InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Treasury releases list of Russian senior foreign political figures and oligarchs, does not impose new sanctions
On January 29, the U.S. Treasury Department released an unclassified report to Congress containing a list of 210 individuals who are either senior foreign political figures in the Russian Federation or Russian oligarchs with a net worth of at least $1 billion. Treasury emphasized that the report—which was mandated through Section 241 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA)— (i) is not a sanctions list; (ii) should not be interpreted as a determination that individuals or entities included in the report or listed within classified appendices or annexes meet the criteria for sanctions designation (individuals and entities subject to separate sanctions are denoted within the report); and (iii) does not serve to indicate that the U.S. Government possesses information about an “individual’s involvement in malign activities.” Classified lists that may include officials and oligarchs of lesser rank and wealth will be submitted as well. Additionally, Treasury submitted to Congress a required classified annex to the report, which lists Russian parastatals entities that are defined as “companies in which state ownership is at least 25 percent and that had 2016 revenues of approximately $2 billion or more.” The annex also presents an analysis of potential impact on the U.S. economy that may result should additional debt and equity restrictions or sanctions be imposed on the identified entities.
Separately, on January 30, Treasury released updated FAQs to address questions related to the report’s release.
See here for additional CAATSA InfoBytes coverage.
Maryland issues bipartisan consumer protection recommendations
On January 26, the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission (the “Commission”) and ranking officials from the Maryland legislature announced bipartisan “Interim Recommendations” of the Commission for State and local action in response to the federal government’s “efforts to change or weaken […] important federal consumer protections.” New legislation in response to the recommendations is expected to be released in the near future. Key recommendations include, among other things: (i) requiring credit reporting agencies to provide an alert of data breaches promptly and provide free credit freezes; (ii) adopting new financial consumer protection laws in areas where the federal government may be weakening oversight; (iii) addressing potential issues with Maryland’s current payday and lending statutes; (iv) adopting the Model State Consumer and Employee Justice Enforcement Act that addresses forced arbitration clauses; and (v) adopting new laws that address new risk, such as, virtual currencies and financial technology.
10th Circuit says FCBA claim ends if credit account is paid
On January 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a District Court’s decision dismissing a consumer’s claim that, under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), two credit card providers (collectively, defendants) must refund his accounts after a merchant failed to deliver goods purchased using credit cards issued by the defendants. The FCBA allows consumers to raise the same claims against credit card issuers that can be raised against merchants, but limits such claims to the “amount of credit outstanding with respect to [the disputed] transaction.” According to the opinion, the consumer ordered nearly $1 million in wine from a merchant and prior to delivery of the complete order, the merchant declared bankruptcy. The consumer filed lawsuits against each credit card provider in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking a refund to his credit accounts for the amounts of the undelivered wine. The District Court dismissed the suits against both defendants because the consumer had fully paid the balance on his credit cards. In affirming the District Court’s decision, the 10th Circuit concluded that because “‘the amount of credit outstanding with respect to’ the undelivered wine is $0” the consumer had no claim against the defendants under the FCBA.
Bank regulators share living will expectations with foreign banks operating in the U.S.
On January 29, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC sent letters to 19 foreign banks operating in the United States to outline and clarify resolution plan expectations. According to a joint release issued by the regulators, Dodd-Frank-mandated resolution plans—commonly known as living wills—require certain foreign banks to detail strategic plans for their U.S. operations “for rapid and orderly resolution under bankruptcy” should the banks fail or fall under material financial distress. Requested in the letters, among other things, are specifics on resolution strategies, capital calculations, management of liquidity, stress testing, and organizational structures. Banks are required to submit 2018 resolution plans no later than December 31, 2018. Refer here to access a list of banks and letters.
CFPB releases RFI on administrative adjudications
On January 31, the CFPB released its Request for Information (RFI) on administrative adjudications, which solicits public comment on the process for the Bureau to “better understand the benefits and impacts of its use of administrative adjudications, and how its existing process may be improved.” The RFI broadly requests feedback on “all aspects” of the administrative adjudication process but also highlights specific topics on which comment is requested, including (i) whether the Bureau should abandon the process and pursue contested matters only in federal court; (ii) the policy for proceedings to be conducted expeditiously, including the associated timeframes; (iii) whether the Bureau should make documents available to respondents electronically at its own expense; (iv) whether CFPB staff should be permitted to issue subpoenas without approval of the administrative law judge; (v) limitations on expert witnesses; (vi) limitations on discovery, including deposing fact witnesses or servicing interrogatories; and (vii) whether there should be the opportunity to stay a decision of the director pending appeal by filing a supersedeas bond. The RFI was published in the Federal Register on February 5 and comments are due by April 6.
This is the second RFI released related to the CFPB’s plan to publish a series of RFIs seeking input on the way the Bureau is performing its statutory obligations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB’s first RFI related to Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs).
