InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal Agencies Finalize Volcker Rule
On December 10, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, the SEC, and the CFTC issued a final rule to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the so-called Volcker Rule. Section 619 was a central component of the Dodd-Frank Act reforms, and the final rule and its preamble are lengthy and complex. The Federal Reserve Board released a fact sheet, as well as a guide for community banks. Generally, the final rule implements statutory requirements prohibiting certain banking entities from (i) engaging in short-term proprietary trading of any security, derivative, and certain other financial instruments for a banking entity's own account, (ii) owning, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund, (iii) engaging in an exempted transaction or activity if it would involve or result in a material conflict of interest between the banking entity and its clients, customers, or counterparties, or that would result in a material exposure to high-risk assets or trading strategies, and (iv) engaging in an exempted transaction or activity if it would pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the financial stability of the U.S. Exempted activities include: (i) market making; (ii) underwriting; (iii) risk-mitigating hedging; (iv) trading in certain government obligations; (v) certain trading activities of foreign banking entities; and (vi) certain other permitted activities. The compliance requirements under the final rules vary based on the size of the institution and the scope of activities conducted. Those with significant trading operations will be required to establish a detailed compliance program, which will be subject to independent testing and analysis, and their CEOs will be required to attest that the program is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the final rule. The regulators state that the final rules reduce the burden on smaller, less-complex, institutions by limiting their compliance and reporting requirements. The rule takes effect on April 1 2014; however, the Federal Reserve Board announced that banking organizations covered by section 619 will not be required to fully conform their activities and investments until July 21, 2015.
SDNY Holds 2005 SEC Rule Change Did Not Alter Directors' Potential MBS Liability
On December 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the SEC’s promulgation of Rule 430B in 2005—which, among other things, broadened the category of disclosures that can be made in prospectus supplements rather than post-effective amendments to registration statements—did not alter the "liability date" for Section 11 liability for individuals who sign registration statements in the context of the shelf registration process. Fed.Hous. Fin. Agency v. HSBC N. Am. Holdings Inc., No. 1:11-cv-06201 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2013). The ruling comes in the consolidated federal cases brought by the FHFA alleging numerous institutions misled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in connection with the packaging, marketing, sale and issuance of certain RMBS. The FHFA suits also named numerous individuals as a “control person[s]” under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or as directors or signing officers under Section 11 of the Securities Act. In response to a motion filed by more than 90 directors who signed the original registration statements but not the subsequent prospectus supplements, the court explained that Rule 430B deems newly disclosed information to be included in the registration statement, and Section 11 creates liability for signers whenever “any part of the registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an untrue statement of material fact or [omission].” The court interpreted the rule to mean that a prospectus supplement containing information representing a fundamental change in the information provided in the registration statement creates Section 11 liability for directors based on that new information. The court held that, as such, where there is a fundamental change in the information provided to the marketplace through the filing of a prospectus supplement, the new trigger dates for Section 11 liability will apply to those persons.
Federal Reserve Board Seeks Additional Comment On Electronic Returned Checks Processing
On December 12, the Federal Reserve Board issued a revised proposed rule that would, among other things, encourage depositary banks to receive, and paying banks to send, returned checks electronically. The revised proposal is intended to address comments the Board received in response to a 2011 proposal to amend subparts C and D of Regulation CC. The Board is now seeking comment on two alternative frameworks for return requirements. Under the first, the expeditious-return requirement currently imposed on paying and returning banks for returned checks would be eliminated; a paying bank returning a check would be required to provide the depositary bank with a notice of nonpayment of the check—regardless of the amount of the check being returned—only if the paying bank sends the returned check in paper form. Under the second, the current expeditious-return requirement—using the current two-day test—would be retained for checks being returned to a depositary bank electronically via another bank, but the notice-of-nonpayment requirement would be eliminated. The Board is proposing to retain, without change, the current same-day settlement rule for paper checks. In addition, the Board is also requesting comment on applying Regulation CC’s existing check warranties to checks that are collected electronically and on new warranties and indemnities related to checks collected electronically and to electronically-created items. Comments are due by May 2, 2014.
