InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Second Circuit Cites Escobar, Vacates and Remands FCA Suit
On September 7, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order concerning a False Claims Act (FCA) case on remand from the United States Supreme Court. In its order, the three-judge panel determined that the FCA complaint should be reviewed under the higher court’s Escobar standard, which “set out a materiality standard for FCA claims that has not been applied in the present case.” See Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, 136 S. Ct. 1989 (2016). As previously discussed in InfoBytes, Escobar holds that a misrepresentation must be material to the government’s payment decision to be actionable under the FCA and that the implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability under the FCA.
In issuing the order, the appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the relators’ complaint (which it had affirmed the first time around) and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the bank’s certification was materially false. At issue is a qui tam suit filed against a national bank, in which plaintiffs claimed the bank violated the FCA when it certified to the Federal Reserve that the bank and its predecessors were obeying the law in order to “borrow money at favorable rates” during the financial crisis. The decision originally relied upon two requirements cited in a case overturned by Escobar—“the express-designation requirement for implied false certification claims and the particularity requirement for express false certification claims.”
Credit Reporting Agency Announces Widespread Consumer Data Breach
On September 7, a major credit reporting agency issued a press release announcing a data breach that impacts approximately 143 million U.S. consumers. An internal investigation revealed that from mid-May through the end of July 2017, hackers exploited a website application vulnerability to access names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver’s license numbers, as well as roughly 209,000 credit card numbers. The company discovered the breach on July 29 and “acted immediately to stop the intrusion.” A “leading, independent cybersecurity firm” has been hired to recommend security improvements, and the company is working with law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, the press release states that “the company has found no evidence of unauthorized activity on [its] core consumer or commercial credit reporting databases.” A website has been set up to assist consumers trying to determine if their information has been affected and offers credit file monitoring and identify theft protection.
FinCEN Releases Advisory Alert for Financial Institutions, OFAC Issues Sanctions Against South Sudanese Government Officials
On September 6, the Treasury Department issued a press release announcing multiple actions taken in response to the “continued deterioration of the humanitarian situation in South Sudan.” Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, stated, “These actions send a clear message to those enriching themselves at the expense of the South Sudanese people that we will not let them exploit the U.S. financial system to move and hide the proceeds of their corruption and malign behavior.”
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). FinCEN issued an advisory (FIN-2017-A004) to financial institutions to address concerns that certain South Sudanese senior political figures may potentially move assets using the U.S. financial system. FinCEN projects that since 2013—when a new political conflict began in Sudan—certain senior political officials from both the government and opposition parties have “engaged in and profited from corrupt practices.” The advisory provides due diligence guidance for U.S. financial institutions, issues a reminder regarding suspicious activity report filing obligations, and warns financial institutions to “assess the risk for laundering of the proceeds of public corruption associated with specific particular customers and transactions.”
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Pursuant to Executive Order 13664, which blocks the property of certain persons with respect to South Sudan and authorizes sanctions against persons who threaten the peace, security, or stability of South Sudan, OFAC issued sanctions against three government officials and three entities owned by one of the sanctioned individuals. The identified individuals’ actions include, among other things, (i) “actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, and stability of South Sudan”; (ii) “actions or policies that have the purpose or effect of expanding or extending the conflict in South Sudan or obstructing reconciliation or peace talks or processes”; and (iii) “obstruction of the activities of international peacekeeping, diplomatic, or humanitarian missions in South Sudan, or of the delivery or distribution of, or access to, humanitarian assistance.” The sanctions prohibit any U.S. individual from dealing with the designated entities and individuals, and further states that “all of these individuals’ and entities’ assets within U.S. jurisdiction are blocked.” Additionally, individuals designated under Executive Order 13664 are banned from entry into the U.S.
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Hold Fintech Hearing
On September 12, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs will hold an open session hearing entitled “Examining the Fintech Landscape.” The hearing will feature witnesses from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, S&P Global Market Intelligence, and the University of Maryland School of Law. The hearing will take place at 10:00 am EDT and be made available via webcast.
FDIC Releases Revised Supervisory Appeals Guidelines, Updates FAQs on New Accounting Standards, and Announces FFIEC Industry Outreach Website
On September 6, the FDIC released revised guidelines (FIL-42-2017) for appeals of certain material supervisory determinations to expand the circumstances under which banks may submit an appeal with the Division Directors and the Supervision Appeals Review Committee. The guidelines apply to all FDIC-supervised depository institutions. As previously reported in InfoBytes, the guidelines will provide consistency with the appeals processes of other federal banking agencies and will, among other things, (i) permit the appeal of the level of compliance with an existing formal enforcement action; (ii) provide that formal enforcement-related actions or decisions do not affect a pending appeal; (iii) allow for additional opportunities for appeal rights available under the guidelines with respect to material supervisory determinations in certain circumstances; (iv) annually publish the Division Directors’ material supervisory determinations decisions and (v) draw up other limited technical and conforming amendments. With the issuance of these guidelines, the FDIC is rescinding FIL-52-2016 (“FDIC Seeks Comment on Bank Appeals Guidelines”) and FIL-113-2004 (“FDIC Appeals Processes’).
