InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac release updates to servicing guides
On April 11, Fannie Mae updated its Servicing Guide, regarding servicing transfer welcome calls. Pursuant to Fannie Mae SVC-2018-03, transferee servicers are no longer required to, among other things, initiate welcome calls within five days of the transfer of servicing. Transferee servicers may now implement their own processes for borrower contact as long as the servicer remains in compliance with applicable laws. Fannie Mae also updated the Servicing Guide to add flexibility in connection with the collection of escrow shortages during a mortgage modification. Under the amendment to the Servicing Guide, servicers may spread repayment of the shortage amount over a term of up to 60 months, unless the borrower decides to pay up-front. Additionally, Fannie Mae released a revised Reverse Mortgage Loan Servicing Manual, which includes updates to expense reimbursement claim submissions and mortgage loan status codes.
On the same day, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-6, which, among other things, updates servicer requirements on Subsequent Transfers of Servicing (STOS) and borrower-paid mortgage insurance. Effective July 23, transferor servicers must use the automated STOS request system and new transfer requests must be submitted at least 45 days and no more than 60 days prior to the effective date of the transfer. The Bulletin also provides additional details on initiating the electronic STOS and executing the STOS agreement. There will be a temporary moratorium on STOS requests and modifications to existing requests from July 9 through July 20, in order for Freddie Mac to implement the new process.
Separately, the Bulletin includes various changes to streamline servicer responsibilities in canceling borrower-paid mortgage insurance, such as now allowing servicers to process a borrower’s verbal request to cancel mortgage insurance and simplifying the process to determine current value.
Consistent with the Fannie updates, Freddie Mac also modified its escrow shortage collection requirements to allow repayment to be spread over up to 60 months.
Arizona governor amends data breach law, updates security freeze legislation
On April 11, the Arizona governor signed HB 2154 to amend the state’s existing data breach notification law. The amendments require entities conducting business in the state that maintain, own, or licenses unencrypted and unredacted computerized data to conduct a reasonable investigation of possible breaches of personal information. Owners or licensees of personal information must then notify affected individuals within 45 days, pending the needs of law enforcement. Key amendment highlights are as follows:
- makes revisions to definitions, which include (i) expanding “personal information” to include a combination of a user’s name, password/security question, and answer that grants access to an online account; (ii) defining the term “redact”; and (iii) clarifying that a “specified data element” now includes an individual’s unique “private key” used when authenticating or signing an electronic record;
- adds a requirement that for breaches impacting more than 1,000 individuals, the Attorney General and the three largest consumer reporting agencies must be notified in writing;
- amends a provision concerning “substitute notice,” which removes requirements that a notification must to be sent to affected individuals via email as well as notifying major statewide media. The amendments now stipulate that an entity is required to notify the Attorney General’s office in writing to demonstrate the reasons for substitute notice in addition to posting a notice on the entity’s website for at least 45 days; and
- clarifies a section that states entities are no longer required to notify affected individuals if an independent third-party forensic auditor or law enforcement agency “determines after a reasonable investigation that a security system breach has not resulted in or is not reasonably likely to result in substantial economic loss to affected individuals.”
Separately, on April 3, the governor signed SB 1163, which amends existing law to prohibit credit reporting agencies from charging a fee to a consumer for the placement, removal, or temporary lifting of a security freeze. Moreover, it prevents credit reporting agencies from charging fees for replacing a lost personal identification number or password.
Both bills are scheduled to take effect 91 days after the end of the legislative session.
OFAC sanctions Russian oligarchs and government officials; releases new general licenses and updated FAQs
On April 6, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced its decision to sanction seven Russian oligarchs along with 12 companies they own or control, 17 senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its Russian bank subsidiary, pursuant to the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA) and Executive Orders 13661, 13662, and 13582. In a foreign policy statement released the same day, President Trump explained that the identified persons placed on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and Blocked Persons List engaged in actions that have reportedly contributed to “advancing Russia’s malign activities,” including (i) profiting from “Russia's destabilizing activities”; (ii) election meddling; (iii) undermining U.S. cybersecurity; (iv) engaging in weapons proliferation; (v) continuing to occupy Crimea; (vi) instigating violence in eastern Ukraine; and (vii) providing military equipment and support for the Government of Syria's continued attacks against Syrian citizens. Pursuant to OFAC’s sanctions, all property or interests in property of the designated persons along with any other entity owned 50 percent or more by one or more designated persons that is within U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are “generally prohibited” from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities. Additionally, “non-U.S. persons could face sanctions for knowingly facilitating significant transactions for or on behalf of the individuals or entities blocked today.”
