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.

  • U.S. financial institution acknowledges investigations related to Malaysian development fund scheme

    Financial Crimes

    On November 2, a New York-based financial institution disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing that it had received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from multiple government agencies as part of investigations relating to matters involving a Malaysian development fund. The filing acknowledged the indictments and guilty plea of a former participating managing director of the financial institution, and a former managing director, which indicated that they “knowingly and willfully circumvented” the financial institution’s internal accounting controls.  The filing further stated that the financial institution is cooperating with the DOJ and other investigations relating to the company.

    For prior coverage of the scheme, please see here and here.

    Financial Crimes DOJ

  • FCC urges voice providers to participate in spoofed robocalls “traceback” program

    Federal Issues

    On November 6, the FCC announced that it sent letters to voice providers urging them to participate in “traceback” efforts to help the FCC identify the source of illegal spoofed robocalls. The FCC released copies of the letters that it sent to eight voice providers that are not currently assisting with the USTelecom Industry Traceback Group’s program, which seeks to trace the robocalls that pass through the voice providers’ networks to the originating provider.

    In the announcement, the FCC notes that: (i) traceback efforts assist the FCC in identifying the source of illegal calls; and (ii) the FCC receives more complaints from consumers regarding unwanted calls—including scam calls that use spoofing to trick consumers—than any other subject. The FCC emphasizes that “consistent participation of all network operators is critical for helping consumers and enforcing the law.”

    Federal Issues FCC Robocalls Enforcement Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • Agencies issue joint proposal to streamline small institution reporting requirements

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On November 7, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve issued a proposal to streamline regulatory reporting for qualifying small institutions to implement Section 205 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Specifically, the joint proposal would permit depository institutions with less than $5 billion in assets—previously set at $1 billion—that do not engage in certain complex or international activities to file the FFIEC 051 Call Report, the most streamlined version of the Call Reports. Additionally, the proposal would reduce the existing reportable data items in the FFIEC 051 Call Report by approximately 37 percent for the first and third calendar quarters. The proposal also includes similar provisions for uninsured institutions with less than $5 billion in total consolidated assets that are supervised by the Federal Reserve and the OCC. Comments on the proposal must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC Federal Register Federal Reserve OCC Call Report EGRRCPA

  • Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation adopts mortgage foreclosure disclosure amendments

    State Issues

    On October 1, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation adopted amendments to its regulations relating to mortgage foreclosure disclosure notices and mediation conference obligations. The amendments—which are effective as of September 28—require entities and individuals regulated by the Rhode Island Division of Banking and non-exempt mortgagees to comply with the outlined foreclosure provisions. The provisions, among other items, (i) require use of the notice of pending foreclosure form; (ii) require provision of notice of mediation conferences to all mortgagors prior to initiating a foreclosure, in the specified manner; and (iii) outline qualifications for the mediation coordinator responsible for issuing certificates of compliance.

    State Issues Mortgages Disclosures Foreclosure

  • 7th Circuit affirms summary judgment for repossession company, holds property-retrieval fee is not subject to FDCPA

    Courts

    On October 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a third-party repossession company and an auto lender, holding that a fee that the repossession company required to process personal items left in a repossessed car did not constitute an impermissible demand for repayment under the FDCPA. According to the opinion, after a consumer fell behind on her auto payments, the third-party company repossessed her vehicle on behalf of the auto lender. The repossession company, according to the consumer, demanded a $100 payment in order to retrieve personal property she had left in the car. The consumer sued the company and the lender arguing that the retrieval fee was an impermissible debt collection in violation of the FDCPA. In response, the repossession company and the lender moved for summary judgment, arguing that the fee was an administrative handling fee that the lender had agreed to pay to the repossession company—not a fee assessed to the consumer. The lower court agreed.

    On appeal, the 7th Circuit determined that the documentary evidence showed that the $100 fee was an administrative fee that the lender agreed to pay to the repossession company, stating “[t]here is no way on this record to view the handling fee as some sort of masked demand for principal payment to [the lender].” The appellate court concluded the consumer did not establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether the repossession company demanded the $100 payment on behalf of the lender and, therefore, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the repossession company and the lender.

    Courts Debt Collection Auto Finance Repossession FDCPA Third-Party

  • Court grants class certification to consumers alleging law firm collection letters violated FDCPA

    Courts

    On October 31, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class certification for a group of debtors in three states who alleged that the debt collection letters they received that were printed on law firm letterhead violated the FDCPA by falsely implying attorneys reviewed the underlying debts. The debt collector argued against certification because not all of the recipients of the letter at issue had consumer debts covered by the FDCPA, arguing “that there is no administratively feasible way to ascertain class members without doing individualized fact-finding.” The court disagreed, finding the plaintiff met the burden of demonstrating class members can be identified. Specifically, the court noted that the plaintiff’s proposed methodology would rely on the business unit that sent the letters, as well as information in the debt collector’s records, to determine which accounts are covered by the FDCPA. Because the plaintiff “demonstrated an administratively feasible and reliable method for identifying class members,” the court granted class certification.

