InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Washington governor enacts bill to provide student loan debt relief
On March 22, the Washington governor signed HB 1169, which establishes the student opportunity, assistance, and relief act to address student loan debt. Among other things, HB 1169 (i) repeals certain statutes allowing the suspension of a professional license or certificate due to student loan default; (ii) changes the judgment interest rate for unpaid private student loan debt to two percentage points above the prime rate, unless the judgment interest rate is specified in the contract; (iii) defines “private student loan,” and outlines exclusions, such as “an extension of credit made under an open-end consumer credit plan, a reverse mortgage transaction, a residential mortgage transaction, or any other loan that is secured by real property or a dwelling”; and (iv) outlines provisions and exemptions for bank account and wage garnishment. The act takes effect June 7.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, earlier in March the Washington governor established the “Washington student education loan bill of rights” to outline licensing requirements and responsibilities for student loan servicers.
Washington expands the state’s Service Member’s Civil Relief Act
On March 22, the Washington governor signed HB 1056, which amends the Washington Service Member’s Civil Relief Act (WSCRA) to update the definition of “service member” and allow for a service member to terminate or suspend certain private contracts without penalty. Specifically, HB 1056 defines “service member” as “an active member of the United States armed forces, a member of a military reserve component, or a member of the national guard who is either stationed in or a resident of Washington state.” The law allows for a service member, after receiving orders for a permanent change of station or deployment (for at least 30 days), to terminate or suspend certain contracts for the following: telecommunication services, internet services, health studio services, and subscription television services. After proper written notice is given to the service provider for termination, suspension or reinstatement, the service member may not be charged a “penalty, fee, loss of deposit, or any other additional cost” due to the notice. Additionally, HB 1056 allows the Washington Attorney General to recover costs and fees in an action brought to enforce the WSCRA. The law becomes effective on June 7.
District Court finds government is not immune from private claims under the FCRA
On March 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied the Defense Finance and Accounting Service’s (DFAS), a federal government agency within the Department of Defense, motion to dismiss a private action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a result of sovereign immunity. The court found that FCRA’s definition of person includes “government or governmental subdivision or agency,” and therefore, waives the United States’ sovereign immunity under FCRA. The court did not agree with DFAS’ position that the terms “government or governmental subdivision or agency” are too broad to constitute a wavier of sovereign immunity. In support of its position, the court cited a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit providing that the FCRA “unequivocally waives the United States’ sovereign immunity from damages for violations under the FCRA.”
Federal banking agencies raise commercial real estate appraisal threshold to $500,000
On April 2, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC (agencies) issued a joint press release announcing the adoption of a final rule, which would increase the threshold for commercial real estate transactions requiring an appraisal from $250,000 to $500,000. After receiving more than 200 comments to their July 2017 joint notice of proposed rulemaking (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the agencies increased the threshold to $500,000, rather than $400,000 as originally proposed. The rulemaking initiative responded to financial industry concerns that adjustments had not been made to the current threshold amounts, which were set 24 years ago. In accordance with the final rule, commercial real estate transactions exempted by the $500,000 threshold will no long require appraisals, but will instead be subject to an evaluation, which is not required to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraiser Practices in order to provide a market value estimate of the real estate pledged as collateral and is not required to be completed by a state licensed or certified appraiser. However, the final rule stipulates that real-estate related transactions secured by a single one-to-four family residential property are excluded. The final rule will take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
Treasury releases recommendations for modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act
On April 3, the U.S. Treasury Department released recommendations to the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC (CRA regulators) on suggestions for modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, Treasury released a report last June indicating that the CRA should be modernized to better target statutory and regulatory responses to financial risks faced by U.S. consumers and ensure that the benefits of the CRA investments are aligned with the needs of the communities being served. Last month the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report recommending Treasury consider GAO’s findings when conducting its review. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
The April memorandum of recommendations addresses findings from Treasury’s comprehensive assessment of the CRA framework and focuses on four key areas: assessment areas, examination clarity and flexibility, the examination process, and bank performance. Specifically, the recommendations include (i) updating the definitions of “geographic assessment areas to reflect the changing nature of banking arising from changing technology, customer behavior, and other factors”; (ii) improving the flexibility of the CRA examination process to increase clarity in examiner guidance and improve evaluation criteria to increase CRA rating determination transparency and effectiveness; (iii) addressing the timing and issuance of performance evaluations to increase banks’ accountability when planning CRA activity; and (iv) identifying performance incentives to encourage banks to meet the credit and deposit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income areas. The memorandum solicited input from stakeholders such as consumer advocacy groups, financial industry members, and the CRA regulators.
