InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Southern District of New York Again Endorses DOJ Mortgage Fraud Theory
On September 24, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman largely denied a bank’s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in which the government alleges that the bank falsely certified loans under the FHA’s Direct Endorsement Lender Program in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). U.S. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-7527, 2013 WL 5312564 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013). Addressing four primary arguments raised by the bank, the court held that the government sufficiently pleaded (i) that the bank falsely certified compliance with FHA regulations upon which payment was conditioned, (ii) that the bank fraudulently induced the government to insure loans it otherwise would not have, and (iii) that this alleged misconduct caused the FHA to pay insurance claims it otherwise would not have. It also held that the government’s claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity. Citing two recent decisions from other Southern District of New York courts, the court held that FIRREA allows the government to pursue claims against an institution for engaging in alleged fraud that “affects” itself. Further, relying in part on a recent holding by the Fourth Circuit, the court held that the government’s claims were timely because they were tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act. Finally, relying on an order issued earlier this year by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the court rejected the bank’s argument that the release it executed as part of the National Mortgage Servicing Settlement specifically released liability arising under the FCA and FIRREA for the government’s claims. The court dismissed as untimely certain of the government’s common law and quasi-contract claims, but preserved the government’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that whether such a duty existed is a question of fact.
FHFA Seeks to Clarify Relief from City of Chicago Vacant Property Ordinance
On September 20, the FHFA filed a motion requesting that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois amend an order it issued after holding on August 23 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are exempt from a 2011 City of Chicago ordinance that established new requirements for mortgagees and their agents regarding the maintenance of vacant property. The FHFA, as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sued the city in December 2011 over the ordinance, which requires mortgagees to register vacant properties and pay a $500 registration fee per property. The FHFA asked the court “to specify the contents and persons” bound by its August 23 order. The motion was accompanied by a proposed order for declaratory and monetary relief, which would restate Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s immunity from the City’s ordinance and also would require the City to refund any payments that those the two enterprises, or any entities acting on their behalf, made pursuant to the ordinance.
Diligence Firm Objects to RMBS Working Group Subpoena
On September 24, a firm that handles due-diligence matters for financial institutions filed its opposition to a motion filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of the federal-state RMBS Working Group, to compel production of documents and information the group sought in a July subpoena. In its brief, the firm reviews its cooperation to respond to “six years of subpoenas, investigatory demands, and formal and informal requests for information,” and summarizes the volume and types of information it has provided to the DOJ and the Working Group to date as a third-party witness in connection with the 16 companies the Working Group has identified as subjects of its RMBS investigations. The firm notes the “substantial expense” it has incurred “to educate an ever-growing, and often-changing, number government attorneys and investigators.” The firm argues that the Working Group’s most recent subpoena, which seeks “every document and communication for all 193 clients and for almost 5,000 e-mail custodians,” constitutes a “fishing expedition” and violates the firm’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Ninth Circuit Judge Withdraws Fraud Characterization of Bank's HAMP Trial Plan
On September 23, in a brief order, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit withdrew his concurrence in a recent opinion in which the court held that HAMP Trial Period Plans (TPPs) create a contractual obligation for servicers to offer a permanent modification to borrowers who complete the TPP. Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Nos. 11-16234, 11-16242 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2013). In the concurring opinion, the judge had argued that the bank created the trial plan document for “the fraudulent purpose of inducing [the borrower] to make the payments while the bank retained the option of modifying the loan or stiffing him.” The bank filed a motion for rehearing and asked the court to withdraw the concurrence because the Treasury Department, not the bank, drafted the trial plan document and required its use. Therefore, according to the bank, its actions should not be characterized as fraudulent because it adhered to its obligations by using the required HAMP documents.
Federal District Court Holds Work-Issued Computer Not A "Facility" Under Stored Communications Act
On September 18, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that an employee’s computer, issued by the employer, is not a “facility” subject to protections of the Stored Communications Act. Roadlink Workforce Solutions, L.L.C. v. Malpass, No. 13-5459, 2013 WL 5274812 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 18, 2013). In this case, an employer sued a former employee for allegedly copying and then deleting certain information from an employer-issued computer before leaving to work for a competitor. The employer claimed a private right of action under the Stored Communications Act based on its allegation that the former employee intentionally exceeded his authorization to access a “facility through which an electronic communication service” it provided, and obtained and altered an electronic communication while it was in electronic storage. The court held that the employer-issued computer was not a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided, citing to previous decisions holding that including personal computing devices within the definition of “facility” would render other parts of the SCA illogical. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s definition of facility would mean that any web site accessed on the computer would be a “user” of the communication service provided by the computer, and exempt from the SCA because of the exception for communications “of or intended for” that website. The court also held that the employer failed to demonstrate that the files accessed were in electronic storage because emails that have been opened but not deleted to not fit the SCA’s definition of “storage.” The court dismissed the employer’s SCA claim and a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, but retained jurisdiction over certain state claims.
