InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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.
FFIEC finalizes November 2017 Call Report revisions
On March 30, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC—as members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)—announced finalized plans to reduce data reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements associated with the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for financial institutions. According to the FFIEC, the finalized changes modify Call Reports applicable to banks with (i) domestic offices only and less than $1 billion in total assets (FFIEC 051); (ii) domestic offices only (FFIEC 041); and (iii) domestic and foreign offices (FFIEC 031). The changes include removing or consolidating certain data items and adding a new or raising certain existing reporting thresholds in the three versions of the Call Report. The changes were originally proposed in November 2017 (previously covered by InfoBytes here) and are effective June 30.
In January, the FFIEC also finalized other burden-reducing Call Report revisions based on a June 2017 proposal, as previously covered by InfoBytes.
FHFA announces new Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security
On March 28, the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) announced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) will issue a new security, the Uniform Mortgage-Backed Security (UMBS), on June 3, 2019. The UMBS will replace all current offerings of mortgage-backed securities that occur in the to-be-announced (TBA) forward market. According to the announcement, the new UMBS will be issued using the Common Securitization Platform (CSP) through the Enterprises’ joint venture, Common Securitization Solutions (CSS). See previous InfoBytes coverage here.
Second executive pleads guilty to FCPA violations in a German engineering company case involving bribes in Argentina
On March 15, a former executive of a German engineering company subsidiary, pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including conspiracy to commit bribery, falsify corporate books and records, circumvent internal controls, and commit wire fraud. According to the DOJ press release, the executive “admitted that he and his co-conspirators concealed the illicit payments through various means, including using shell companies associated with intermediaries to disguise and launder the funds.” He was indicted with seven others in 2011.
He was part of a decade-long scheme during which the company paid tens of millions of dollars in bribes to Argentine government officials to secure a contract to create national identity cards. A subsidiary of the company was awarded a contract worth more than $1 billion to provide the ID cards in 1998. The Argentine government ended the project in 2001. Since then, the company and its employees have faced prosecutions and enforcement actions around the world as a result of the bribes and related conduct. The company pleaded guilty in the U.S. to violating the books and records provisions of the FCPA in 2008 for its conduct, and subsidiaries in Argentina and other countries pleaded guilty to similar crimes. The company also paid $350 million to resolve an SEC case and paid a fine of $800 million to resolve charges brought by the Munich Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Prior FCPA Scorecard coverage of the case can be found here, here, here, and here.
Canadian-based mining company settles SEC FCPA charge
The SEC fined a Canadian-based mining company $950,000 for its failure to implement and maintain adequate accounting controls at two subsidiaries in Ghana and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The company neither admitted nor denied the allegations. According to the SEC, the company acquired the subsidiaries in 2010 understanding that they lacked anti-corruption compliance programs. After three years of internal audits raising red flags, the company did implement adequate controls, however it did not maintain them. The SEC found that the company then awarded a contract to a sub-standard company preferred by Mauritanian officials, despite the company's internal bidding and tendering procedures. The company also failed to conduct required due diligence when it awarded a politically connected consultant a contract to facilitate government contracts.
UK Serious Fraud Office recovers bribe from diplomat from Chad
In what the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is calling a first, a £4.4 million recovery from a corruption case will be returned overseas. The SFO prevailed in a trial before the UK High Court and recovered the money from Chadian diplomats, including the wife of the former Deputy Chief of the Chadian Embassy to the United States who was received the money in the form of discounted shares of a Canadian oil company. The company also paid “consultancy fees” to diplomats through a front company called “Chad Oil” set up five days before the agreements with the diplomats. In exchange for the payments, the company received exclusive development rights in Chad.
The case has continued for some time—the company paid a C$10 million criminal fine in Canada in 2013. After the company was taken over by a UK corporation, the U.S. DOJ filed an In Rem. complaint and later requested SFO assistance.
This recovery will be “transferred to the Department for International Development who will identify key projects to invest in that will benefit the poorest in Chad.”
International bank agrees to pay $2 billion in civil penalties to settle allegations of RMBS misconduct
On March 29, the DOJ announced a $2 billion settlement with an international bank and several of its affiliates to resolve allegations of misrepresentation in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities, in violation of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act. The bank agreed to pay the civil monetary penalty in exchange for dismissal of a civil action filed in 2016. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 36 securitizations by the bank between 2005 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents, the bank allegedly misled investors about the quality of the mortgage loans backing the deals. Separately, two former bank executives agreed to pay a combined $2 million to resolve claims brought against them individually. The bank did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.
Alabama enacts data breach notification law
On March 28, the Alabama governor signed SB 318, The Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (Act), which requires entities doing business in the state to (i) notify consumers within 45 days if their personal data has been compromised in a data breach; and (ii) notify the state Attorney General and consumer reporting agencies if more than 1,000 individuals have been impacted. The Act also states that third-party agents, entities that have been contracted to maintain, store, process, or otherwise access sensitive personally identifying information in connection with providing services to a covered entity, are required to notify the covered entity of a breach of security “no later than 10 days following the determination of the breach of security or reason to believe the breach occurred.” Additionally, the Act gives the state Attorney General authority to prosecute a failure to disclose a data breach as an unlawful act or practice under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which can result in daily penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. However, entities that follow the notice requirements of industry-specific state or federal laws or regulations are exempt from the Alabama legislation. The law is effective June 1.
CFPB appeals $10 million order in payday lender suit
On March 27, the CFPB filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in response to a district court’s order that an online loan servicer and its affiliates pay a $10 million penalty for offering high-interest loans in states with usury laws barring the transactions—a penalty which fell far short of the $50 million the CFPB had requested. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the district court found that a lower statutory penalty was more appropriate than the CFPB’s requested amount because the CFPB failed to show the company “knowingly violated the CFPA.” It further rejected the Bureau’s request for restitution and denied a request for a permanent injunction. The notice of appeal seeks review of all parts of the final judgment as well as the parts of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that are adverse to its position.