InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC Submits Annual Report on 2016 Enforcement Actions to CFPB
On June 1, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2016 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report—requested by the Bureau for its use in preparing its 2016 Annual Report to Congress—covers the FTC’s enforcement activities related to compliance with Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act or TILA), Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act), and Regulation E (Electronic Funds Transfer Act or EFTA), as well as its initiatives to engage in research and consumer education.
According to the report, the FTC’s enforcement actions in 2016 concerning TILA involved automobile purchasing and financing, payday loans, and financing of consumer electronics. Regarding mortgage-related credit activity, the report highlights continued litigation in two cases involving mortgage assistance relief services involving “forensic audit scams.” Furthermore, the FTC continued its consumer and business education efforts on issues related to consumer credit transactions in the following areas: military lending, auto sales and financing, payday lending, marketplace lending, and consumer disclosures and testing.
Regarding the Consumer Leasing Act, the report noted the FTC had issued a final administrative consent order for deceptive advertising practices and failure to disclose key lease offer terms. The FTC also filed two federal court actions against automobile dealers. The FTC also engaged in research and policy development and educational activities in this area.
Concerning the EFTA, the FTC reported six new or ongoing cases, including four cases alleging violations in the context of “negative option” plans, in which a consumer agrees to “receive various goods or services from a company for a trial period at no charge or at a reduced price” but later incurs unauthorized recurring charges after the end of the trial period, in violation of the EFTA. The remaining two cases involved payday lending and consumer electronics financing. The FTC also engaged in rulemaking, research, policy development, and educational activities involving the EFTA.
NASAA to Convene Roundtable on Cybersecurity Developments
On May 31, the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) announced it will hold a cybersecurity roundtable for industry experts to discuss latest developments as well as strategies for investment advisers and broker-dealers to protect personal client information. In addition to convening representatives from state securities agencies and the financial services industry, roundtable discussions will also feature representatives from the FBI, Treasury, and the SEC. The event will take place June 23 from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. in Washington, DC. Registration information can be accessed here.
Senators Introduce Bill to Provide Relief to Community Banks
On May 26, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Angus King (I-Me.), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) introduced bipartisan legislation intended to provide regulatory relief to small financial intuitions. According to a press release issued by Sen. Hatch’s office, the Community Bank Relief Act (S. 1284) would increase the asset threshold from $1 billion to $5 billion, thereby expanding the number of institutions covered by the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement (Statement). Based on FDIC data, raising the asset threshold would affect 443 bank holding companies (BHC) and other financial institutions. Additionally, 96 percent of BHCs and savings and loan holding companies would be covered by the Statement compared to 87 percent as of December 31, 2016, according to the Federal Reserve (Fed). The legislators believe the bill will improve the Dodd-Frank Act “without compromising safety standards” and help “small financial institutions provide households and small businesses more quality-based loans” that will advance economic growth. Notably, the Fed will still be able to exclude any BHC or savings and loan company if it determines the action is warranted.
Financial Services Associations Comment on CFPB’s HMDA Proposal
As previously covered in an InfoBytes Special Alert, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its proposal to amend the 2015 HMDA rule, which would incorporate changes primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements. The request, which closed for public comment on May 25, received 46 public comments from several banking and credit union industry associations.
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). On May 25, the MBA—a national association representing the real estate financial industry—submitted a comment letter outlining outstanding issues and calling upon the Bureau to provide clarifying and technical corrections to Regulation C, which implements HMDA. The MBA outlined the following points, among others, for consideration:
- delay the effective date of the Final Rule and amendments pending completion of key actions in the following areas: “HMDA data collection portals; publication and implementation of data quality edits; geocoder production release and integration specs; data privacy concerns; resubmission expectations; updated filing instructions guides; guidance on reporting and collection issues; impacts of the proposed amendments; uniform residential loan application; government monitoring information”;
- address recommendations pertaining to multifamily lending: (i) “multifamily loans should not be subject to HMDA reporting”; (ii) “purchases and assumptions of multifamily loans should be exempt from introductory rate period reporting”; (iii) “the CFPB should accept simplified reporting from smaller-volume HMDA reporters, particularly smaller-volume multifamily reporters”; and (iv) “further consideration and clarification of the multifamily definition is needed”; and
- a one-year delay would allow the CFPB to address privacy concerns that “might dictate that certain data not be disclosed publicly,” thereby giving the Bureau time to “reconsider whether the many data points required under Dodd-Frank . . . should be required.”
