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.

  • Wyoming is second state to create fintech sandbox

    Fintech

    On February 19, the Wyoming Governor signed HB 57, which creates a fintech sandbox program in the state for companies to test innovative financial products and services. Wyoming is the second state to introduce a regulatory sandbox program, following Arizona’s sandbox introduction last March. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the “Financial Technology Sandbox Act” (the Act), the state’s sandbox will be open to innovative financial products and services, including those focused on blockchain and cryptocurrencies, and will allow testing of these products for up to two years with the possibility of an additional 12 month extension before requiring participants to apply for formal licensure. Additionally, under certain conditions, the Act—which grants various supervisory and enforcement power to the state banking commissioner and the secretary of state, including revocation and suspension rights—will authorize (i) limited waivers of specified statutes or rules, and (ii) reciprocity agreements with other regulators. The Act takes effect January 1, 2020.

    Fintech Digital Assets State Issues State Legislation Regulatory Sandbox Blockchain Cryptocurrency Licensing

  • CSBS seeks public comment on model state payments law

    State Issues

    On February 21, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a request for information (RFI) on issues related to state money transmission and payments regulation as state regulators begin coordinating model legislation for all 50 states to adopt in whole or in part. CSBS’ RFI is based upon recommendations made by the Fintech Industry Advisory Panel (a part of CSBS’ Vision 2020 previously covered by InfoBytes here) and seeks feedback on several areas of law and regulation to help states create harmonized definitions and interpretations on a national level. According to the Advisory Panel, “despite the general similarity of state money transmission laws, each state defines and interprets money transmission and its exemptions differently.” The RFI solicits comments framed towards outlined policy standards and risks on the following issues:

    (i) The scope of covered money transmission activities and applicable exemptions; (ii) the change in control process, including the personal vetting requirements for individuals deemed new control persons; (iii) prudential regulations—in particular, permissible investment, net worth, and surety bond requirements; (iv) supervision processes; and (v) coordination—in particular, how states can ensure the areas outlined above are implemented consistently without state-by-state policy diversion or needless duplication of effort.

    Comments on the RFI are due April 20 and will be made publicly available here.

    State Issues CSBS State Regulators Money Service / Money Transmitters RFI Fintech

  • 3rd Circuit: Debt buyer qualifies as debt collector under FDCPA

    Courts

    On February 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit issued a precedential order affirming a district court’s ruling that an entity that purchases charged-off receivables and outsources the collection activity to a third party still qualifies as a debt collector and, therefore, may be bound by the dictates of the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a lawsuit against the debt-buying company alleging voicemail messages she received from the company’s contractor failed to identify the contractor as a collection agency. The consumer further alleged that a letter the contractor sent did not inform her how to exercise her validation rights, in violation of the FDCPA. The district court ruled that the defendant, which identifies itself as a creditor, meets the “principal purpose” definition of a debt collection under the FDCPA and therefore must comply with its provisions. On appeal, the defendant argued that debt collection and purchasing are “mutually exclusive,” and that the district court's ruling should be reversed under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, which held that the FDCPA does not necessarily apply to a company collecting debts in default that it purchased for its own account. (See previous Buckley Special Alert on the decision here.)

    However, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision, and rejected the defendant’s arguments that the Henson decision renders it a creditor rather than a debt collector. “The Supreme Court went out of its way in Henson to say that it was not opining on whether debt buyers could also qualify as debt collectors” under certain provisions of the FDCPA, and moreover, “[a]n entity qualifies under the definition if the ‘principal purpose’ of its ‘business’ is the ‘collection of any debts,’” the panel wrote. “As long as a business’s raison d’etre is obtaining payment on the debts that it acquires, it is a debt collector. Who actually obtains the payment or how they do so is of no moment,” the 3rd Circuit wrote.

    The appellate court’s opinion, however, did not address the actual question of liability asserted against the defendant, but rather remanded the case for consideration as to whether the defendant is vicariously liable for claims related to the contractor’s actions.

    Courts Third Circuit Appellate Debt Collection FDCPA

  • CFPB updates Supervision and Examinations Manual

    Federal Issues

    In February, the CFPB released an updated version of the Supervision and Examination Manual, which includes changes to the examination and targeted reviews section of the manual. The Bureau noted that the purpose of a risk-focused review is to direct Bureau resources toward the areas with higher risk. The updated manual section covers the review process from start to finish, beginning with the pre-review planning and concluding with the transmission of the final report or letter. The February updates also include the release of new examination report and supervisory letter templates.

    Federal Issues CFPB Supervision Examination Compliance

  • OFAC reaches settlement with U.S. company resolving Iranian sanctions violations

    Financial Crimes

    On February 21, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $506,250 settlement with a Connecticut-based company for five alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). The settlement resolves potential civil liability for the company’s alleged transactions valued at over $14 million involving the purchase of Iranian-origin cement clinker from a supplier in the United Arab Emirates who misrepresented to the company that the material was not subject to U.S. economic sanctions on Iran.

    Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Iran.

    Financial Crimes OFAC Department of Treasury Iran Sanctions Of Interest to Non-US Persons

  • Waters releases expansive credit reporting legislation

    Federal Issues

    On February 21, Maxine Waters released a discussion draft version of the “Comprehensive Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 2019,” which would significantly amend the FCRA. The draft legislative proposal was released as supporting material for the February 26 House Financial Services Committee hearing titled, “Who's Keeping Score? Holding Credit Bureaus Accountable and Repairing a Broken System.” The CEOs of the three major credit reporting agencies and a panel of officials from major consumer groups testified at the hearing.

    The draft bill— versions of which Waters has also introduced in previous Congressional sessions—includes (i) significant changes to the dispute process, such as allowing consumers to appeal determinations; (ii) banning the use of credit information for certain employment decisions; (iii) removing adverse information for certain private education loan borrowers who demonstrate positive payment history; (iv) shortening the time period that most adverse credit information stays on a credit report from seven to four years; and (v) establishing federal oversight over the development of credit scoring models.

    Federal Issues House Financial Services Committee Federal Legislation Credit Report FCRA

  • FDIC fines banks for flood insurance, BSA violations; releases January enforcement actions

    Federal Issues

    On February 22, the FDIC announced a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January 2019. The 25 orders include “10 Section 19 orders; two civil money penalty; six prohibition orders; three consent orders; one prompt corrective order; three terminations of consent orders; and one notice.” The FDIC assessed a civil money penalty against a Texas-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act including failing to either (i) obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at or before origination; or (ii) increase, renew, or extend flood insurance coverage on several loans secured by collateral located or to be located in special flood hazard areas.

    The FDIC assessed a second civil money penalty against an Oklahoma-based bank related to alleged weaknesses in its programs concerning Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) compliance, information technology (IT), and internal audits. Among other things, the bank was ordered to (i) grant the board full responsibility for the approval of bank policies and objectives related to the identified programs, as well as supervision of bank management; (ii) retain qualified personnel responsible for managing the BSA/AML and IT programs; (iii) revise its internal control programs to correct the identified deficiencies; (iv) obtain an independent public accounting firm to conduct an external financial statements audit and internal controls review; and (v) implement comprehensive written BSA/AML compliance programs.

    Federal Issues FDIC Enforcement Flood Disaster Protection Act Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering

  • FDIC releases interagency exam procedures for CFPB’s Prepaid Rule

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 22, the FDIC issued FIL-9-2019, which announces revisions to interagency examination procedures for evaluating compliance with the CFPB’s Prepaid Accounts Rule. The Rule was originally finalized in October 2016 and expands coverage under Regulation E to provide consumers, among other things, additional federal protections on prepaid financial products, person-to-person payment products, and other electronic accounts with the ability to store funds. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In January 2018, the CFPB finalized updates to the Rule and delayed the effective date until April 1, 2019. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The FIL contains a link to the interagency procedures listed in the FDIC Compliance Examination Manual and confirms that after April 1 the examination staff will begin supervising institutions for compliance with the rule.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC CFPB Regulation E Regulation Z Examination Compliance Supervision

  • Waters reminds CFPB staff of whistleblower protections

    Federal Issues

    On February 21, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, sent a letter to CFPB employees, reminding Bureau staff of the protections under The Whistleblower Protection Act and encouraged anyone who witnesses “waste, fraud, abuse or gross mismanagement” to reach out to her or her staff. Waters cited to the recent reports of a significant drop in Bureau staff morale and reiterated her concern with the changes that took place at the agency during acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s tenure. Waters emphasized the importance of the Bureau’s work to protect consumers and stated that she will conduct careful oversight of the agency as part of her Chairwoman duties.

    Federal Issues Whistleblower CFPB House Financial Services Committee

  • OCC issues cease and desist order against Japanese bank for BSA/AML issues

    Federal Issues

    On February 22, the OCC announced a cease and desist order against three U.S. branches of a Japanese bank for allegedly violating the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). According to the order, after an examination of the branches’ BSA/Anti-Money Laundering and OFAC compliance programs, the OCC identified alleged deficiencies in the branches’ BSA compliance program, including (i) internal controls; (ii) suspicious activity monitoring, which resulted in untimely suspicious activity report filings; (iii) foreign correspondent due diligence program; and (iv) trade finance monitoring. The OCC did not issue a monetary penalty against the branches and noted in the order’s announcement that the branches have already begun corrective actions. This action demonstrates U.S. banking regulators’ continued scrutiny of the BSA compliance programs of U.S. branches and subsidiaries of non-U.S. banks that provide international access to the U.S. financial system.

    As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2017, the OCC issued a consent order with the branches that required corrective actions related to OFAC compliance. The branches continue to operate under this order.

    Federal Issues OCC Cease and Desist Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering Financial Crimes Of Interest to Non-US Persons Compliance

Pages

Upcoming Events