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 Update Servicing Guides
On October 11, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced updates to their respective Servicing Guides.
Fannie Mae. Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2017-09 highlights recent updates to the Servicing Guide, including topics related to the management of electronic transactions such as: (i) confirmation that sellers and servicers may originate, service, and modify loans using electronic records (electronic promissory notes require special approval); (ii) streamlined language clarifying requirements for the accuracy of information in electronic records; (iii) specification that paper records are not required for recorded mortgages and deeds of trust; (iv) clarification that all electronic signatures must comply with ESIGN, UETA, and other applicable laws; and (v) the removal of requirements for document custodians from the Servicing Guide that were duplicative of requirements set forth in Fannie Mae’s Requirements for Document Custodians. Additional updates address changes made to the reimbursement of foreclosure sale publication costs for costs incurred on or after January 1, 2018, and specific guidance for servicers pertaining to mortgage liens (to be implemented by December 1, 2017).
Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2017-22 announcing servicing updates concerning (i) modifications to imminent default evaluation and process requirements (jointly developed with Fannie Mae) that will take effect July 1, 2018; and (ii) provisions under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) related to compliance time frames for servicers when responding to, or submitting requests for, interest rate reductions, along with updates that take effect February 1, 2018, concerning Guide Exhibit 71 used by servicers to report eligible SCRA interest rate subsidized loans. The updates also eliminate the manual property condition certificate process and modify time frame requirements for cancelling property insurance policies on real estate owned properties.
Russia Weighs Risks of Cryptocurrencies; President Putin Seeks Regulations
On October 10, the First Deputy Governor of Russia’s Central Bank reportedly announced plans to block websites selling bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency. Citing unreasonably high risks and the need to protect investors from the “dubious” currencies, the Central Bank’s concerns were echoed by President Vladimir Putin who reportedly stressed that risks associated with the use of cryptocurrencies include money laundering, tax evasion and funding for terrorism. However, President Putin issued a call for cryptocurrency regulation rather than a broad ban and stressed the need to utilize international experience when establishing rules.
Last September, as previously reported in InfoBytes, several Chinese regulators reportedly announced plans to ban the commercial trading of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in the country.
CFPB Publishes Updated TRID Small Entity Compliance Guide; ABA Submits Comments on CFPB’s Proposal to Fix TRID’s “Black Hole” Issue
On October 6, the CFPB released an updated version of its TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (Final Rule) small entity compliance guide. The updated guide reflects amendments issued July 7, previously discussed in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, that the CFPB made to the Final Rule. The guide also provides a version log to outline incorporated changes.
Separately, on October 10, the American Bankers Association (ABA) issued a comment letter regarding the CFPB’s proposal to address an aspect of the Final Rule concerning a “black hole” issue that prevents creditors from resetting tolerances using the Closing Disclosure except in very limited circumstances. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The proposal was issued August 11, the same day the CFPB published the Final Rule. In its letter, the ABA requested additional clarification on certain areas of the proposal, but stated that it supports the removal of the “four-business-day limit for providing Closing Disclosures for purposes of resetting tolerances” because it “is an effective and very efficient approach to addressing the ‘black hole’ problem while preserving adequate consumer protections that will avoid bait-and-switch tactics or unjustified fee increases.” Furthermore, the ABA believes, “the use of [Closing Disclosures], whether initial or corrected, as a vehicle for correcting and ‘re-baselining’ fee disclosures, is a straightforward approach to returning regulatory order and compliance clarity on this provision.”