According to the CFPB’s request for comment, most of the amendments in the Final Rule are to go into effect January 1, 2018; however, the MBA noted that data collection must commence in 2017 for loan applications that may become reportable in 2018. Therefore, the MBA urged the Bureau to delay implementation for at least one year to allow sufficient time for data collection and reporting which would give the CFPB “time to provide much-needed information and materials, and to allow HMDA reporters more time to finalize and implement the changes effectively.”
American Bankers Association (ABA). Separately, on May 25, the ABA submitted a comment letter opining that many of the Bureau’s “technical corrections, clarifying amendments or minor changes” are “substantive in nature” and require a more comprehensive and formal process to “identify industry questions and proposed solutions.” Specifically, among other things, the ABA emphasized the following recommendations:
- the January 1, 2018 effective date of the Final Rule should be “suspended immediately” in order to “promote the orderly, coordinated, and thorough consideration and resolution of all the interrelated issues presented and to make sure that all of the privacy and security issues are adequately addressed”;
- the CFPB should consider updating, rather than discontinuing, its reference tool for lenders entitled A Guide to HMDA: Getting it Right;
- several categories require further clarification: loans in process or loans originated before but purchased after the rule’s effective date; multifamily dwellings; home improvement loans; temporary financing; the threshold for reporting; counteroffers; applicant or borrower’s reported income; the annual percentage rate; rate spreads and rate set dates; reporting when there are no closing disclosures; corrected disclosures; the unique loan identifier; the geocoding tool’s use; and information pertaining to ethnicity and race; and
- pending guidance on error resolution and software required for reporters should be finalized “as soon as possible,” and regulations on privacy and data security should be proposed “with the utmost speed.”
“Piecemeal corrections based on informal and anecdotal evidence only adds to regulatory burden, which adds costs to borrowers and reduces access to mortgage credit,” the ABA noted.
SEC Requests Public Comments on Investment Adviser Conduct Rules
On June 2, 2017, Jay Clayton, Chairman of the SEC, requested public input on standards of conduct for investment advisers and broker-dealers. The SEC last solicited input on the regulation of investment advisers in 2013 and Clayton believes that advances in technology and changes in business models have since transformed the market for retail investment advice. Additionally, confusion surrounding investment adviser conflicts of interest, among other things, have prompted the SEC to seek feedback on the standards. Topics touched on in the request include:
- types of advisers providing investment advice and applicable standards of conduct for each;
- conflicts of interest;
- effects of market developments and advances in technology;
- fee-based vs. commission-based investment advice;
- department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule;
- pros and cons of multiple standards of conduct for advisers;
- effects on particular segments of the market;
- disclosure-based vs. standards-of-conduct-based regulatory action;
- who should be considered “retail investors”;
- how should “investment advice” be defined;
- costs and benefits of different regulatory approaches;
- comparison of U.S. regulation to non-U.S. regulation in this area;
- material changes since last data solicitation in 2013.
Clayton hopes his solicitation will garner “robust, substantive input that will advance and inform the SEC’s assessment of possible future actions.”
City Agrees to Settlement of Housing Discrimination Suit with DOJ
On May 26, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the city of Jacksonville, Florida (city), agreed on a settlement over claims that the city violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The DOJ alleged that the city denied permission for the development of permanent supportive housing for individuals with disabilities in an historic district and discriminated on the basis of the intended residents’ disabilities.
The settlement provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 to be paid to the U.S. Treasury as well as the creation by the city of a $1.5 million grant to be awarded to a qualified developer of permanent supportive housing in the community. The city also agreed to take additional specific steps to comply with the requirements of the ADA and FHA.
Two other plaintiffs whose suits were consolidated with the DOJ’s—Ability Housing, Inc. and Disability Rights Florida, Inc.—also received compensation for reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs.
As part of the settlement, the city denied any wrongdoing alleged by the DOJ.
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule
On May 25, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2014 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment, and a May 25 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (ii) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; (iii) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; (iv) federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and (v) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The Dodd-Frank Act established new standards for mortgage lending and created a class of “qualified mortgage” (QM) loans. The standards required lenders to assess consumers’ ability to repay (ATR). Dodd-Frank also provided for a class of QM loans that must not have “certain risky product features and are presumed to comply with the ATR requirement.”
