InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Director to Testify Before Financial Services Committee on April 5 to Discuss Semi-Annual Reports
On March 31, the Financial Services Committee announced it will hold a hearing on Wednesday, April 5 at 10:00 a.m., entitled “The 2016 Semi-Annual Reports of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” According to the Committee Memorandum, the hearing—which will be held in room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building—will examine the Bureau’s Ninth and Tenth semi-annual reports covering the period of October 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 and April 1, 2016 through September 30, 2016 respectively. Director Cordray, the only scheduled witness, will provide testimony on the reports.
House Subcommittee Holds Hearing to Discuss the Impact of Regulations on Access to Credit
On March 28, the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing that examined recent trends in lending and how the current regulatory climate impacts the availability of credit for consumers and small businesses. According to a memorandum issued prior to the hearing by the House Financial Services Committee, the hearing sought to address the decline in “[l]ending by community financial institutions . . . since the passage of the Dodd-Frank [Act].” Specifically, the memo notes that in the six years prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, small bank lending was more than 150 percent above large bank lending. In the more than six years after Dodd-Frank, small bank lending has been nearly 80 percent below large bank lending. A witness list for the single-panel hearing (along with links to prepared remarks submitted by each witness) included the following stakeholders:
- Scott Heitkamp, President and Chief Executive Officer, ValueBank Texas, on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America;
- Holly Wade, Director, Research and Policy Analysis, National Federation of Independent Businesses;
- J. David Motley, President, Colonial Companies, on behalf of the Mortgage Bankers Association; and
- Michael Calhoun, President, Center for Responsible Lending.
In a press release issued by the Financial Services Committee following the hearing, majority members of the subcommittee identified the “Key Takeaways from the Hearing,” as (i) “Dodd-Frank has left Americans with fewer choices, higher costs and less freedom”; (ii) “Financial institutions are exiting entire lines of business, limiting the availability of products and services for consumers”; and (iii) “[t]he Financial CHOICE Act will increase access to credit for consumers and capital for small businesses.”
An archived webcast of the hearing may be accessed here.
Supreme Court Questions State Law Restricting Consumer Price Displays
On March 29, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded a lawsuit challenging a New York law—N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 518—which provides that no seller “may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card” instead of a cash payments. (See Expressions Hair Design, et al. v Schneiderman.) Plaintiffs, a group of New York merchants, argued that the law violates the First Amendment by regulating how they communicate their prices. Plaintiffs further alleged that the law is unconstitutionally vague. In its defense, the State of New York asserted that the law merely prevents unfair profiteering, consumer anger, and deceptive sales tactics. After the district court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment with instructions to dismiss. The Second Circuit appellate panel reasoned that the law is a “price regulation” that regulates conduct rather than speech and, as such, is immune from scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Writing for the Supreme Court—which was unanimous in the judgment—Chief Justice John G. Roberts disagreed with the Second Circuit panel’s conclusion that the law regulates conduct alone. Specifically, Justice Roberts notes in his opinion that Section 518 “is not like a typical price regulation,” which regulates a seller’s conduct by dictating how much to charge for an item. Rather, the Chief Justice explained, the law regulates “how sellers may communicate their prices.” Notably, the majority opinion declined to delve into the First Amendment issues raised by the parties, including whether the law is a valid commercial speech regulation, citing its status as “a court of review, not of first view.”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he noted that because the law’s interpretation is unclear, on remand, the Second Circuit should ask New York's highest court to clarify it, as this “is a matter of state law.” Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., also filed a concurring opinion in which she called the majority's ruling a “quarter-loaf outcome,” because the holding failed to address whether the law unconstitutionally restricts speech. The Second Circuit erred by not certifying the question of the statute's interpretation to the N.Y. Court of Appeals “and this Court errs by not correcting it,” Sotomayor reasoned. The Justice indicated that she would have “vacate[d] the judgment below and remand with instructions to” certify the question for a definitive interpretation.