Mulvaney requests more oversight and accountability for the Bureau in semi-annual report to Congress
On April 2, the CFPB issued its semi-annual report to Congress covering the Bureau’s work from April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017. The report details, among other things, problems faced by consumers with regard to consumer financial products or services; significant rules and orders adopted by the Bureau; and various supervisory and enforcement actions prior to Mick Mulvaney’s appointment as acting director. Most notably, the report includes an opening letter from Mulvaney, which requests Congress make changes to the law to “establish meaningful accountability” for the Bureau which is “far too powerful.” Specifically, Mulvaney requests four changes (i) subject the Bureau to Congressional appropriations; (ii) require Congressional approval for major rules; (iii) make the director accountable to the President’s exercise of executive authority; and (iv) create an independent Inspector General for the agency. Mulvaney writes that the cycle of Congressional frustration with the CFPB will repeat “ad infinitum unless Congress acts to make [the Bureau] accountable to the American people.”
Mulvaney is set to testify on April 11 before the full House Financial Services Committee regarding the Bureau’s semi-annual report. As he notes in his letter, he intends to discuss his recommendations regarding the Bureau’s oversight at the hearing.
Buckley Sandler Insights: FinCEN updates FAQs regarding customer due diligence requirements for financial institutions
On April 3, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network released an update to its FAQs in advance of the upcoming Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions final rule (issued in 2016 and amended last September for various technical corrections) that goes into effect May 11. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the final rule imposes standardized customer due diligence (CDD) requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act for covered financial institutions and requires financial institutions to identify and verify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions. The supplemental FAQs (see InfoBytes coverage on an earlier set of FAQs issued in 2016) assist covered financial institutions in understanding the scope of their CDD requirements, as well as the CDD rule’s impact on broader anti-money laundering (AML) program obligations, and cover a broad range of interpretations including the following:
- Question 1 specifies covered financial institutions will satisfy the requirements to identify and verify beneficial owners of legal entity customers by collecting and verifying the identity of individuals who directly or indirectly own 25 percent or more of the equity interests in a legal entity customer, as well as “one individual who has managerial control of a legal entity customer.” However, they may choose to implement stricter written internal policies and procedures and expand their information collection to include more than one individual with managerial control or persons owning a lower percentage of equity interests.
- Question 3 clarifies that covered financial institutions may reasonably rely on a legal entity customer to provide the identities of individuals who satisfy the definition of beneficial ownership, whether indirectly or directly, and “need not independently investigate the legal entity customer’s ownership structure.”
- Question 7 states that for existing customers, a covered financial institution may rely on information in its possession subject to its Customer Identification Program (CIP) to fulfill the beneficial ownership identification and verification requirements, “provided the existing information is up-to-date, accurate, and the legal entity customer’s representative certifies or confirms (verbally or in writing) the accuracy of the pre-existing CIP information.”
- Question 10 states that if a legal entity customer opens multiple accounts, the covered financial institution may rely on information obtained from a previously issued certification form (or equivalent), provided the legal entity customer certifies or confirms—verbally or in writing—that such information is up-to-date and accurate at the time each subsequent account is opened. Records of such certification or confirmation must also be maintained.
- Question 12 confirms that covered financial institutions seeking to renew a loan or roll over a certificate of deposit must treat these as new accounts and require their legal entities customers to certify or confirm beneficial owners, “even if the legal entity is an existing customer.”
- Question 18 stipulates that covered financial institutions are not required to identify and verify the identity of beneficial owners that own 25 percent or more of the equity interests of a pooled investment vehicle, whether or not such vehicle is managed by a “financial institution,” due to the typical fluctuation of ownership. However, Question 18 notes that covered financial entities must collect beneficial ownership information for an individual who has significant control or management over the vehicle as required under the control prong to comply with the CDD rule.
- Question 19 concerns trusts overseen by multiple trustees and states that in circumstances where a trust owns 25 percent or more of the equity interests of a legal entity customer, covered financial institutions are required, at a minimum, to collect beneficial ownership information on a single trustee but may choose to identify additional co-trustees based on risk assessment or a risk profile.
- Question 21 specifies that a covered financial institution may rely on information provided by a legal entity customer to determine eligibility for exclusion from the definition of a legal entity customer, provided the financial institution has no knowledge of facts that would reasonably call into question the reliability of such information. Covered financial institutions should also ensure that their risk-based written policies and procedures address and specify the type of information to be used when reasonably determining exclusion eligibility.
- Question 28 stipulates which non-U.S. governmental entities qualify for exclusion from the definition of a legal entity customer. It specifies that state-owned enterprises that engage in profit-seeking activities, such as sovereign wealth funds, airlines, and oil companies, are not excluded from the definition of a legal entity.