New York Proposes Shared Appreciation Mortgages For Underwater Borrowers
On December 10, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) proposed regulations that would authorize and encourage “shared appreciation” mortgage modifications in that state. The DFS explained that under a shared appreciation modification, banks and mortgage servicers reduce the amount of principal outstanding on a borrower’s mortgage in exchange for a share of the future increase in the value of the home. The program would be limited to borrowers who are 90 or more days past due on their loan, or whose loan is the subject of an active foreclosure action, and who are not eligible for existing federal and private foreclosure prevention programs. The proposed regulations detail the method for calculating a holder’s share of the appreciation, and limit the share to the lesser of: (i) the amount of the reduction in principal, plus interest; or (ii) 50% of the amount of appreciation in market value. In addition, banks and servicers would be required to provide specific disclosures to borrowers about the terms and nature of the shared appreciation mortgage modification. The proposed regulations also: (i) specify allowable fees, charges, and interest rates; (ii) detail the calculation of unpaid principal balance and debt-to-income ratio; and (iii) list certain prohibitions, including, among others, that the holder cannot require the borrower to waive any legal claims or defenses as a condition to obtaining shared appreciation modification.
Texas Reverse Mortgage Constitutional Amendment Takes Effect
On November 22, an amendment to the Texas constitution took effect to permit the use of a reverse mortgage for the purchase of a homestead property. The amendment was approved by Texas voters on November 5. Under the amendment, a borrower must (i) occupy the homestead property as a principal residence within a specified time after the reverse mortgage closing and (ii) complete financial counseling before the reverse mortgage closing. The amendment requires a lender to provide to a prospective borrower a detailed disclosure of conduct that could lead to foreclosure, including among other things, the failure to pay property taxes.
Second Circuit Reinstates Federal TCPA Class Action
On December 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that federal rules govern when determining whether a federal TCPA suit may proceed as a class action and reinstated a case dismissed based on New York state class action rules. Bank v. Independence Energy Group LLC, No. 13-1746, 2013 WL 6231563 (2nd Cir. Dec. 3, 2013). A federal district court dismissed, sua sponte, a TCPA class action complaint based on the application of New York state civil procedure, which prohibits class-action suits for statutory damages. On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed with the named plaintiff that, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding last year in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 140 (2012), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 applies when deciding whether a federal TCPA suit can proceed as a class action. In Mims, the Court had held that TCPA Section 227(b)(3) permits private parties to bring an action in an appropriate state court, but does not require that private actions seeking redress under the TCPA be heard only by state courts. Here, the Second Circuit reasoned that Mims “suggests that in enacting the TCPA, Congress merely enabled states to decide whether and how to spend their resources on TCPA enforcement,” and that “Congress had a strong federal interest in uniform standards for TCPA claims in federal court.” Based on Mims, the Second Circuit rejected its prior interpretation of section 227(b)(3) as having “substantive content” and providing a delegation of authority to state courts to set the terms of TCPA claims. Accordingly, the court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, not state law, governs when a federal TCPA suit may proceed as a class action.
DOJ Announces Latest FCPA Action Related To Nigerian Gas Pipeline Project
On December 10, the DOJ announced that a German engineering and services company agreed to resolve charges that it violated the FCPA by bribing government officials of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to obtain and retain contracts related to the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS) project. The settlement is the most recent of several related to that project, and the charges are based on activities that occurred over a three-year period beginning a decade ago. In a criminal information filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the DOJ charged that the company, as part of a joint venture, conspired to make corrupt payments totaling more than $6 million to Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining and retaining contracts. Through the joint venture the companies submitted inflated bids to cover the cost of paying bribes to Nigerian officials. The company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, in which it admitted to the alleged conduct, agreed to pay a $32 million penalty, and consented to enhance its internal controls and retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for at least 18 months.
CFPB Releases Preliminary Results Of Ongoing Arbitration Study
On December 12, the CFPB published the preliminary results of its ongoing study of arbitration agreements in consumer finance contracts. Section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act directs the CFPB to study the use of pre-dispute arbitration contract provisions, and preconditions the CFPB’s exercise of rulemaking authority regarding arbitration agreements on a finding that the regulation is “in the public interest and for the protection of consumers.” The CFPB commenced its arbitration study in early 2012, and expanded its review this year with a proposal to survey credit card holders, and by exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act Section 1022 to order some companies to provide template consumer credit agreements, as Director Cordray indicated during a September House Financial Services hearing.
The CFPB reports the following preliminary results, among others:
- Larger banks are more likely to include arbitration clauses in their credit card contracts and checking account contracts than smaller banks and credit unions.