U.S. Government Revokes Certain Sanctions on Sudan Following Review Period of Sudanese Policies and Actions
On October 6, the U.S. Government announced, effective October 12, the revocation of certain economic sanctions against Sudan and the Government of Sudan (GOS) as a recognition of sustained positive actions in connection with efforts to cease hostilities, improve humanitarian access, promote regional stability, and address the threat of terrorism. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the announcement follows a joint review conducted by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development that began in January 2017 as required by Executive Order 13761 and amended by Executive Order 13804. The Secretary of State issued a contemporaneous report concluding that, despite GOS’ demonstrated improvement in the areas that led to the issuance of Executive Order 13761, there remain a range of concerns. As such, while the comprehensive sanctions program has been lifted, certain sanctions and trade restrictions remain in place. Specifically:
- the national emergency, established in Executive Order 13067 with respect to Sudan, remains in effect;
- U.S. sanctions related to the conflict in Darfur, pursuant to Executive Order 13400, remain in place;
- The U.S. Government maintains the authority to designate Sudanese persons according to other relevant sanctions authorities; and
- Sudan remains on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which will continue to impose restrictions on certain dealings involving Sudan, including U.S. foreign assistance and restrictions on defense exports and sales.
Following revocation of the sanctions, U.S. persons will no longer be banned from engaging in most transactions previously prohibited by the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations (31 C.F.R. Part 538).
The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also released updated FAQs to answer questions related to the revocation, along with a new general license that authorizes certain transactions.Ninth Circuit Claims California Licensing Law Violates Dormant Commerce Clause
On October 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down an opinion concerning alleged violations of certain California statutes by an Ohio-based mortgage servicer (plaintiff). The panel held that the plaintiff is likely to prevail in its bid for a court order blocking the enforcement of the state’s financial code by certain California district attorneys because the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause—a legal doctrine that prohibits states from unduly burdening interstate commerce. The defendants allege that the plaintiff violated Section 12200 of the California Financial Code, which requires a prorater—a person who is compensated for receiving monies from debtors and distributing the funds to creditors—to obtain a California prorater license and be incorporated in the state before conducting business on an interstate basis. The panel determined that “[t]his form of discrimination between in-state and out-of-state economic interests is incompatible with a functioning national economy, and the prospect of each corporation being required to create a subsidiary in each state is precisely . . . [what] the Dormant Commerce Clause exists to prevent.” Consequently, the panel vacated the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction, and remanded for further proceedings.
The panel also affirmed the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff was required to disclose in its mail solicitations to homeowners that it “lacked authorization from lenders,” and opined that the plaintiff would most likely not prevail in its effort to challenge allegations that it violated sections of the California Business and Professions Code on a First Amendment basis. The First Amendment, the panel reasoned, “does not generally protect corporations from being required to tell prospective customers the truth.”
Finally, in a portion of the opinion in which one of the circuit judges dissented, the panel reversed a district court’s order dismissing both cases under Younger v. Harris “because the cases had proceeded beyond the ‘embryonic stage’ in the district court before the corresponding state cases were filed.” Judge Montgomery—who otherwise joined the opinion with respect to the Dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment questions—argued that the district court's dismissal under Younger should have been upheld because “[b]oth cases arrived in federal court…as a preemptive strike by [the plaintiff] to enjoin state district attorneys from enforcing state statutes in state court.”
Treasury Report Calls for Extensive Regulatory Relief to Capital Markets
On October 6, the U.S. Treasury Department published a report that focuses on capital market oversight and outlines challenges and recommendations to reduce regulatory burdens. The report, “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Capital Markets,” is the second in a series of four the Treasury plans to issue in response to President Trump’s Executive Order 13772, which mandated a review of financial regulations for inconsistencies with promoted “Core Principles.” (See Buckley Sandler Special Alert here.) The report notes that while certain capital market regulatory framework elements function well, there remain significant challenges. Specifically, the report recommends—among other things—reducing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the U.S. regulatory structure. This includes focusing on effecting changes to promote efficiency and more clearly defining regulatory mandates that would allow agencies to issue joint rulemaking and foster coordination.
Treasury’s recommendations focus primarily on market regulations but also build upon themes identified in the first report published in June 2017, which primarily focused on solutions for providing relief to banks and credit unions. The second report identifies recommendations, actions, and associated “Core Principles” within the following categories:
- “promoting access to capital for all types of companies, including small and growing businesses, through reduction of regulatory burden and improved market access to investment opportunities”;
- “fostering robust secondary markets in equity and debt”;
- “appropriately tailoring regulations on securitized products to encourage lending and risk transfer”;
- “recalibrating derivatives regulations to promote market efficiency and effective risk mitigation”;
- “ensuring proper risk management for [central counterparties] and other financial market utilities because of the critical role they play in the financial system”;
- “rationalizing and modernizing the U.S. capital markets regulatory structure and process”; and
- “advancing U.S. interests by promoting a level playing field internationally.”