- Questions 29-31 provide guidance on account level beneficial owner exceptions related to (i) point of sale products for certain low-risk retail credit accounts; and (ii) certain equipment finance and lease accounts with low money laundering risks. Question 31 also stipulates that an equipment lease and purchase exemption would apply in circumstances where a customer leases necessary equipment directly from a covered financial institution.
- Questions 32-33 provide guidance on circumstances where beneficial ownership information should be aggregated for purposes of complying with Currency Transaction Report (CTR) requirements, and state that “absent indications that the businesses are not operating independently . . . , financial institutions should not aggregate transactions involving those businesses with those of each other or with those of the common owner for CTR filing.” Furthermore, covered financial institutions are generally not required to list beneficial owners on a CTR.
- Question 35 specifies what information covered financial institutions should collect and consider as part of on-going CDD when developing customer risk profiles. Specifically, covered financial institutions should develop an understanding of the “nature and purpose of a customer relationship,” and review information obtained at the opening of an account such as type of customer, account, service, or product.
West Virginia passes bill amending licensing requirements for mortgage loan originators
On March 22, the West Virginia governor signed HB 4285, which amends provisions under the West Virginia Safe Mortgage Licensing Act (Act) related to licensing requirements for mortgage loan originators, including those related to continuing education. HB 4285, among other things, (i) updates requirements for applicants registering for mortgage loan originator licenses; (ii) requires nonresident mortgage loan originators licensed under the Act to “acknowledge that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of West Virginia”; (iii) outlines provisional license exceptions for loan originators; and (iv) specifies prelicensing and relicensing education requirements. The amendments take effect May 31.
Multiple states pass bills addressing GAP waiver framework
On March 28, HB 4186, which amends the Code of West Virginia by adding a section related to guaranteed asset protection waivers (GAP waivers), became law without the governor’s signature. Among other things, HB 4186 clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance, and that GAP waivers issued after the bill’s effective date are exempt from West Virginia insurance laws. The bill also (i) specifies terms and conditions when offering GAP waivers; (ii) provides requirements for offering GAP waivers, including “contractual liability” obligations, certain disclosures, and cancellation/non-cancellation terms; and (iii) outlines exemptions, such as commercial transactions and GAP waivers sold or issued by federally regulated depository institutions. Additionally, HB 4186 clarifies the procedures a borrower must follow to activate benefits under a GAP waiver. The bill will apply to all GAP waivers in effect on or after July 1.
On March 28, the Wisconsin governor signed Assembly Bill 663 (AB 663), which amends statutes related to GAP waivers sold in connection with the credit sale or lease of a vehicle. Among other things, AB 663 prohibits creditors from requiring borrowers to purchase GAP waivers and requires creditors to provide written disclosures to borrowers prior to, or at the time of execution, which include that (i) the purchase of a GAP waiver is optional; (iii) outlines the costs and terms; and (iii) specifies procedures borrowers are required to follow to receive GAP waiver benefits. AB 663 also addresses cancellation provisions for borrowers. Furthermore, the bill clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and that any cost to a borrower must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. AB 663 becomes effective September 1.
Finally, on March 26, the Mississippi governor signed SB 2929, which clarifies that GAP waivers are not insurance and are therefore exempt from Mississippi insurance laws. Provisions promulgated under SB 2929 provide a framework for which GAP waivers may be offered to borrowers in the state and include (i) requirements for contractual liability and other policies to insure a GAP waiver; (ii) disclosure requirements; and (iii) cancellation policies for GAP waivers and procedures for borrowers to obtain a refund in the instance of cancellation or early termination. Similar to Wisconsin AB 663, any cost to a borrower associated with a GAP waiver must be separately stated as part of the finance agreement and cannot be considered a finance charge or interest. The act takes effect July 1.
2nd Circuit: debt collectors do not need to state interest is not accruing
On March 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held that a debt collection letter, which does not disclose that the balance due is not accruing interest or fees is not misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The decision results from a 2016 lawsuit filed by two debtors who alleged that the debt collection notices they received from the defendants were “false, deceptive, or misleading” under Section 1692e of the FDCPA because the notices did not state whether the balances were accruing interest or fees. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendants after unrebutted evidence was produced to show that the debtor’s balances did not accrue interest or fees during the collection period. In affirming the district court’s decision, the 2nd Circuit applied the “least sophisticated consumer” standard and found that even if a consumer interpreted the debt collection notice to believe the balance due was accruing interest or fees, the only harm that would exist is “being led to think that there is a financial benefit to making repayment sooner rather than later.” The panel also noted that the notice was consistent with Section 1692g of the FDCPA because interest and fees were not accruing, the balance due stated the accurate amount of the debt.