- Just over 50% of credit card loans outstanding are subject to arbitration clauses, while 8% of banks, covering 44% of insured deposits, include arbitration clauses in their checking account contracts.
- Arbitration clauses are prevalent across the general purpose reloadable (GPR) prepaid card market, with arbitration clauses appearing in the cardholder contracts for 81% of GPR prepaid cards studied by the CFPB.
- Class action waivers are ubiquitous, appearing in approximately 90% of arbitration provisions.
- A minuscule number of consumers exercise contract carve-outs permitting disputes to be pursued in small claims courts, while credit card issuers are “significantly more likely” to sue consumers in small claims court.
The CFPB did not consider specific policy options at this stage. However, the report outlines numerous additional steps the CFPB plans to take as part of its arbitration study, which may expand to include other financial product markets. For example, in response to stakeholder comments, the CFPB is revising a prior proposal to conduct a survey of consumers that addresses consumer awareness of arbitration clauses and consumer perceptions of and expectations about formal dispute resolution. The CFPB also intends to assess the possible impact of arbitration clauses on the price of consumer financial products. Finally, the CFPB is examining the interrelationship between public enforcement and private aggregate enforcement (i.e., class actions) by conducting an empirical analysis of the types of cases brought by public and private actors, and the relationship between any actions against the same defendants or challenging similar conduct. The report does not provide anticipated timelines for these or any of the other future steps the Bureau describes.
CFPB Announces Healthcare Credit Card Enforcement Action Over Deferred-Interest Financing
On December 10, the CFPB released a consent order with a federal savings association, pursuant to which the bank will refund approximately $34 million to more than one million credit card holders who were enrolled in deferred-interest financing for healthcare services. The order does not include a civil penalty. The deferred-interest action is the first public action taken by the CFPB since it promised to scrutinize such products in its October credit card report.
The product at issue typically is offered by healthcare providers who offer personal lines of credit for healthcare services, including medical, dental, cosmetic, vision, and veterinary care. The CFPB alleges that the bank failed to sufficiently train healthcare providers to deliver material information about deferred-interest promotional periods associated with the credit cards, which led to consumers being misled during the enrollment process. The CFPB further claimed that healthcare providers improperly completed applications and submitted them on behalf of consumers, failed to provide consumers with copies of the credit card agreement, and, where disclosures were provided, those disclosures failed to adequately explain the deferred-interest promotion.
In addition to consumer redress, the order mandates certain terms of the bank’s contracts with medical providers offering the healthcare credit card. For example, the bank must incorporate specific “transparency principles” into its agreements with healthcare providers, and the contracts must prohibit certain charges. The bank also must enhance disclosures provided with the card application and billing statements, and improve training for healthcare providers offering the card. In addition, the order details consumer complaint resolution requirements, and prohibits certain incentive arrangements and paid endorsements. To date, the CFPB has not released the attachments to the consent order, which include, among other things, the transparency principles and disclosures.
The New York Attorney General entered into a similar agreement with the bank earlier this year. Under that agreement, the bank was likewise required to add a set of transparency principles to provider contracts to ensure that card terms were described accurately and to revise promotional interest rate options and other disclosures to better inform consumers’ use of the card.
Special Alert: Federal Reserve Board Guidance on Managing Outsourcing Risks Mirrors Recent OCC Guidance
On December 5, 2013, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB or the Fed) issued Supervision and Regulation Letter 13-19, which details and attaches the Fed’s Guidance on Managing Outsourcing Risk (FRB Guidance). The FRB Guidance sets forth risks arising out of the use of service providers and the regulatory expectations relating to risk management programs. It is substantially similar to OCC Bulletin 2013-29, which the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued on October 30, 2013.
The FRB Guidance supplements existing guidance relating to risks presented by Technology Service Providers (TSPs) to reach service providers that perform a wide range of business functions, including, among other things, appraisal management, internal audit, human resources, sales and marketing, loan review, asset and wealth management, procurement, and loan servicing.