Bipartisan Policy Center Recommends CFPB Changes
On September 24, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) released a paper and held an event regarding the CFPB’s activities in its first three years, and potential changes to the agency and its policies going forward. The paper, generally critical of the CFPB’s use of guidance, expressed a preference for rulemakings to implement policy. The BPC argued that if the CFPB must issue substantive guidance, then it should employ a more open and transparent process, seeking input from a variety of parties, including consumer groups and regulated entities. In addition, the BPC identified several concerns with the CFPB’s supervisory and examination processes and recommended that the CFPB, among other things, (i) establish a specific policy setting timelines for closing out examinations, (ii) end its policy of including enforcement staff in the supervisory process, (iii) renew its effort to recruit and train high-quality supervisory and examination staff, and (iv) improve coordination with other agencies, particularly to integrate the CFPB’s product-based approach. The BPC also addressed, among other things, the CFPB’s requests for data from regulated entities, the use of its civil penalty fund, oversight of the Bureau, and the development and implementation of performance metrics.
CFPB Partners with Jackson, MS on Consumer Complaint Hotline
On September 20, the CFPB announced a partnership with the City of Jackson, Mississippi, to accept and respond to questions and complaints about financial products and services posed directly to the Bureau by local residents. The agreement will allow Jackson consumers to dial a local hotline and be connected with the CFPB’s Consumer Response team, which will screen complaints for completeness, jurisdiction, and non-duplication. This agreement is one of several the CFPB has entered with localities around the country and is at least the second time that the CFPB has partnered with a locality on a consumer complaint hotline. The CFPB is currently accepting complaints regarding credit cards, mortgages, deposit products and services, consumer loans, private student loans, credit reporting, debt collection, and money transfers.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Extend Streamlined Modifications, Announce HAMP Changes, Increase Certain State Foreclosure Timelines
On September 16, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2013-17, and on September 18, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-18, which extend those entities’ streamlined modification programs to include all streamlined modification trial period plans that become effective by December 1, 2015. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also extended the expiration date for HAMP such that Trial Period Plan Effective Dates must be on or before March 1, 2016 and Modification Effective Dates must be on or before September 1, 2016. Fannie Mae further applied these extended time frames to Second-Lien Modification Programs. In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revised their eligibility requirements for proposed HAMP modifications that are submitted through the Treasury Net Present Value Model on or after January 1, 2014. Further, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (i) retired the annual servicer “Pay for Success” incentive for HAMP-eligible mortgages, effective for modifications with effective dates on or after April 1, 2014 and (ii) updated requirements for repurchased loans subject to a HAMP permanent mortgage loan modification or trial plan. Finally, the Freddie Mac bulletin increased state foreclosure timelines by 30 days in Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington, for all foreclosure sales completed after September 1, 2013, while Fannie took the same action through a separate servicing notice.
Fannie Mae Announces Requirements for Foreclosure Sale Eliminations and Rescissions
On September 18, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-19, which establishes requirements for eliminations and rescissions of foreclosure sales, effective immediately. The announcement states that when a servicer identifies an issue that requires an elimination and/or rescission, the servicer must submit a request for elimination and/or rescission within five days of that identification. When Fannie Mae identifies an issue that requires a property to be eliminated from its REO inventory or a foreclosure sale to be rescinded, Fannie Mae will initiate the elimination and/or rescission process through a report to the servicer, which will list Fannie Mae’s decision for each servicer-requested elimination or rescission, as well as those eliminations and/or rescissions that Fannie Mae has processed. The servicer must then (i) review the report for notification of servicer-requested elimination/rescission approvals and Fannie Mae-processed eliminations/rescissions, (ii) add each eliminated file back into its servicer system within 24 hours of notification of approval or notification that the file has been eliminated by Fannie Mae, and (iii) resume managing the eliminated/rescinded file pursuant to the Servicing Guide.
HUD Finalizes Streamlined FHA Reporting Rule
On September 17, HUD issued a final rule that streamlines the FHA financial statement reporting requirements for lenders and mortgagees who are supervised by federal banking agencies and whose consolidated assets do not meet the thresholds set by their supervising federal banking agencies for submission of audited financial statements—currently set at $500 million in consolidated assets. HUD’s regulations currently require all supervised lenders and mortgagees to submit annual audited financial statements as a condition of FHA lender approval and recertification. Effective October 17, 2013, in lieu of the annual audited financial statements, small supervised lenders and mortgagees will be required to submit their unaudited financial regulatory reports that align with their fiscal year ends and are required to be submitted to their supervising federal banking agencies. Only if HUD determines that the supervised lenders or mortgagees pose heightened risk to the FHA insurance fund would such lenders be required to submit audited financial statements. The final rule also makes technical changes to current regulations regarding reporting requirements for FHA-approved supervised lenders and mortgagees.