The CFPB issued rules to make ATR and QM standards “clear and effective” in January 2013. As previously covered in a Special Alert, the rule and its amendments that took effect on January 10, 2014 provide a mechanism for curing point-and-fees overages on QM loans as well as more minor amendments to its mortgage origination and servicing rules.
OCC, Federal Reserve Issue Flood Insurance Violations; Reauthorization of National Flood Insurance Program Discussions Continue
During the month of May, the OCC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board) took action against certain banks for violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA). Concurrently, House Financial Services Subcommittee Republicans circulated a package of draft legislation to reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which expires at the end of September.
OCC Action. On May 19, as part of its monthly listing of enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and former institution-affiliated parties, the OCC announced that it had fined a Texas-based federal savings association $87,500 in April for violations of the FDPA. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly failed to “ensure the timely notification and force-placement of the requisite amounts of flood insurance on property securing loans in a special flood hazard area in which flood insurance is available under the NFIA.”
Federal Reserve Action. On May 25, the Board announced an enforcement action against a Georgia-based bank for violations of the NFIA. Although the consent order fines the bank $1.5 million, it does not specify how many violations there were or what they related to. However, the maximum civil money penalty under that law is $2,000 per violation. The NFIA has a number of requirements for banks, which include ensuring that a borrower has adequate flood insurance before originating a loan for a property in a special flood hazard area and providing notice to the borrower in a reasonable time before closing that they are required to have flood insurance.
National Flood Insurance Program Discussion. As previously covered in InfoBytes, several committees—including the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Financial Services Committee—are discussing the reauthorization of the NFIP. On May 25, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee, issued a series of reauthorization discussion drafts and summaries. The six bills (see below) included in the package would (i) reauthorize the NFIP for five years; (ii) limit annual premium increases; (iii) authorize states to voluntary create flood insurance affordability programs; (iv) eliminate the mandatory purchase requirement for commercial properties; (v) establish a private market for flood insurance; (vi) reform the flood zone mapping process to increase accuracy and fairness in mapping; (vii) require covered flood prone areas to develop plans to mitigate flood risks if they have repeated structure losses; and (viii) address fraud in the claims process.
- National Flood Insurance Program Policyholder Protection and Information Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary;
- Private Flood Insurance Market Development Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary;
- National Flood Insurance Program Mapping Fairness Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary;
- Flood Risk Mitigation Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary;
- National Flood Insurance Program Integrity Improvement Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary; and
- National Flood Insurance Program Administrative Reform Act of 2017—Discussion Draft and Summary.
Duffy noted, “We’re releasing this discussion draft so that all sides can continue to provide input into protecting the program integrity of the NFIP.” He added, “The ideas stemming from this open process will ensure that everyone who needs flood insurance will have access to it while ensuring that the NFIP does not fall further into debt.”
Big Bank Agrees to $41 Million Fine by Federal Reserve Over Lax AML Controls
On May 26, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board) and a multinational bank agreed on a settlement over allegations of anti-money laundering (AML) and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) violations. The settlement, which only relates to the bank’s U.S. operations, includes a $41 million fine and a cease and desist order. The agreement was reached after the most recent Board examination of the bank’s AML program identified “significant deficiencies” in the bank’s transaction monitoring capabilities as well as its risk management and compliance with BSA/AML requirements. According to the Board, among other things, the resulting regulatory compliance deficiencies prevented the bank from properly assessing potentially suspicious transactions between 2001 and 2015. Under the settlement, the bank must provide written plans to the Board within 60 days, which include the methodology and target date for enhancement of their transaction monitoring system. Within the same 60 days, the bank also must submit a strategy to “strengthen its oversight of anti-money laundering compliance across its U.S. operations.”
Government Settles False Claims Act Suit for $23 Million
On May 26, the DOJ ended a False Claims Act case with a $23 million settlement. The case, brought by whistleblowers against a pharmacy goods provider (company), involved alleged fraudulent Medicaid claims and kickbacks to pharmacies that prescribed one of the company’s drugs. The qui tam action, originally filed in 2007, resulted in the company agreeing to pay nearly $13 million to the U.S. within seven business days of the settlement, of which the government will pay the whistleblowers $3.7 million. Additionally, the company will pay over $10 million toward state Medicaid settlements.