InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae Announces Multiple Selling Guide Updates
On February 28, Fannie Mae issued Announcement SEL-2012-02, which describes Selling Guide updates related to the Project Eligibility Review Services (PERS), premium pricing recapture, and the maximum buyup of the mortgage backed securities (MBS) guaranty fees. Regarding PERS, effective April 1, 2012, Fannie Mae is increasing the base fee, eliminating the waiver for projects that require a mandatory review, and eliminating the maximum project review fee limit. The announcement also outlines other PERS fee structure changes. Additionally, the Selling Guide updates a remedy available to Fannie Mae when it has identified a lender as having unusual prepayment behavior. Effective immediately, Fannie Mae will be allowed to request reimbursement for any premium paid in connection with the purchase of a mortgage that is paid in full within 120 days from the whole loan purchase date or from the MBS issue date. Finally, for loans delivered on or after May 28, 2012 with MBS issue dates on or after June 1, 2012, Fannie Mae is increasing the maximum buyup of the guaranty fee of 25 basis points for fixed-rate loans and certain ARMs.
SEC and CFTC Propose Rules Regarding Detecting Identity Theft
On February 28, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, together with the SEC, the Commissions) jointly issued proposed rules that would require entities subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction to address identity theft in two ways: (i) financial institutions and creditors would be required to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identify theft with either certain existing accounts or opening new accounts, and (ii) credit and debit card issuers subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction would be required to assess the validity of change-of-address notifications under certain circumstances. Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over certain parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act from the Federal Trade Commission to the Commissions for entities they regulate. The Commissions’ proposed rules are substantially similar to rules adopted in 2007 by the FTC and other federal financial regulatory agencies that previously were required to adopt such rules. The proposed rules set out the four elements that regulated entities would be required to include in their identify theft prevention programs: (i) identify relevant red flags, (ii) detect the occurrence of red flags, (iii) respond appropriately to the detected red flags, and (iv) periodically update the program to reflect changes in risks to customers or to the safety and soundness of the financial institution or creditor from identity theft. The Commissions issued jointly proposed guidelines in an appendix to the proposed rules to assist regulated entities in formulating and maintaining a Program that would satisfy the proposed rule requirements. The Commissions are accepting comments on the proposal through May 7, 2012.
Federal Reserve Board Releases Mortgage Servicing Action Plans
On February 27, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) released final action plans to be implemented by nine financial institutions to correct alleged deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure procedures. The FRB also announced that it expects to release plans for additional institutions soon. The plans are required by consent orders issued by the FRB in April 2011, and describe how the institutions will alter their servicing and foreclosure procedures by, among other things, (i) providing each borrower the name of a primary point of contact at the servicer; (ii) establishing limits on foreclosures where loan modifications have been approved; (iii) establishing robust, third-party vendor controls, including local foreclosure counsel; and (iv) strengthening compliance programs. The announcement also included the release of engagement letters between certain servicers and the third-party vendors hired to conduct reviews of foreclosures processed in 2009 and 2010. Those reviews, also required by the April 2011 orders, will determine whether borrowers suffered a financial injury that the institutions will be required to remedy. The release of the action plans follows the agreement by five of the servicers to pay a combined $766.5 million in penalties to the FRB as part of the $25 billion multi-party servicing settlement.
FHA Increases Mortgage Insurance Premiums
On February 27, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it is increasing its annual mortgage insurance premiums and upfront premiums in two phases. First, for loans with case numbers assigned on or after April 1, 2012 the FHA is increasing by 10 basis points the annual mortgage insurance premium, and is increasing upfront insurance premiums by 75 basis points. Subsequently, for loans with case numbers assigned on or after June 1, 2012 that exceed $625,500, the FHA is increasing the annual premium by an additional 0.25 percent. The changes are designed to encourage the return of private capital to the residential mortgage market while supplementing the FHAs Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, which has fallen below the congressionally mandated two percent reserve threshold. At least one report recently suggested that based on current home price and default projections the fund will become insolvent without action. The increased premiums are projected to contribute more than $1 billion to the FHA's mortgage insurance fund, and on average will cost new home buyers $5 per month.
Second Circuit Moves MBS Case Back to New York State Court
On February 27, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) case that had been removed from New York state court fell within the securities exception to both original and appellate jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). BlackRock Financial Management Inc. v. Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp., No. 11-5309, 2012 WL 611401 (2nd Cir. Feb. 27, 2012). The case arose out of claims that the originator and servicer of MBS breached obligations owed to the trusts. After the trustee reached an $8.5 billion settlement agreement, it initiated an Article 77 proceeding in New York state court to confirm that it had authority to enter the settlement under the trust documents and that entry into the settlement did not violate its duties under the agreements and state law. Certain investors intervened and removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court denied a motion to remand to state court on the grounds that the case fell within CAFA's securities exception. On this interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that the case was one that solely involved a claim that "relates to the rights, duties (including fiduciary duties), and obligations relating to or created by or pursuant to any security." The courts rationale was that, based on prior precedent, it did not have jurisdiction over claims that were based "either on the terms of the instruments that create and define securities or on the duties imposed on persons who administer securities," although it did have jurisdiction over "claims based on rights arising from independent sources of state law." Because the underlying Article 77 case sought a declaration authorizing the exercise of the trustee's power to enter a settlement, the trustee was seeking construction of its rights under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) and an instruction from the court as to whether it complied with its duties and obligations arising under the PSA. Therefore, the court (i) held that the securities exception of CAFA applied, (ii) dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, (iii) reversed the district court's order, and (iv) directed the district court to vacate its decision and order and remand the case to state court.