The same day, OFAC issued two Ukraine-/Russia-related general licenses to “minimize immediate disruptions to U.S. persons, partners, and allies.” General License 12 authorizes through June 5 certain activities necessary to “wind down” operations, contracts, or agreements in effect prior to April 6 involving specified blocked persons. General License 13 authorizes through May 7 divestiture transactions with certain blocked persons to a non-U.S. person, as well as the facilitation of transfers of debt, equity, or other holdings involving listed blocked persons by a non-U.S. person to another non-U.S. person. OFAC also released eight new FAQs related to this action and published one updated FAQ related to CAATSA.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Ukraine/Russian sanctions.
Electronic contracting tools provide evidence and records necessary to undermine opposing affidavits
On April 3, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld an agreement executed using a third-party electronic contracting service vendor, after finding that the agreement was ratified by the plaintiff’s conduct, even if an unauthorized employee executed it in the first instance. The plaintiff argued that it had never seen the contract and that an employee must have electronically signed the contract without authority. However, the defendant produced evidence and an affidavit showing that its electronic contracting vendor had sent the contract to the plaintiff’s email address, that the emails were viewed and the link to the contract was opened, and that the contract was electronically signed in the vendor’s system. The record also showed several other emails referencing the agreement sent to plaintiff and responses thereto by plaintiff. The court observed that “[w]ere this a more traditional contract negotiation, in which the parties had mailed proposed contracts back and forth, a sworn affidavit stating that [plaintiff] never reviewed or signed the contracts might be sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact” as to plaintiff’s knowledge of the agreement and its terms, but in the electronic context, the affidavits and audit trails produced by the vendor foreclosed any genuine dispute that the plaintiff company had received the agreement and had knowledge of it before ratifying it through its actions.
Court upholds clickwrap agreement, reiterating that general principles of contract apply
On March 28, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico enforced an arbitration agreement entered into by a consumer on a website. Before completing a purchase of a product through the defendant’s website, the plaintiff had to check a box next to a statement that she had read and agreed to the terms of the hyperlinked user agreement, which included an arbitration clause. The defendant was able to present evidence that it was impossible for the plaintiff to complete the purchase without checking the box and clicking on a button to accept the agreement. Plaintiff provided testimony that she couldn’t remember ever seeing the terms of use or agreeing to them.
The court, in upholding the agreement, reiterated that electronic contracts are still governed by traditional contract principles, including reasonable notice and unambiguous assent requirements. Because the agreement was made available, twice via hyperlink, and because the plaintiff acknowledged her awareness and assent of the agreement by clicking a button in the affirmative twice, the court held that the plaintiff had sufficient notice and had demonstrated adequate assent to the terms. This decision reinforces the effectiveness of electronic arbitration agreements and the use of hyperlinks to present documents, when presented in a manner consistent with underlying contract law.
8th Circuit reverses district court’s decision, rules plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual damages under RESPA
On April 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, which granted summary judgement in favor of a consumer (plaintiff) who claimed a mortgage loan servicer violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA) and the Minnesota Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act when it failed to adequately respond to his qualified written requests concerning erroneous delinquency allegations. The district court ruled that the plaintiff suffered actual damages of $80 under his RESPA claims when the loan servicer “made minimal effort to investigate the error” and failed to provide the plaintiff with requested information about his loan history since origination. The “pattern or practice” of non-compliance also, in the district court’s view, justified $2000 in statutory damages. The plaintiff also received a separate damage award, attorney’s fees and costs under the Minnesota statute. However, under RESPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate proof of actual damages resulting from a loan servicer’s failure, and the three-judge panel argued that the plaintiff “failed to prove actual damages” because the loan servicer’s “failure to comply with RESPA did not cause [the plaintiff’s] alleged harm.” The panel opined that while the loan servicer failed to (i) conduct an adequate investigation following the plaintiff’s request as to why there was a delinquency for his account, and (ii) failed to provide a complete loan payment history when requested, its failure to comply with RESPA involved pre-2011 payment history for which the plaintiff eventually requested and received the relevant loan payment records at no cost. In fact, the panel stated, the only evidence of actual damages was the $80 the plaintiff spent for bank account records, but that expense concerned a separate dispute about whether the plaintiff missed two payments in 2012 and 2013, which the plaintiff eventually acknowledged that he did, in fact, fail to make. Since the loan servicer did not commit an error with respect to the missed payments, the court concluded that the $80 spent by plaintiff were not the result of the loan servicer’s failure to investigate and provide information related to the pre-2011 payment history. To the contrary, with respect to responding to the plaintiff’s inquiries regarding the missing payments, the loan servicer had “complied with its duties under RESPA.”