FTC Releases 2016 Annual Highlights
On March 28, the FTC released its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, which outlines the agency’s ongoing efforts over the past year to protect consumers and promote competition. Acting Chairman Maureen K. Olhausen stated, “2016 was a historic year for the FTC. We obtained almost $12 billion in redress for consumers, and took action in more than a dozen merger cases to preserve competition.” Key highlights in four sections—enforcement, policy, education, and stats and data—covered multiple sectors such as health care, technology, and other consumer products and services. Regarding enforcement highlights in 2016, the report covered a range of administrative and court actions related to, among other things, privacy and data security issues, particularly in the mobile marketplace, as well as the Commission’s largest false advertising settlement in its history with a global auto manufacturer. The policy section of the report highlights eight amicus briefs filed on topics such as reverse payments and the FDCPA, as well as its efforts to provide guidance and recommendations on topics such as sharing economy platforms, big data, and fraud. The education section covers topics such as consumer guidance on fraud, scams, and deceptive business practices prevention, and notes that it published almost 200 blog posts for consumers. Notably, according to the stats and data section of the report, the FTC received more than three million consumer complaints in 2016, consisting of 858,090 debt collection complaints, 503,967 “other” complaints, and 406,578 imposter scam complaints.
FHFA Releases Credit Risk Transfer Progress Report; Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Transfer $49 Billion in Risk to Investors
On March 27, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) released its Credit Risk Transfer Progress Report, presenting a comprehensive overview of the status and volume of credit risk transfer transactions to the private sector for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) through year-end 2016 in both the single-family and multifamily market. As outlined in the progress report, since the beginning of the Enterprises’ Single-Family Credit Risk Transfer Programs in 2013 through December 2016, the Enterprises have transferred $49 billion in credit risk to private investors, amounting to about 3.4 percent of $1.4 trillion in unpaid principal balance. In 2016, the Enterprises transferred about $18 billion worth of credit risk. Transfers include “credit risk transfers via debt issuances, insurance/reinsurance transactions, senior‐subordinate securitizations, and a variety of lender collateralized recourse transactions.” The Multifamily Credit Risk Transfer Program also plays a role in the Freddie Mac business model where “virtually all credit risk is transferred to investors through subordinated bonds structured to absorb credit risk.” Freddie Mac issued bonds on $57 billion of multi-family production in 2016, and Fannie Mae transferred approximately $9.4 billion of loans to the reinsurance industry. The report also examines the role of primary mortgage insurance in credit risk transfer transactions and the Enterprises’ debt issuances.
Treasury Renews Unchanged Information Collection on Designation of Financial Market Utilities; Seeks Public Comment
On March 28, the Treasury Department issued a request for comment on its plan to renew an information collection, without change, on the designation of Financial Market Utilities (FMUs) as systemically important financial institutions. According to the Treasury’s notice, the information will be used by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to “determine whether to designate or rescind the designation of an FMU under Title VIII” of the Dodd-Frank Act. The request for comment allows FMUs to submit written materials to the FSOC before the Council makes a designation decision and also permits an FMU to request a hearing or submit materials to contest the FSOC’s proposed determination. Comments on the information collection must be received by April 27, 2017 as instructed on the notice’s publication in the Federal Register.
House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Explores Dodd-Frank’s “Too Big to Fail” Designation Process
On March 28, the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing that examined the processes used by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate nonbank financial companies under Section 113 of Dodd-Frank. As discussed in a memorandum issued prior to the hearing by the House Financial Services Committee, the hearing was also scheduled to go over the findings of a recent Financial Services Committee Staff Report, including concerns over whether FSOC has acted inconsistently in exercising its power to designate certain nonbank companies as “too big to fail.” During the hearing, the subcommittee heard from the following witnesses:
- Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum
- Dr. Paul Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
- Professor David Zaring, Associate Professor, Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
- Mr. Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
In a press release available on the Financial Services Committee webpage following the hearing, the majority members of the subcommittee identified the “Key Takeaways from the Hearing,” as: (i) “[t]he Dodd-Frank Act created an arbitrary threshold that the FSOC uses to designate systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs); (ii) “FSOC’s process for designating SIFIs in essence codifies "too big to fail" and poses a threat to the U.S. economy”; (iii) “[t]he Financial CHOICE Act, the Republican plan to replace Dodd-Frank and promote economic growth” would “end[] ‘too big to fail’ and bank bailouts.”