    Courts FDCPA Class Action Debt Collection

  • FFIEC issues joint statement on OFAC Cyber-Related Sanctions Program

    Financial Crimes

    On November 5, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) members issued a joint statement alerting financial institutions to the potential impact that the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) recent actions under its Cyber-Related Sanctions Program may have on financial institutions’ risk management programs. OFAC implemented the Cyber-Related Sanctions Program in response to Executive Order 13694 to address individuals and entities that threaten national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. by malicious cyber-enabled activities. FFIEC’s press release announcing the joint statement references OFAC’s June action against five Russian entities and three Russian individuals who, through “malign and destabilizing cyber activities,” provided material and technological support to Russia’s Federal Security Service (previously covered by InfoBytes here), noting that these entities may offer services to financial institutions operating in the U.S.

    The joint statement reminds financial institutions to ensure that their compliance and risk management processes address possible interactions with an OFAC sanctioned entity. The statement notes that continued use of products or services from a sanctioned entity may cause the financial institution to violate the OFAC sanctions. Additionally, use of software or technical services from a sanctioned entity may increase a financial institution’s cybersecurity risk. The statement encourages financial institutions to take appropriate corrective action, as well as to ensure their third-party service providers comply with OFAC’s requirements.

    The OCC also released Bulletin 2018-40, which corresponds with the FFIEC’s joint statement.

    Financial Crimes OFAC Sanctions FFIEC OCC Russia International Third-Party Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • Buckley Sandler Special Alert: Weathering the coming tide of congressional investigations

    Federal Issues

    The results are in: Party control of the U.S. House of Representatives will change for the third time in 12 years, leaving legions of pundits to speculate about what happens next. Prospects for a fundamental change in the way Congress and Washington operate are dim, particularly given that the U.S. Senate remains under Republican control. With new legislation most likely dead on arrival due to the political stalemate on Capitol Hill, the Democrats’ most reliable opportunity to exert their will is almost certainly through congressional oversight and investigations. The last time the Democrats controlled the House during a Republican presidency, following the 2006 midterms, Rep. Henry Waxman remarked that Congress’s oversight powers are “just as important, if not more important than legislation.”

    While it is tempting to dismiss congressional oversight, and the attendant theatrical hearings and testimony as nothing but sound and fury, the reality for companies, executives, and others under the microscope is far less anodyne. Lack of preparation and ill-conceived strategy in responding to congressional investigations heightens the prospect of reputational harm that, unchecked, will frustrate business goals, damage shareholders, and derail — or end — careers.

    * * *

    Click here to read the full special alert.

    Please join us for a Dec. 5 webcast that will delve deeper into these topics and offer some thoughts on navigating the coming tide of congressional investigations. If you have questions about congressional investigations or other related issues, please visit our Congressional Investigations practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.

    Federal Issues Special Alerts U.S. House U.S. Senate

  • OFAC announces several actions related to the “snap-back” of sanctions on Iran, effective November 5

    Financial Crimes

    On November 5, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced several actions in conjunction with the full re-imposition of sanctions on Iran effective immediately. As previously covered by InfoBytes, President Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on May 8. Following the end of the wind-down period, which authorized certain activities through November 4, OFAC issued FAQs related to the “snap-back” of Iranian sanctions. OFAC also updated its Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list to add over 700 persons, including persons previously removed from the SDN list during the U.S.’s participation in the JCPOA and persons previously identified on the Executive Order 13599 list. OFAC additionally provided a technical notice containing details related to the SDN list changes.

    OFAC’s announcement also refers to an amendment effective November 5 to the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR), in connection with President Trump’s decision to cease U.S. participation in the JCPOA. The newly issued amendment reflects sanctions re-imposed by Executive Order 13846, as covered by InfoBytes here, in addition to changes to certain sanctions lists maintained by OFAC. OFAC also announced it is “amending an existing general license in the ITSR to authorize U.S. persons to sell personal property in Iran and transfer the proceeds to the [U.S.],” if the personal property was either: (i) acquired before the individual became a U.S. person; or (ii) inherited from persons in Iran.

    See here for continuing InfoBytes coverage on Iranian sanctions.

    Financial Crimes Department of Treasury OFAC Iran Sanctions Executive Order

  • President Trump issues new Venezuela Executive Order targeting gold sector; OFAC publishes related FAQs

    Financial Crimes

    On November 1, President Trump issued Executive Order 13850 (E.O. 13850) authorizing the imposition of sanctions on persons who operate in Venezuela's gold sector “or in any other sector of the Venezuelan economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.” The sanctions come in response to the actions of Venezuelan President Maduro’s regime and associated persons in allegedly “plunder[ing] Venezuela's wealth for their own corrupt purposes.” Among other things, the sanctions specifically block the acquisition or retention of property and interests in the United States by persons who “operate in the gold sector of the Venezuelan economy” or “have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity or transaction” involving deceptive practices or corruption in conjunction with the Venezuelan government.

    The same day, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released a set of FAQs connected to the issuance of E.O. 13850, stating that it “expects to use its discretion to target in particular those who operate corruptly in the gold or other identified sectors of the Venezuela economy, and not those who are operating legitimately in such sectors.”

    E.O. 13850 is issued in conjunction with E.O.s 13692, 13808, 13827, and 13835. See here for continuing InfoBytes coverage of Venezuelan actions and E.O.s.

    Financial Crimes OFAC Executive Order Venezuela Sanctions Trump Department of Treasury

Pages

Upcoming Events