On the same day, the FDIC also issued FIL-41-2017, which presents updates to its “Frequently Asked Questions on the New Accounting Standard on Financial Instruments—Credit Losses” for financial intuitions and examiners. The FAQs apply to all FDIC-supervised banks, savings associations, and community institutions. The updates address topics such as “qualitative factors, data to implement [credit loss methodology], purchased credit-deteriorated assets, the evaluation of the public business entity criteria, the mechanics of adopting the standard for Call Report purposes, and collateral-dependent loans.” They also contain a reminder to institutions that credit loss methodology can be scaled base on an institution’s size, and encourage readiness and preparation plans to transition to the new accounting standard.
Finally, the FDIC also issued FIL-40-2017 to announce the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) new Industry Outreach website, which was created as a way for financial institutions, trade associations, third-party providers, and consultants to access information related to supervisory guidance and regulations. The website will also provide information on FFIEC-sponsored webinars.
CFPB Issues Consent Order to Online Lead Aggregator, Settles Separate 2016 Lead Aggregator Action
On September 6, the CFPB ordered an online loan lead aggregator to pay $100,000 for its alleged involvement in selling leads to small-dollar lenders and installment loan purchasers who then extended loans that were void in whole or in part under the borrower’s state laws. The consent order alleges that the California-based company knew the state of residence for each lead sold, yet “regularly sold [l]eads for consumers located in states where the resulting loan was void or the lender had no legal right to collect the principal, interest, or fees from the consumer based on state-licensing requirements or interest-rate limits.” The order also claims that, because the company knows the identity of each purchaser prior to the sale of the loan, it should also know (i) whether the purchaser is likely to comply with the state laws, or (ii) whether the leads it sells will result in loans exceeding state usury interest rate limits or fail to be in compliance with the consumer’s state laws. Pursuant to the consent order, in addition to the $100,000 civil money penalty, the company must (i) “undertake reasonable efforts to ensure” leads do not result in loans that are void under the laws of the consumer’s state; (ii) obtain, among other things, copies of licenses required by each state for its end users “where the absence of such a license would render a loan void in whole or in part under the laws of that state”; (iii) implement procedures for reviewing loans that result from its leads to ensure compliance with privacy and other laws; (iv) establish a policy to prohibit lenders from making loans that are likely to result in loans that are void under the consumer’s state-licensing requirements or interest-rate limits and “refrain from conveying” leads for such loans; and (v) submit registration for the Bureau’s Company Portal.
On the same day, the CFPB also entered into a $250,000 settlement with the company’s president and primary owner for his alleged actions cited in a 2016 complaint involving his role as the operator of a different online lead aggregator. (See previous InfoBytes summary here.) In addition to the civil money penalty, the president has agreed to (i) make efforts to guarantee that all loans offered to consumers are valid in the states where they live; (ii) ensure that there is no misleading, inaccurate, or false information contained in the consumer-facing content of all lead generators from which leads are accepted; and (iii) require all lead generators to “prominently disclose to consumers an accurate description” of how leads will be received, conveyed, and processed. The president has neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s allegations.
CFPB, Federal and State Banking Agencies Issue Guidance for Financial Institutions on Providing Disaster Relief to Consumers
As previously reported in InfoBytes, several federal banking agencies have already issued guidance and resources for national banks and federal savings associations aiding consumers affected by recent disasters. On September 1, the CFPB issued a statement for CFPB-supervised entities on ways to provide assistance to consumers who may be at financial risk. The list includes:
- offering penalty-free forbearance or repayment periods with disclosed terms;
- limiting or waiving fees and charges, including overdraft fees, ATM fees, or late fees;
- restructuring or refinancing existing debt, including extending repayment terms;
- easing documentation or credit-extension requirements;
- increasing capacity for customer service hotlines, particularly those that serve consumers in languages other than English; and
- increasing ATM daily cash withdrawal limits.
The statement further suggests that supervised entities should utilize existing regulatory flexibility if doing so would benefit affected consumers. Included are examples from Regulations B, X, and Z. Additionally, the Bureau stated it will “consider the circumstances that supervised entities may face following a major disaster and will be sensitive to good faith efforts to assist consumers.”
The CFPB separately published a blog post for consumers containing a financial toolkit that includes links to disaster relief organizations, ways to secure financial needs, and information on forbearance options, insurance settlements, and contractor evaluations. The CFPB also issued a warning to consumers of the increased risk of scams and fraud.