High Court passes on opportunity to resolve circuit split over statutory requirements for whistleblower protection under Dodd-Frank Act
On March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, (No. 16-946), thereby declining to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the protections against retaliation provided in the Dodd-Frank Act extend to whistleblowers who do not report the misconduct to the SEC. At issue were the statutory requirements for qualifying as a “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act. While the Act defines “whistleblower” as an individual who reports wrongdoing “to the Commission,”[1] a separate provision provides protection against retaliation for whistleblowers reporting wrongdoing under Sarbanes-Oxley,[2] which includes both reporting to federal agencies or internal reporting within the company.[3]
The Verble case came to the Court on appeal from a Sixth Circuit decision affirming the dismissal of Mr. Verble’s claim that he was improperly terminated in retaliation for being a confidential informant (and whistleblower) to the FBI. A U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the former financial advisor’s Dodd-Frank retaliation claim after finding that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision was available only for whistleblowers who reported their concerns directly to the SEC. See Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, 148 F. Supp. 3d 644 (E.D. Tenn. 2015). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but did not reach the issue regarding the scope of Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision. Rather than taking sides on the split between circuits, the Sixth Circuit panel opted instead to base its decision solely on the ground that Mr. Verble “fail[ed] to meet the threshold requirement of providing enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief.”
On January 26, Mr. Verble filed the aforementioned unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The first question presented in the petition for certiorari was whether the Sixth Circuit erred by avoiding the issue; next, Mr. Verble asked the Court to settle a split between the Fifth and Second Circuits—the only two circuits to have opined on the issue. Weighing in first, the Fifth Circuit had strictly applied the Dodd-Frank Act’s definition of “whistleblower” to the later anti-retaliation provision, so as to require dismissal of the plaintiff’s action in that case because he did not make his disclosures to the SEC. See Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620, 621 (5th Cir. 2013). In so doing, the court declined to rely upon an SEC regulation adopting a contrary interpretation. By contrast, the Second Circuit, viewing the statute itself as ambiguous, applied Chevron deference to (and accepted) the SEC’s interpretation, which extended protections to all whistleblowers. Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, 801 F.3d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 2015).
Notably, while the petition for certiorari was pending, the Ninth Circuit became the third appellate circuit to stake out a position on the existence of an external reporting requirement when, in an opinion filed on March 8, it held that the Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower provision “unambiguously and expressly protects from retaliation all those who report to the SEC and who report internally.” See Somers v. Digital Realty Trust, No. 15-17352, 2017 WL 908245 (9th Cir. 2017).
FDIC Releases List of Enforcement Actions Taken Against Banks and Individuals in February 2017
On March 31, the FDIC released its list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in February. Several of the consent agreements included on the list seek civil money penalties for, among other things, violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and its flood insurance requirements. Other violations cited in the enforcement actions relate to unsafe or unsound banking practices, breaches of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. There are no administrative hearings scheduled for April 2017. The FDIC database containing all of its enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
CFPB Director Speaks at National Community Reinvestment Coalition Conference; Discusses Regulatory Review at Chamber of Commerce 11th Annual Capital Markets Summit
On March 29, CFPB Director Richard Cordray spoke at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition Conference in Washington, D.C. to discuss, among other things, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the difficulties faced by individuals who cannot obtain mainstream credit. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CFPB is exploring the risks and benefits of using “alternative data” to assist consumers whose limited credit histories prevent them from accessing many lending opportunities. Cordray stated that one of the CFPB’s priorities “is [to increase] the availability of responsible financial products and services, especially for those who have been underserved or shut out.”
The next day, on March 30, Cordray spoke at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 11th Annual Capital Markets Summit in Washington, D.C. In prepared remarks, Cordray discussed the regulatory compliance challenges and burdens that financial organizations face, as well as the CFPB’s efforts to assist with regulatory implementation, the development of clearer guidance, and methods to streamline and modernize regulations based on effectiveness. Cordray noted the CFPB’s efforts to improve and adapt regulations based on the needs of the industry. “We learn from the comments we receive and our final rules are helpfully informed by that input on a consistent basis,” Cordray stated. “But even after we issue a final rule, if the data shows over time that any of our substantive calls need to be reconsidered, we can and will face the issue frankly and address it. We will not let pride of authorship interfere with the serious task of policymaking in the interests of consumers and the American public.” As mandated by Congress, the CFPB must review any significant rules after five years have passed. The CFPB plans to review remittance rules followed by a review of the mortgage rules. Cordray also noted efforts to address ambiguities and conflicts in other areas such as debt collection and payday lending.