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Foreclosures Can Proceed Despite Notice Defects
On February 27, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Guillaume, No. 068176, 2012 WL 603307 (N.J. Feb. 27, 2012), that state trial courts are not required to dismiss foreclosure actions if there are defects in the notice of foreclosure, and affirmed the denial of the borrowers motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure. The decision overturned an August ruling from a New Jersey appeals court, Bank of New York v. Laks, 422 N.J. Super. 201 (App. Div. 2011), holding that dismissal was mandatory if a notice did not strictly comply with the requirements of the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act. In Guillaume, the borrowers sought to avoid foreclosure in part because the Notice of Intention to Foreclose identified only the servicers name and contact information and not the name and address of the lender. At the trial level, the court gave the lender an opportunity to cure the defects in the Notice in lieu of dismissal. A panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court outcome based on its analysis that listing the name of the loan servicer rather than the name of the lender substantially complied with the statutory requirements. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Fair Foreclosure Act requires that a Notice of Intention to Foreclose include the name and address of the actual lender, in addition to contact information for any loan servicer with responsibility to collect payments and negotiate resolution of a dispute between the lender and homeowner. Nonetheless the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that dismissal without prejudice was not the exclusive remedy for service of a defective notice and upheld the trial's court authority to craft an appropriate remedy for notice defects. The New Jersey Supreme Court also rejected the homeowners argument that their original lender's $120 fee overcharge was a TILA violation that entitled them to rescission and held that courts adjudicating TILA claims have discretion to deny rescission if the homeowner cannot tender the full amount due on the loan.
FHFA Announces First Properties Available for Sale in REO Pilot Program
On February 27, the Federal Housing Finance Agency opened for sale the first pool of foreclosed properties currently owned by Fannie Mae to be sold to private firms under the condition that the firms will manage the properties as rental properties for a specified period of time. This first transaction is part of a recently announced pilot program designed to shift the management of certain foreclosed properties to private entities in an effort to reduce taxpayer losses and stabilize neighborhoods and home values. Interested investors must apply to become pre-qualified in order to bid on the pools of properties. At the start, the properties for sale will be located in the hardest-hit markets including, Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and parts of Florida.
European Banking Authority Expresses Concerns Regarding New Financial Sector Domain Names
On February 23, the European Banking Authority (EBA) released a letter it sent to the ICANN Board of Directors expressing concerns about ICANN’s June 2011 approval of a new program to allow additional generic top level domains, including “.bank” and “.fin”. The new domain names are expected to be available for use later this year. As the European umbrella organization comprised of the heads of each member state’s consumer credit regulator, the EBA is broadly tasked with European consumer financial protection. From that standpoint, the letter and an attached comment document ask ICANN to halt the use of the new domain names because they have the potential to increase consumer fraud and decrease data security. Further, the new names may require financial institutions to implement costly and complex legal and commercial initiatives to protect their trademarks from fraud. The EBA does not believe that ICANN’s proposals to mitigate these concerns, including a proposed new registration system for the domain names, are insufficient.
Federal Court Approves for First Time Computer-Assisted Document Review
On February 24, a Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge held that computer-assisted review is an acceptable way to search for electronically stored information. Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, No. 11-1279, 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012). The court explained that computer-assisted coding is the use of sophisticated algorithms to enable the computer to determine relevance, based on interaction with a human reviewer. The court then described traditional e-discovery keyword searches and manual review as, in some cases, “over-inclusive,” “quite costly,” and “not very effective.” In certain cases, the court concluded, computer-assisted review is the better approach. The judge then detailed the factors that favored computer-assisted predictive coding in this case: (i) the parties' agreement to use predictive coding; (ii) the size of the entire data set (more than 3 million documents); (iii) the accuracy of predictive coding compared to traditional methods; (iv) the need for cost effectiveness and proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2)(C); and (v) the “transparent” review process proposed by the defendant.
Nevada Supreme Court Rules MERS Mortgage Assignments Are Valid
On February 24, the Nevada Supreme Court held, in two separate cases, that a Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS)-generated mortgage assignment did not invalidate a foreclosure. Davis v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 56306, 2012 WL 642544 (Nev. Feb. 24, 2012); Volkes v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, No. 57304, 2012 WL 642673 (Nev. Feb. 24, 2012). In both cases, the court upheld the lower courts’ decisions allowing foreclosure certificates to be issued following unsuccessful foreclosure mediation. Appellants had argued that MERS is a sham entity, and therefore any MERS-generated assignments are necessarily invalid. Noting that courts in Nevada and other states have “repeatedly” recognized that MERS serves a legitimate business purpose, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected appellants’ arguments that their assignments were invalid merely because they were generated by MERS.