory Notice 18-19, member firms should ensure that their AML programs are updated to include, among other things, appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence including (i) “understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile,” and (ii) “conducting ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.” The announcement also makes reference to FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 17-40, issued last November, which provides additional guidance for member firms complying with the CDD rule. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.). The notice further states that the “provisions are not new and merely codify existing expectations for firms.”
FinCEN and California card club agree to a reduced penalty for AML violations
On May 3, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and a California card club agreed to a $5 million penalty for Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) violations from 2009 to 2017. In November 2017, FinCEN assessed the company $8 million in civil money penalties but has now agreed to suspend $3 million pending compliance with certain requirements in the consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, FinCEN alleges the company failed to file certain Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) regarding loan sharking and other criminal activities being conducted through the company and failed to implement sufficient internal controls to monitor risks associated with gaming practices that allowed customers to co-mingle and pool bets with anonymity. The order requires the company to, among other things, adopt an AML program and hire a qualified independent consultant to review its effectiveness and retain a compliance officer to ensure compliance with BSA requirements.
CFTC Commissioner says FSOC should take lead in future fintech policy regulation
On May 3, Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Commissioner Rostin Behnam emphasized that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) should take the lead in evaluating the future of oversight and regulation of the fintech industry. In his keynote address to a financial regulatory conference in Washington, D.C., Behnam highlighted the rise of cryptocurrencies as an example of the need to “identify and craft an appropriate path forward for ensuring that legal issues resulting from these technologies are identifiable and solvable before they cross the horizon.” According to Benham, FSOC, due to its mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act, has the authority to, among other things, convene financial regulators for collaboration and propose policy direction based on input from all stakeholders. Acknowledging the need for all market participants and regulators to be aligned when it comes to fintech regulation, Benham stated that “anything less than decisive action by policymakers in the short term” will lead to uncertainty.
New York Senate introduces bill to enact state charters for on-line lenders
On May 2, the New York Senate introduced a bill that, if passed, would establish a new article under the state’s banking law to provide for the chartering and regulating of internet lending services corporations (on-line lenders). Among other things, the “New York limited state charter for internet lending services,” S8340, would (i) authorize the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to issue limited state charters to on-line lenders who “engage in the business of making loans over an internet or electronic platform”; (ii) allow chartered on-line lenders to approve or deny consumer loan applications submitted through NYDFS-approved electronic means; (iii) limit the principal amount of personal loans to $25,000 and $50,000 for business and commercial loans, as well as require the adherence to legally authorized interest rates; (iv) require that chartered on-line lenders be able to demonstrate fiscal solvency with “a minimum capital requirement of not less than $250,000”—an amount five times higher than what is required of brick and mortar-based licensed lenders; and (v) grant NYDFS the authority to regulate chartered on-line lenders.
S8340 further notes that, at present, the state’s banking law does not provide a regulatory environment to oversee the operations of on-line lenders. The bill currently sits with the Senate’s Banks Committee.
District Court partially denies defendants’ time-barred claims, rules certain TSR violations may proceed
On May 3, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California addressed time-barred claims raised by a group of affiliated law firms and their managing attorneys (defendants) that partnered with a now-defunct entity to offer debt relief services to consumers. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request for summary judgment after determining that many of the allegedly improper up-front fees charged to consumers seeking debt relief were collected within the three-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions. As previously covered in InfoBytes last January, the CFPB claimed, among other things, that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by allegedly assisting a different, now-defunct debt relief service company with charging up-front fees. Last May, the district court denied the defendants’ bid for dismissal but at the time “declined to resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable statute of limitations.” While the CFPB agreed to limit its request for relief to the three years preceding the filing of the suit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the entire action should be barred because the alleged violations relate to a “singular scheme” discovered by the CFPB in 2012. However, according to the court, federal consumer financial law states that “any violations of the TSR that occur within the relevant limitations period are not time-barred.” Therefore, because the CFPB provided evidence that fees were collected in 2015—well within the applicable statute of limitations—the defendants’ request as to violations of the TSR that allegedly occurred within three years of the filing is denied. Notwithstanding, the court granted part of the defendants’ request for summary judgment and barred all claims related to conduct that occurred outside the three-year window because the CFPB did not oppose the motion.