Buckley Sandler Special Alert: D.C. Circuit upholds CFPB’s constitutionality but rejects its interpretation of RESPA
On January 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc decision in CFPB v. PHH Corporation. In a 7-3 decision, the court concluded that the CFPB’s single-director structure is constitutional, even though the president can only remove the director for cause. Importantly, however, the court also reinstated the portion of t he October 2016 panel opinion concluding that the CFPB misinterpreted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and its statute of limitations. As a result, the $109 million penalty imposed on PHH is vacated and the case will go back to the CFPB, where new leadership must decide whether to pursue the action. PHH has 90 days to seek review by the Supreme Court.
Ten judges issued seven separate opinions in this case, totaling 250 pages. The following is a summary of the key holdings.
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have questions about the decision or other related issues, please visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
OFAC further expands sanctions in connection with Ukrainian conflict
On January 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced its decision to sanction an additional 21 individuals and nine entities, pursuant to four executive orders (see Executive Orders 13660, 13661, 13662, and 13685), in connection with the United States’ support of Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and opposition to Russia’s occupation of Crimea. Among other things, the financial sanctions target Russian government officials, Russian business executives, and Ukrainian separatist leaders involved with Russia’s occupation as part of efforts to hold responsible individuals accountable. Also sanctioned are nine technology, construction, and shipping firms supporting Russia’s occupation. As part of the announcement, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated that “[t]he U.S. government is committed to maintaining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and to targeting those who attempt to undermine the Minsk agreements.” He further indicated that “[t]hose who provide goods, services, or material support to individuals and entities sanctioned by the United States for their activities in Ukraine are engaging in behavior that could expose them to U.S. sanctions.” All property, or interests in property, held by the sanctioned individuals and entities within U.S. jurisdiction will be blocked, and transactions between the sanctioned individuals and entities and Americans are also “generally prohibited.”
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Russian and Ukrainian sanctions.
10th Circuit reverses lower court decision in mortgage action
On January 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed a District Court’s decision dismissing a borrower’s claims against a lender and mortgage loan servicer (collectively, “defendants”) under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits lower federal courts from reviewing state court civil judgments. Colorado maintains a unique procedure for non-judicial foreclosure. Specifically, under Rule 120 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 120”) a trustee is required to obtain a trial court ruling that a “reasonable probability” of default exists before moving forward with a non-judicial foreclosure. According to the opinion, in 2014, the defendants initiated a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding against the borrower through the Rule 120 process. Prior to completing the sale, however, the borrower filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado seeking, among other things, an injunction against the sale, damages, and cancellation of the promissory note. Relying on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the District Court dismissed the borrower’s suit as an attempt to unwind the results of the Rule 120 proceedings. The 10th Circuit reversed this decision based on its finding that the borrower’s suit did not challenge the Rule 120 state court decision, but rather took issue with the defendant’s actions prior to the state court proceedings. In reaching this conclusion, the 10th Circuit noted that even if the borrower had filed suit after the Rule 120 judgment had been entered, unless the borrower was alleging the state court wrongfully entered the judgment, the suit would not be barred by Rooker-Feldman.
Fifth Circuit rules that loan-modification discussions resulting in foreclosure do not violate TDCA
On January 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision that a loan-modification discussion between two borrowers and a mortgage servicer did not constitute a debt collection activity under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA). After two borrowers defaulted on their home equity loan, they were encouraged by their mortgage servicer to apply for a modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). When the borrowers learned that they were, in fact, ineligible for a HAMP modification, due to state law restrictions, the borrowers filed suit against the creditor and the mortgage servicer (the “creditors”). Specifically, the borrowers alleged that the creditors violated the TDCA’s prohibition against using false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt by suggesting that the borrowers apply for a HAMP modification for which they did not qualify. The three-judge panel rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the court found that the borrower and creditors conversation about a modification did not “concern the collection of a debt” and thus the conduct was not subject to the TDCA. Second, even if the conduct were covered, the court found that the creditor had not affirmatively represented that the borrowers would qualify for a HAMP modification and, thus, under the TDCA’s prohibition against using false representations and deceptive means to collect a debt, no liability could ensue.
FSOC agrees to dismiss SIFI designation appeal
On January 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed an appeal by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) after both parties filed a joint stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the case. The litigation began in 2015 when a national insurance firm sued FSOC over its designation of the firm as a nonbank systemically important financial institution (SIFI). In March 2016, the district court issued its opinion agreeing with the insurance firm and finding the FSOC determination arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the financial impact the SIFI designation would have on the firm. FSOC appealed the court’s ruling but after a change in FSOC leadership, agreed to jointly dismiss the appeal with the insurance firm.
For more InfoBytes coverage on SIFIs, click here.