InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Issues Branch Closings Booklet, General Policies and Procedures Booklet
On June 29, the OCC issued Bulletin OCC 2017-24, announcing its revised Comptroller’s Licensing Manual booklet, “Branch Closings,” replacing the booklet issued in April 2003. According to the Bulletin, the revised booklet describes the 90-day advance notice to the OCC and branch customers that a bank must observe before closing a branch. It also explains the specific timing, procedures, and forms of notice the bank must supply. The booklet, which applies to all national banks and federal savings associations, summarizes the different notice requirements for each under Section 42 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. It also lists steps for filing branch closing notices including: (i) sending advance notice to the OCC at least 90 days before closing; (ii) mailing notices to customers at least 90 days in advance; (iii) posting conspicuous notices at the branch at least 30 days in advance; and (iv) sending final closing notice to the OCC after the branch closes.
The notice requirement of Section 42 assists the OCC in assessing a bank’s record of opening and closing branches. The OCC reviews this record in examinations for compliance with Section 42 and in assessing performance under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) adopted a “Joint Policy Statement on Branch Closing Notices and Policies” (Joint Policy Statement) in June 1991 to provide guidance regarding the requirements of the branch closing statute.
On July 5, the OCC issued an additional bulletin, OCC Bulletin 2017-25, revising the “General Policies and Procedures” booklet of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual issued in March 2008. This booklet explains how to file applications or notices with the OCC, requirements of the filings, and the OCC processes for licensing filings. The revised booklet applies to national banks, federal savings associations, and other entities that are involved in certain transactions including: (i) organizing a new bank; (ii) opening or closing a branch; (iii) establishing subsidiaries; (iv) some changes to capital or debt; and (v) certain other transactions. The booklet describes important policies and includes sample forms, filing requirements, and fees. It also covers the OCC’s review, approval or denial, and subsequent consummation requirements and appeal procedures.
FTC Announces Settlement of More Than $104 Million with Company for Selling Sensitive Financial Information
On July 5, the FTC issued a press release announcing a settlement of more than $104 million with a lead generation company for allegedly misleading loan applicants with promises of matching consumers with lenders that could offer the best loan terms. Actually, the FTC asserts, defendants were selling the applications, including sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers and bank account numbers, to anyone who would pay for them “without regard for how the information would be used or whether it would remain secure.”
The proposed order accompanying the settlement states that defendants used deceptive and unfair acts or practices in the course of their lead generation activities, and permanently prohibits defendants from misrepresenting financial products or services to consumers. It also enjoins defendants from selling or transferring a consumer’s personal information unless the consumer has provided consent and provides that defendants may not benefit from any consumer information collected before the entry of the order. Further, defendants must destroy all personal consumer information in any form within 30 days after the order.
In addition to the above settlement terms, the defendants agreed to (i) compliance monitoring, (ii) creating certain records for ten years after the date of entry of the order, and (iii) compliance reporting
Although defendants have filed for bankruptcy, they agreed that the amount owed to the FTC in the settlement will not be dischargeable.
Engineering and Construction Firm Receives Declination of FCPA Charges
On June 21, the DOJ issued a declination letter to attorneys for a Boston-based privately held engineering and construction firm, in which the DOJ declined prosecution and closed an investigation of the firm regarding potential FCPA violations that occurred in India between 2011 and 2015. The firm agreed to pay DOJ approximately $4 million in disgorgement. The DOJ announced the declination on June 29 with a link posted on its website, making it the second FCPA declination that the DOJ announced in June 2017. Prior to June, the DOJ had last issued an FCPA declination letter in September 2016.
According to the DOJ Letter, the firm paid approximately $1.18 million in bribes to India government officials in exchange for contracts that resulted in approximately $4 million in net profits (the disgorgement amount). The payments were made by the firm's division responsible for India operations and by the firm's wholly-owned subsidiary in India through fraudulent subcontractors and generally equaled two to four percent of the contract price.
The DOJ’s letter stated that its decision to close its investigation is consistent with the FCPA Pilot Program, launched in April 2016 to encourage companies to “voluntarily self-disclose FCPA-related misconduct, fully cooperate with the Fraud Section, and, where appropriate, remediate flaws in their controls and compliance programs.” Accordingly, the DOJ determined that the firm had, among other things, made a “timely and voluntary self-disclosure” of potential FCPA violations, conducted and “thorough and comprehensive investigation,” fully cooperated with the DOJ, and performed full remediation, including the termination of all of the executives and employees involved in the conduct at issue. However, the letter provides little detail about these factors.
The DOJ letter makes clear that it does not foreclose future prosecution of any individuals connected to this matter, whether affiliated with the firm or otherwise.
Buckley Sandler Insights: CFPB Releases Proposed Changes to Final Rule on Prepaid Accounts
On June 15, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released proposed changes (Proposal) to its final rule, published last November, which created consumer protections for prepaid accounts under Regulation E and Regulation Z (Final Rule). The CFPB is proposing these revisions because of feedback it received through its outreach to industry participants regarding the Final Rule combined with comments received in response to its effective date proposal (which was later finalized and which delayed the effective date by six months to April 1, 2018). Comments on the Proposal must be received by August 14, 2017.