FDIC issues regulatory relief guidance for financial institutions in areas of Alabama affected by severe storms
On May 4, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter, FIL-24-2018, to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and facilitate recovery in areas of Alabama affected by severe storms and tornados. The FDIC is encouraging institutions to consider, among other things, extending repayment terms and restructure 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. The FDIC letter also contemplates regulatory relief for banks located in the affected areas.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on Disaster Relief here.
Trade groups petition FCC to clarify definition of autodialer under TCPA
On May 3, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and over a dozen more trade associations petitioned the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling on the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The petition results from the recent D.C. Circuit decision (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert), which struck down the FCC’s 2015 definition of an autodialer as “unreasonably expansive” because it failed to adequately describe what functions qualify a device as an autodialer. The petition seeks clarity on the definition of an autodialer that is subject to Section 227(b) of the TCPA, and specifically requests the FCC state that in order to be considered an autodialer, the equipment must “store or produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, and dial such numbers.” Additionally, the petition requests that only calls made using the actual autodialer capabilities be subject to the restrictions of the TCPA. The petitioners argue that adopting the requested definition would “ensure that legitimate businesses can contact their consumers without fearing a lawsuit under Section 227(b) of the TCPA.”
District Court dismisses breach of contract suit against Connecticut firm
On May 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed a malpractice suit brought against a Connecticut-based law firm for allegedly inducing a Boston-based mortgage/mezzanine lender and its Delaware-based trustee (plaintiffs) to enter into a contract resulting in a loss of approximately $13 million. The lender alleged that it entered into a $12 million mezzanine loan agreement in 2012 with a company that owned commercial property located in Connecticut (borrower). The plaintiffs asserted that the firm acted as counsel to various entities associated with the borrower, and issued an opinion letter to the lender concerning agreements memorializing the loan transaction and establishing borrower’s interest in the loan collateral. When the borrower defaulted on the loan due to allegedly misrepresenting ownership percentages, the plaintiffs filed suit against the firm claiming, among other things, (i) breach of contract for rendering an opinion letter, which the firm and borrower intended the lender to rely upon as part of the transaction; (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (iii) negligent misrepresentation.
The firm, however, argued that the lender’s claims lacked standing because (i) it was never a client of the firm and the opinion letter was not a contract; (ii) “a third-party beneficiary of a written contract [between the borrower and the firm] cannot recover for a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (iii) claims of negligent misrepresentation were barred by the statute of limitations.
The court agreed with the firm and ruled that the opinion letter was not a contract that created a contractual obligation the firm could breach. Because the lender and related entities were “neither a party to a contract with [the firm] nor the intended third-party beneficiary of a contract between the borrower and [the firm] ... their breach of contract claim against [the firm] must be dismissed,” the judge stated. The court also dismissed the remaining allegations, stating the lender had not sufficiently alleged that it reasonably relied on the advice of the firm’s advice to make the loan to the borrower.
CFTC stresses importance of coordinating regulatory requirements with the SEC
On May 2, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reiterated the importance of coordinating and harmonizing regulatory requirements with the SEC. In prepared remarks issued before FIA’s 40th Annual Law and Compliance Conference, CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz stated that its internal cryptocurrency enforcement task force will work in cooperation with its SEC counterparts on cases involving virtual currency. “Both agencies’ Divisions of Enforcement have demonstrated their commitment to work closely to prosecute fraud and ensure that differences in product nomenclature do not enable bad actors to slip through jurisdictional cracks,” Quintenz said. The agencies plan to update their existing 10-year-old memorandum of understanding to facilitate the sharing of information related to, among other things, swaps and security-based swaps data, fintech developments, and market events.