Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Special Alert: CFPB Consent Order Applies Loan Originator Compensation Rule to Marketing Services Agreements

    Consumer Finance

    On June 5, the CFPB announced a consent order against Guarantee Mortgage Corporation, resolving allegations that the company paid loan originators based on the terms of their mortgage loans in violation of the Loan Originator Compensation Rule (the “LO Comp Rule”).  Since inheriting responsibility for the LO Comp Rule in 2011, the CFPB has devoted substantial resources to revising the rule and enforcing its provisions.  During that same period, the CFPB brought several actions enforcing the prohibition on referral fees in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), including an action against Lighthouse Title, Inc. that created considerable uncertainty about the Bureau’s view of marketing services agreements (“MSAs”).

    Click here to view the full Special Alert. 

    *          *          *

    Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.

    CFPB RESPA

  • CFPB Director Issues Decision on First Appeal of an Administrative Enforcement Proceeding

    Consumer Finance

    On June 4, CFPB Director Richard Cordray issued a decision on a mortgage lender’s appeal of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) order concerning alleged RESPA violations with respect to the lender’s mortgage reinsurance business. In his decision, Cordray largely affirmed the ALJ decision and ordered the lender to pay $109 million in disgorgement. Notably, because most of the conduct alleged occurred prior to the CFPB assuming jurisdiction over enforcement of RESPA, Cordray declined to impose a civil money penalty. In addition, Cordray agreed with the ALJ that no statute of limitations applies when the CFPB challenges a RESPA violation in an administrative proceeding, declaring that the statute of limitations applies only to judicial proceedings. Cordray also held that the lender committed a separate violation of RESPA every time it accepted a reinsurance payment from a mortgage insurer, even if the loan with which the payment was associated had already been consummated. This was the first appeal of an administrative enforcement proceeding before the CFPB.

    CFPB RESPA Enforcement

  • CFPB and Florida AG Obtain Judgment Against Law Group and Corporate Affiliates for "Mass-Joinder" Foreclosure Relief Scam

    Consumer Finance

    On May 29, a final order was entered against a law group and its corporate affiliates in an action brought by the CFPB and the State of Florida. The July 2014 complaint alleged that the law group and its affiliates violated Regulation O, or the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule, and Florida state law by convincing consumers to participate in “mass-joinder” lawsuits against their mortgage lenders with the false promise that the suits would result in mortgage modifications or foreclosure relief. More specifically, the defendants’ Regulation O violations included: (i) charging consumers advance fees before obtaining loan modifications for them; (ii) misrepresenting success rates of receiving a loan modification; (iii) deceiving consumers into believing that they would receive legal representation; and (iv) discouraging consumers from making their loan payments and/or communicating with their lenders or servicers. The final order, which follows a temporary restraining order and an asset freeze against the defendants, requires that the defendants pay redress to victims and a total of $16 million in civil and state penalties and cease all business operations. Final orders were issued against the three named individuals in the suit as well.

     

    CFPB UDAAP State Attorney General Enforcement

  • U.S. House Passes Amendment To Ban DOJ's Use of Disparate Impact Claims

    Consumer Finance

    On June 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment to H.R. 2578, the Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act. The amendment, passed in a 232-196 vote, would prohibit the DOJ from using funds to prosecute and obtain legal settlements from lenders, landlords, and insurers in discrimination suits based on the disparate impact legal theory. This legislative development comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule later this summer in Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, which challenges the disparate impact theory in mortgage lending under the Fair Housing Act

    DOJ Disparate Impact U.S. House

  • Regional Bank Agrees to Pay Over $200 Million for Alleged Violations of the False Claims Act

    Consumer Finance

    On June 1, a regional bank agreed to pay the United States $212.5 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly violated the False Claims Act by originating and underwriting FHA-insured mortgage loans that did not meet applicable requirements. The bank – through its subsidiary and as a Direct Endorsement Lender in the FHA insurance program – had the authority to approve mortgage loans for FHA insurance without having FHA or HUD review the loan application first. The DOJ Civil Division’s investigation concluded that, from January 2006 through October 2008, the bank, even though it was aware of material deficiencies in its loan origination process, “failed to report even a single deficient mortgage to FHA.” DOJ further concluded that, while the bank profited from its loan process, taxpayers suffered significant losses when the loans defaulted and FHA incurred “substantial losses when it later paid insurance claims on these loans.” The bank admitted to failing to comply with FHA origination, underwriting, and quality control regulations.

     

    HUD DOJ Enforcement False Claims Act / FIRREA

  • FinCEN Levies $75 Million Penalty on International Casino for BSA/AML Lapse

    Federal Issues

    On June 3, FinCEN announced a $75 million civil money penalty against an international casino for alleged “willful and egregious” violations of the BSA. As detailed in the Assessment, the casino (i) failed to develop and implement an AML program; (ii) failed to designate an official BSA officer to oversee compliance requirements of the BSA; and (iii) failed to train employees in adequate recordkeeping, or in identifying, monitoring or reporting suspicious activity – all considered to be critical components of an adequate BSA/AML program. Moreover, FinCen alleges that casino employees “provided detailed instructions” to undercover agents on how to conduct transactions without being properly reported to U.S. authorities. FinCen’s latest action follows a March announcement, when the agency imposed a $10 million civil money penalty against a New Jersey-based casino.