The CFPB also released an updated version of its Small Entity Compliance Guide. The update reflects the effective date delay as well as other clarifications on the Final Rule. The update does not include any of the proposed changes included within the June 15, 2017 Proposal.
Fed Fines New York Bank $3 Million for Violating Regulatory Risk Capital Requirements
On June 26, the Federal Reserve fined a New York-based bank $3 million for unsafe and unsound banking practices after the firm allegedly assigned a lower risk weighting to a portfolio of assets in violation of then-applicable Basel I regulatory risk capital requirements. According to the consent order, between 2010 and 2014, the bank consolidated a portfolio of collateralized loan obligations onto its balance sheet. It allegedly assigned a zero-risk weighting to the assets improperly, and therefore overstated its risk-based capital ratios and set aside less capital than it should have.
CFTC Enters into First-Ever Non-Prosecution Deals in Spoofing Investigation
On June 29, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) entered into non-prosecution agreements with three futures traders who admitted to engaging in “spoofing” in the U.S. Treasury futures market between 2011 and 2012 (see non-prosecution agreements here, here, and here). Spoofing involves placing bids or offers with the intent to cancel before execution. Here, the traders placed a small bid or offer on one side of the market and a large bid or offer on the opposite side of the market to be cancelled almost immediately (often in less than one second). The traders used the strategy to get smaller orders filled (and filled more quickly) at favorable prices.
This is the first time the CFTC has used non-prosecution agreements, which the Director of Enforcement called “a powerful tool to reward extraordinary cooperation in the right cases, while providing individual and organizations strong incentives to promptly accept responsibility for their wrong doing and cooperate with the Division’s investigation.” In announcing the agreements, the CFTC lauded the traders’ “timely and substantial cooperation,” noting that their efforts provided assistance in connection with a $25 million settlement with the multinational bank they worked for earlier this year.
Second Circuit Affirms No Actual Harm in FACTA Suit
On June 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, without concrete evidence of actual harm, a consumer lacks standing under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) to sue a merchant for printing credit card expiration dates on receipts. The consumer alleged that printing the expiration date on her credit card receipt led to a material risk of identity theft, and therefore constituted an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. The court disagreed, noting that Congress’s amendments to FACTA belie that expiration dates on credit card receipts increase the risk of identity theft. Moreover, the court held that the consumer failed to allege actual harm from the merchant’s practice.
The court’s decision in Cruper-Wienmann comes approximately one month after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016), which held that “bare procedural violation[s], divorced from any concrete harm” are not enough to establish standing.
U.K. Banker Receives Six-Year Sentence for Taking Bribes
On June 20, 2017, a former banker for an international financial institution in London received a six year prison sentence for accepting more than $3.5 million in bribes. According to the Crown Prosecution Service, Andrey Ryjenko also received two years (to run concurrently) for "concealing, disguising, converting and transferring criminal property."
Reuters reports that Ryjenko conspired with a U.S. consultant to direct the institution's investments towards certain companies in exchange for bribes deposited into a bank account in the name of Ryjenko's sister. The consultant, Dmitrji Harder, pleaded guilty in 2016 in the U.S. to two counts of violating the FCPA. For additional coverage and analysis of the U.S. Department of Justice's enforcement action against Harder, see the previous posts here.
Both the Harder case and the Ryjenko prosecution were the result of a multinational investigation with cooperating agencies in several countries. Indeed, the CPS praised the cooperation, stating that Ryjenko's "conviction was made possible through effective cross-border partnerships between a number of jurisdictions, including the United States." According to Reuters, it was the bank that first contacted authorities in 2010 when its internal systems identified irregularities.
The Ryjenko conviction is part of a growing trend of foreign jurisdictions taking action against bribe recipients, who are not covered under the FCPA’s prohibitions in the U.S. (although U.S. authorities can sometimes try to pursue those bribe recipients under money laundering and other theories, if the bribe recipients can be brought under U.S. jurisdiction).
North Carolina Changes Retail Installment Sales Act Default Fee
On June 12, the General Assembly of North Carolina ratified Senate Bill 577, which amends the North Carolina Retail Installment Sales Act. Specifically, Senate Bill 577 modifies the late charge on an installment sale contract to be a flat fee of fifteen dollars, which is an increase from the prior limit of the lesser of five percent of the installment payment amount or six dollars. The amendment became effective on June 26 and applies to defaults from that day forward.
Texas Passes Law Repealing Vehicle Protection Product Regulatory Act
On June 15, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 2065. The law modifies a number of motor vehicle-related regulations and licensing requirements. Specifically, the law:
- eliminates the Vehicle Protection Product Act;
- abolishes the Vehicle Protection Product Warrantor Advisory Board;
- requires the warrantor of a vehicle protection product to pay expenses to the person who purchases the product or system if loss or damage occurs due to failure of the product or system;
- prohibits a retail seller from requiring a vehicle buyer—“as a condition of a retail installment transaction or the cash sale of a commercial vehicle”—to buy a vehicle protection product that is not installed on the vehicle at the time of the transaction, classifying this violation as a “false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice” actionable under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act; and
- eliminates the licensing requirements for boot operators and boot companies, but requires a booting company to remove a boot within an hour of being contacted by the owner or forfeit all removal fees.
The law takes effect September 1.