In related news, on September 6, the Federal Reserve Board, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, FDIC, and OCC issued a joint press release for financial institutions that may be impacted by Hurricane Irma. The agencies encouraged constructive cooperation with borrowers, noting that “prudent efforts to adjust or alter terms on existing loans in affected areas should not be subject to examiner criticism.” Guidance was also issued on matters concerning Community Reinvestment Act considerations, investments, regulatory reporting requirements, publishing requirements, and temporary banking facilities.
FDIC Issues First Quarter 2018 CRA Examination Schedule, Releases September List of CRA Compliance Examinations
On August 31, the FDIC issued its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Examination Schedule for the Fourth Quarter of 2017 and First Quarter of 2018. The FDIC stated that the banks listed on the schedules were chosen for CRA examinations based on their asset size and CRA rating, and that absent reasonable cause, institutions with $250 million or less in assets and a CRA rating of “Satisfactory” would be examined no more than once every 48 months, and those institutions with a CRA rating of “Outstanding” would be examined no more than once every 60 months. The FDIC noted that due to recent natural disasters, some examinations may be delayed.
Separately, the FDIC published its monthly list of state nonmember banks recently evaluated for CRA compliance. The list reports CRA evaluation ratings assigned to institutions in June 2017 as required by the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. Of the 67 banks evaluated, 6 were rated “Outstanding,” 59 received a “Satisfactory” rating, and 2 were rated “Needs to Improve.” Monthly lists of all state nonmember banks and their evaluations that have been made publicly available can be accessed through the FDIC’s website.
Department of Education Terminates Student Loan Sharing Agreements with CFPB, Announces Expanded Focus on Enforcement and Consumer Protection
On August 31, the U.S. Department of Education submitted a letter notifying the CFPB that it intends to terminate two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the agencies regarding the sharing of information in connection with the oversight of federal student loans. The MOUs that will terminate on September 30, 2017, are the “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the U.S. Department of Education Concerning the Sharing of Information” (Sharing MOU), dated October 19, 2011, and the “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Supervisory and Oversight Cooperation and Related Information Sharing Between the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” dated January 9, 2014.
The letter rebukes the CFPB for overreaching and undermining the Education Department’s mission to serve students and borrowers, and states that it “takes exception to the CFPB unilaterally expanding its oversight role to include the Department's contracted federal student loan servicers.” The letter also accuses the CFPB of failing to share all complaints related to Title IV federal student loans within 10 days of receipt as required by the MOUs, and that the Bureau’s intervention in these cases “adds confusion to borrowers and servicers who now hear conflicting guidance related to Title IV student loan services for which the Department is responsible.”
In a press release issued by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on September 1, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) praised the Department’s decision stating, “[t]he Department of Education has made it clear that its partnership with the CFPB is doing more harm than good when it comes to how it can best serve students and borrowers.” However, advocacy groups such as Americans for Financial Reform and the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) criticized the Department’s decision, with the NCLC calling it “outrageous and deeply troubling” and refuting the Department’s claims that the CFPB “’unilaterally’ expanded its oversight role over servicers and collectors of federal student loans.” Instead it argued that the Department’s “failures are what led Congress to give the CFPB authority to help students.”
On the same day, the Education Department issued a press release announcing “a stronger approach to how Federal Student Aid (FSA) enforces compliance by institutions participating in the Federal student aid programs by creating stronger consumer protections for students, parents and borrowers against ‘bad actors.’” The strategy will focus on illegitimate debt relief organizations and schools that defraud students, and FSA will engage in “comprehensive communications and executive outreach to ensure parties and their leadership understand their responsibilities, the consequences of non-compliance and appropriate remedies.” The CFPB was notably absent, however, from the release’s reference to FSA’s continued stakeholder coordination, which listed the FTC and the DOJ.
On September 7, the CFPB responded to the CFPB’s letter to request time to “engage in a constructive conversation” with the Department to determine a path for continued collaboration to best serve the needs of student loan borrowers. Director Richard Cordray noted that because the Department has access to the CFPB’s Government Portal as part of the agencies’ arrangement, the Department is able to view borrower complaints in “near real-time.” According to Director Cordray, the Department has accessed the portal 80 times over the past three months. Several examples of the Bureau’s supervisory examinations are also provided to highlight the CFPB’s position that its actions have not been “inconsistent with the Department’s directives or [in conflict with the] shared goal of protecting student loan borrowers.”
District Court Denies Class Certification for Lack of Temporal Constraint on Proposed Class Definition
On August 30, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion and order denying the certification of a proposed class of investors alleging that a bank failed in its responsibilities as trustee of five residential mortgage-backed securities. The court found that “the proposed class cannot be certified because it is not ‘defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries’ . . . [such as] a fixed date, a window of acquisition, or length or continuity of ownership.” The judge ruled that the lack of a “temporal constraint on the proposed class definition” meant investors who bought and sold the securities before and after the alleged violations occurred could be included in the suit, despite the fact that any losses incurred by these groups would not necessarily be associated with the bank’s alleged misconduct. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff may file an amended motion proposing an alternative class construction within 45 days.