Furthermore, the panel stated that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the loan servicer engaged in a “pattern or practice of noncompliance.” The 8th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the loan servicer on the RESPA claims and for further proceedings on claims under the Minnesota statute.
CFPB Succession: Mulvaney pleads for Congress to restructure the CFPB; oral arguments held in English litigation
On April 11 and 12, acting Director of the CFPB, Mick Mulvaney, testified before the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee regarding the Bureau’s semi-annual report to Congress. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here). Mulvaney’s prepared testimony, which was submitted to both committees, covers the salient points of the semi-annual report but also includes the same request to Congress that he made in the report: change the law “in order to establish meaningful accountability for the Bureau.” This request, which includes four specific changes (such as, subjecting the Bureau to the Congressional appropriations process and creating an independent Inspector General for the Bureau), was the focus of many of Mulvaney’s responses to questions posed by members of each committee. Specifically, during the House Financial Services hearing, Mulvaney encouraged the members of the committee to include the CFPB restructure in negotiations with the Senate regarding the bipartisan regulatory reform bill, S.2155, which passed the Senate last month. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here).
Mulvaney also fielded many questions regarding the Bureau’s announcement that it plans to reconsider the final rule addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other extensions of credit (Rule); however, his responses gave little indication of what the Bureau’s specific plans for the Rule are. As previously covered by InfoBytes, resolutions have been introduced in the House and the Senate to overturn the rule under the Congressional Review Act. Additionally, on April 9, two payday loan trade groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas asking the court to set aside the Rule because, among other reasons, the CFPB is unconstitutional and the Bureau’s rulemaking failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint alleges that the Rule is “outside the Bureau's constitutional and statutory authority, as well as unnecessary, arbitrary, capricious, overreaching, procedurally improper and substantially harmful to lenders and borrowers alike.” The complaint also argues that the rule is a product of an agency that violates the Constitution’s separation of powers due to the Bureau’s structure of a single director who may only be removed by the president “for cause.” A similar argument in CFPB v. PHH Corporation was recently rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert).
Additionally, on April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in English v. Trump. In this suit, Leandra English, the current deputy director of the CFPB, challenges Mulvaney’s appointment as acting director. Unlike previous arguments, which focused on the president’s authority to appoint Mulvaney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), the court spent considerable time discussing Mulvaney’s concurrent role as head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and whether that dual role is inconsistent with the independent structure of the Bureau, as established by the Dodd-Frank Act.
SEC gives first “safe harbor” whistleblower award
On April 5, the SEC announced an award of over $2.2 million given to a whistleblower who initially reported information to another federal agency and then later to the SEC. The award was the first paid under the “safe harbor” of the Exchange Act Rule 21F-4(b)(7), which provides that the SEC will treat information submitted to it, by a whistleblower, as though it received the information at the same time as another federal agency as long as the whistleblower submits the information to the SEC within 120 days after its submission to the other agency. According to the announcement, the SEC opened an investigation into the reported conduct after it received a referral from the other federal agency. The whistleblower then reported the same information to the SEC and later provided substantial cooperation in the investigation.
Court grants summary judgment to credit reporting agency over FCRA dispute
On April 4, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a consumer reporting agency’s motion for summary judgment, holding that a “firm offer of credit” under the FCRA does not require that an offer based on furnished information result in an enforceable contract. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a putative class action suit alleging that the consumer reporting agency violated the FCRA by providing California residents’ credit report information to two businesses that were not licensed to make consumer loans in California and that offered interest rates which exceed allowable limits under California law. The court disagreed, holding that the FCRA only requires that a prescreened offer not be retracted if the consumer meets the creditor’s pre-selection criteria. Additionally, the court rejected the consumer’s argument that the FCRA also imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to separately credential service providers who are given access to the furnished information from their credentialed principals. The court emphasized that “neither the FCRA, nor any case authority addressing the FCRA” imposes this duty.
Department of Education restores accreditor’s federal recognition pending review of its 2016 petition
On April 3, Department of Education (Department) Secretary, Betsey DeVos restored the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools’ (ACICS) status as a federally recognized accrediting agency, effective as of December 12, 2016. The order follows the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s March 23, 2018 remand of the former Secretary’s December 2016 decision withdrawing recognition. The order states that while federal recognition is restored, the Department will review ACICS’ January 2016 petition to determine whether continued recognition is warranted. As previously covered by InfoBytes, a coalition of state Attorneys General urged the Department to reject ACICS’ application to regain recognition, citing to what the Attorneys General called “ACICS’ systemic accreditation failures.”