A fact sheet accompanying the report further highlights Treasury’s recommendations to streamline regulations.
Federal Banking Agencies Issue Request for Comment on Proposed Combined Dodd-Frank Stress Test Report
On October 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), the FDIC, and the OCC (agencies)—all members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)—issued a joint notice and request for comment on a proposal to combine the agencies’ three separate, identical stress test report forms into a single new FFIEC report (FFIEC 016) under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition to replacing the Fed’s FR Y–16, the FDIC’s DFAST 10–50, and the OCC’s DFAST 10–50B, a limited number of revisions would be made to align FFIEC 016 with “recent burden-reducing changes to the FFIEC 031 and FFIEC 041 Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income and the Fed’s FR Y–9C Consolidated Financial Statements for Holding Companies.” Under the proposal, institutions who have a Legal Entity Identifier will also be asked to include it on the report form.
FFIEC 016 respondents are depository institutions and holding companies with at least $10 billion but less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. The proposed FFIEC 016 will impact stress test reports with an as-of date of December 31, 2017, and have a submission deadline of July 31, 2018. Comments on the joint notice and request for comment must be received by December 5, 2017.
California Governor Incorporates Federal Military Lending Act Amendments Into State Financial Code
On October 5, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law revisions to sections of the state’s Financial Code to incorporate references to federal Military Lending Act (MLA) amendments and applicable regulations. Impacted are the state’s Banking Law, Credit Union Law, Finance Lenders Law, and Deferred Deposit Transaction Law. Specifically, SB 266 is designed to ensure that the California Department of Business Oversight’s Commissioner has the authority to enforce violations of the federal MLA rules by state-regulated lenders. The provisions also incorporate additional changes to Section 394 of the state’s Military and Veterans Code to prohibit discrimination against servicemembers (Assembly Bill No. 1710 was approved by Governor Brown on October 8). The amendments take effect January 1, 2018.
FDIC to Host Teleconference on HMDA Implementation
On October 26, the FDIC’s Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection is scheduled to host a teleconference that will focus on the implementation of the 2015 HMDA Final Rule requirements scheduled to take effect January 1, 2018. The FDIC encourages financial institutions to submit questions prior to October 20 to be included during a Q&A segment following the formal presentation. Registration is required.
Texas Appeals Court Cites Khoury, Dismisses Trial Court’s Summary Judgment Under UETA
On October 3, a three-judge panel of a Texas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, while affirming in part, a trial court’s decision concerning an alleged breach of contract over a $230 million sale agreement. On appeal were three issues, including a challenge to the grounds on which the trial court granted summary judgement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). The trial court concluded that the “parties did not agree to conduct business electronically and that the alleged contract did not contain a valid electronic signature.” But the panel reversed the decision, holding that an agreement between parties to conduct transactions by electronic means “need not be explicit” under UETA, and finding that the parties’ email negotiations constituted “at least some evidence that the parties agreed to conduct some of their transactions electronically.” and The panel also cited their earlier decision in Khoury v. Tomlinson, that was previously discussed in InfoBytes, to address the question of whether the emails between the two parties were signed electronically. Khoury ruled that an email satisfied the writing requirement because it was an electronic record, and that the header, which included a “from” field constituted as a signature because that field served the same “authenticating function” as a signature block. Consequently, because there was “at least some evidence that the relevant emails were signed as defined in UETA,” the trial court in this matter erred in granting summary judgment.
Further, because the panel found that there still remain questions regarding whether the parties actually formed an agreement concerning the sale of assets, the panel stated they were unable to determine “as a matter of law, under the particular facts of this case, whether such a contract is illusory.” Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on these grounds as well.
The remainder of the trial court’s judgments were affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.