While a complete roadmap of the FRB Guidance would be largely duplicative of our recent Special Alert relating to the OCC Bulletin 2013-29, key supervisory and enforcement themes emerge from a comparison of the two guidance documents. Like the OCC, the Fed signals broadly that failure to effectively manage the use of third-party service providers could “expose financial institutions to risks that can result in regulatory action, financial loss, litigation, and loss of reputation.” The Fed also emphasizes the responsibility of the Board of Directors and senior management to provide for the effective management of third-party relationships and activities. It enumerates virtually the same risk categories as the OCC, including compliance, concentration, reputational, operational, country, and legal risks, though its discussion of those risks is slightly less comprehensive.
The FRB Guidance makes clear that service provider risk management programs should focus on outsourced activities that are most impactful to the institution’s financial condition, are critical to ongoing operations, involve sensitive customer information, new products or services, or pose material compliance risk. While the elements comprising the service provider risk management program will vary with the nature of the financial institution’s outsourced activities, the Fed’s view is that effective programs usually will include the following:
- Risk assessments: Institutions should evaluate the implications of performing an activity in-house versus having the activity performed by a service provider and also consider whether outsourcing an activity is consistent with the strategic direction and overall business strategy of the organization. This section of the FRB Guidance closely aligns with the section titled “Planning” in OCC Bulletin 2013-29.
- Due diligence and selection of service providers: Institutions should address the depth and formality of due diligence of prospective service providers consistent with the scope, complexity, and importance of the planned outsourcing arrangement. The Fed emphasizes processes designed to diligence a potential service provider’s (i) business background, reputation, and strategy; (ii) financial performance and condition; and (iii) operations and internal controls. This section is less detailed, but nonetheless consistent with the section titled “Due Diligence and Third-Party Selection” in OCC Bulletin 2013-29.
- Contract provisions and considerations: Service provider contracts should cover certain topics, including, but not limited to: (i) the scope of services covered; (ii) cost and compensation; (iii) right to audit; (iv) performance standards; (v) confidentiality and security of information; (vi) indemnification; (vii) default and termination; (viii) limits on liability; (ix) customer complaints; (x) business resumption and contingency plan of the service provider; and (xi) use of subcontractors. The key provisions noted generally mirror the “Contract Negotiation” section of OCC Bulletin 2013-29.
- Incentive compensation review: Institutions should establish an effective process to review and approve any incentive compensation arrangements that may be embedded in service provider contracts to avoid encouraging “imprudent” risk-taking. While OCC Bulletin 2013-29 does not break out incentive compensation as a separate program feature (it is included among factors to be considered in due diligence and selection), it does identify the need for banks to review whether fee structure and incentives would create burdensome upfront fees or result in inappropriate risk-taking by the third party or the bank.
- Oversight and monitoring of service providers: Institutions should set forth the processes for measuring performance against contractually-required service levels and key the frequency of performance reviews to the risk profile of the service provider. This section of the FRB Guidance, consistent with the “Ongoing Monitoring” section of OCC Bulletin 2013-29, also recommends the creation of escalation protocols for underperforming service providers and monitoring of service provider financial condition and internal controls, which may also trigger escalation if the service provider’s financial viability or adequacy of its control environment are compromised during the course of the relationship.
- Business continuity and contingency plans: Institutions should develop plans that focus on critical services and consider alternative arrangements in the event of an interruption. The Fed specifically notes that financial institutions should: (i) ensure that a disaster recovery and business continuity plan exists with regard to the contracted services and products; (ii) assess the adequacy and effectiveness of a service provider’s disaster recovery and business continuity plan and its alignment to their own plan; (iii) document the roles and responsibilities for maintaining and testing the service provider’s business continuity and contingency plans; (iv) test the service provider’s business continuity and contingency plans on a periodic basis to ensure adequacy and effectiveness; and (v) maintain an exit strategy, including a pool of comparable service providers. Notably, OCC Bulletin 2013-29 addresses business continuity and contingency plans under third-party risk management, rather than as separate program features.
Finally, the FRB Guidance notes a number of “additional risk considerations” not singled out by OCC Bulletin 2013-29, which cover: (i) confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) reporting functions; (ii) compliance by foreign-based service providers with U.S. laws, regulations, and regulatory guidance; (iii) prohibitions against outsourcing internal audit functions in violation of Sarbanes-Oxley; and (iv) alignment of outsourced model risk management with existing Fed Guidance on Model Risk Management (SR 11-7).
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.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Christopher M. Witeck, (202) 349-8051
- Elizabeth E. McGinn, (212) 600-2370
- Jon David Langlois, (202) 349-8045