    Anti-Money Laundering FinCEN Bank Secrecy Act Enforcement

  • Federal Reserve Orders Two Financial Institutions to Improve BSA/AML Compliance Programs

    Consumer Finance

    On June 1, a Boston-based international financial services holding company and its banking subsidiary agreed to address deficiencies in how they manage compliance risks with respect to their BSA/AML compliance program. The Agreement, entered into with the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and the Massachusetts Division of Banks, requires both entities to submit a written plan outlining their efforts to improve their compliance with OFAC and internal controls, customer due-diligence procedures, and suspicious activity monitoring and reporting, among other things. In addition, the banking subsidiary must hire an independent third-party to review account and transaction activity during a specified period to ensure suspicious activity was properly identified and reported.

    In a separate enforcement action, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago entered into an agreement on May 26 with an Illinois-based financial services company, requiring the parent company and its banking subsidiary to, among other things, submit written plans to (i) strengthen its BSA/AML compliance risk management program; and (ii) “ensure the identification and timely, accurate, and complete reporting” of suspicious transactions to the appropriate law enforcement and supervisory [banking] authorities.” No civil money penalties were imposed in either enforcement action.

    Federal Reserve Anti-Money Laundering Bank Secrecy Act Bank Compliance Enforcement Bank Supervision

  • FinCEN Fines Michigan MSB For BSA/AML Violations, Bans Owner From Serving at Any U.S. Financial Institution

    Consumer Finance

    On May 29, a Michigan-based money service business (MSB), along with its owner, admitted to repeated violations of the BSA and have agreed to pay FinCEN a civil money penalty in the amount of $12,000. The company violated the BSA in numerous ways, including but not limited to: (i) failing to maintain a sufficient anti-money laundering program; (ii) engaging in high-risk transactions, including wire transfers to Yemen, totaling millions of dollars, without keeping proper records of the transfers or performing due diligence; and (iii) conducting suspicious transactions “with no apparent business or lawful purpose.” According to FinCEN, the MSB failed to monitor the suspicious transactions, had no review process in place, and neglected to file a Suspicious Activity Report or a Currency Transaction Report while operating as a business entity.  Furthermore, in addition to the aforementioned MSB, the owner opened an additional MSB in October 2010, containing similar BSA deficiencies. The owner has “agreed to immediately and permanently cease serving as an employee, officer, director, or agent of any financial institution located in the United States or that conducts business within the United States.”

    Anti-Money Laundering FinCEN Bank Secrecy Act Enforcement Money Service / Money Transmitters

  • OCC Comptroller Discusses Emerging Payment Systems Technology and Cybersecurity, FFIEC Set to Release Cybersecurity Assessment Tool

    Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security

    On June 3, in prepared remarks delivered at the BITS Emerging Payments Forum, OCC Comptroller Thomas Curry advised that as financial institutions continue to develop payment systems, banks need better preparation for potential cyber-risks. Curry warned that “[c]yber criminals will also probe emerging payment systems for vulnerabilities that they can exploit to engage in money laundering[.]” In addition, Curry advocated for more regulatory oversight of digital currencies and non-bank mobile payment providers, such as ApplePay and Google Wallet. Addressing cybersecurity concerns, Curry called for increased information-sharing to promote best practices and strengthen cybersecurity readiness among the banking industry. In particular, he urged financial institutions – of all sizes – to participate in the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center, or FS-ISAC, a non-profit founded by the banking industry to facilitate the sharing and dissemination of cybersecurity threat information.  Moreover, Curry confirmed that the FFIEC will soon be releasing a Cybersecurity Assessment Tool for financial institutions to use when evaluating their cybersecurity risks and risk management capabilities, observing that the tool will be particularly helpful to community banks as cybersecurity threats continue to increase.

    Payment Systems Nonbank Supervision OCC FFIEC Mobile Payment Systems Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • National Bank to Pay $30 Million Civil Penalty to OCC for Alleged SCRA Violations

    Consumer Finance

    On May 29, the OCC entered into a consent order with a national bank to resolve allegations that it (i) violated the SCRA; (ii) engaged in unsafe and unsound practices in its efforts to comply with the SCRA; and (iii) engaged in unsafe and unsound practices in regards to its sworn document and collections litigation practices. The OCC claimed that the bank did not comply with the SCRA by failing to: (i) maintain effective policies and procedures; (ii) devote adequate financial, staffing and managerial resources to guarantee the SCRA compliance process was properly administered; and (iii) provide sufficient internal controls, compliance risk management, internal audit, third party management, and training related to its SCRA compliance process. In relation to the sworn document and collections litigation process, the OCC asserted that the bank’s deficiencies in its enterprise compliance risk management function resulted in unsafe and unsound practices, including failure to ensure that affidavits filed in court followed proper notary procedures. Under the terms of the consent order for a civil money penalty, the OCC will collect $30,000,000 from the bank.

    OCC SCRA Enforcement

Pages

Upcoming Events