InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Iranian bank officials, Iraqi bank, and others for moving millions of dollars to Hizballah
On May 15, U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced it was imposing sanctions on the governor and a senior official of the Central Bank of Iran, an Iraqi bank and its chairman, and a key Hizballah official, for allegedly funneling millions of dollars on behalf of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to Hizballah. Pursuant to Executive Order 13224, which “provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism,” the individuals and entities were designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. The actions, which follow a May 10 action taken against individuals and entities who materially assisted in the conversion of millions of U.S. dollars to fund IRGC-QF’s malignant activities, “seek to stifle Iran’s ability to abuse the U.S. and regional financial systems.”
However, OFAC clarified that sanctions on the officials of the Central Bank of Iran do not extend to the bank itself. Following President Trump's decision to cease participation by the U.S. government in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, sanctions on the bank will be re-imposed August 7, and on November 5, additional sanctions will be re-imposed on persons knowingly engaging in certain significant transactions with the Central Bank of Iran.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Iranian sanctions.
DOJ, CFPB agree to early termination of consent order with indirect auto lender
On May 15, the auto lending branch of an international automobile company (indirect auto lender) reported in an 8-K filing that the DOJ and CFPB had reached an agreement that the indirect auto lender has met the requirements for early termination of a consent order entered into in 2016 over allegations of unfair lending practices. As previously covered in InfoBytes, a joint agency investigation under ECOA found that the indirect auto lender’s policies allowed for dealers to mark up a consumer’s interest rate on the retail installment contract above the established risk-based buy rate. The parties currently await final court approval of a joint stipulation and proposed order for early termination of the consent order from three years to two years in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Georgia amends state code provisions related to financial institutions
On May 3, the Georgia governor signed into law an act amending provisions of the Official Code of Georgia applicable to the state’s Department of Banking and Finance (Department) and financial institutions generally, including banks, credit unions, licensed sellers of payment instruments, and mortgage lenders and brokers. Among other things, HB 780 grants the Department and/or its commissioner (i) powers to authorize state chartered financial institutions to exercise powers authorized by federal law but not authorized under state law; (ii) the authority to remove individuals employed by state chartered financial institutions, including officers and directors; and (iii) the ability to establish a process for state chartered financial institutions to “exercise rights and powers authorized solely under federal law.” HB 870 also amends the Official Code of Georgia to provide for the Department’s licensing of mortgage lenders and brokers. The law took effect on May 3, and does not apply to litigation pending as of March 9.
Maryland announces settlement with mortgage servicer over property inspection fees
On May 14, the Maryland Attorney General announced a settlement with a mortgage loan servicer to resolve allegations that it charged homeowners illegal inspection fees. According to the announcement, the servicer allegedly charged borrowers for property inspections that were done when the borrower was in default on their payments, in violation of a Maryland law, which prohibits passing on such inspection costs. The mortgage servicer ceased the practice in 2014 for forward mortgages and in 2016 for reverse mortgages, according to the Attorney General’s office. The settlement requires the mortgage servicer to (i) refrain from engaging in the same practice in the future; (ii) complete the return of almost $1 million in collected inspection fees; and (iii) pay nearly $500,000 in penalties and costs.
Maryland expands scope of unfair and deceptive practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, increases maximum civil penalties
On May 15, the Maryland governor signed HB1634, the Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2018, which expands the definition of “unfair and deceptive trade practices” under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MPCA) to include “abusive” practices, and violations of the federal Military Lending Act (MLA) and Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The law also, among other things:
- Civil Penalties. Increases the maximum civil penalties for certain consumer financial violations to $10,000 for the initial violation and $25,000 for subsequent violations
- Debt Collection. Prohibits a person from engaging in unlicensed debt collection activity in violation of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act or engaging in certain conduct in violation of the federal FDCPA.
- Enforcement Funds. Requires the governor to appropriate at least $700,000 for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and at least $300,000 to the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation (OCFR) for certain enforcement activities.
- Student Loan Ombudsman. Creates a Student Loan Ombudsman position within the OCFR and establishes specific duties for the role, including receiving, reviewing, and attempting to resolve complaints from student loan borrowers.
- Required Studies. Requires the OCFR to conduct a study on Fintech regulation, including whether the commissioner has the statutory authority to regulate such firms. The law also requires the Maryland Financial Consumer Protection Commission (MFCPC) to conduct multiple studies, including studies on (i) cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings and (ii) the CFPB’s arbitration rule (repealed by a Congressional Review Act measure in November 2017).
Court holds text message advertisements sent by internet domain provider do not violate TCPA
On May 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted an internet domain provider’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the platform used by the company to send text message advertisements did not qualify as an “autodialer” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff filed a putative class action in 2016 asserting that the company, without his consent, sent him a single text message offering a discount on new products in violation of the TCPA. The company filed for summary judgment arguing that the platform it uses to send messages is not an “autodialer.” Citing to the recent D.C. Circuit decision in ACA International v. the FCC (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert) which narrowed the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of “autodialer”, the Court agreed with the company. The Court held that the text was not sent automatically or without human intervention because the company had to “log into the system, create a message, schedule a time to send it, and perhaps most importantly, enter a code to authorize its ultimate transmission.”
As covered by InfoBytes, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau released a notice seeking comment on the interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in light of the recent D.C. Circuit decision in ACA International.
3rd Circuit reverses district court’s decision, rules TILA provisions misapplied to unauthorized-charge suit
On May 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, holding that the lower court, among other things, misapplied a TILA provision under Regulation Z that requires cardholders to dispute charges within 60 days of the “first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit against the bank after he was allegedly rebilled for a $657 fraudulent money transfer charge that originally appeared on his statement in July 2015. The charge was originally removed from his account but reappeared in mid-September of that year after the bank claimed the charge was valid after verifying transaction details. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the decision in writing, and later filed a complaint against the bank, alleging he had “timely submitted a written notice of billing error,” and that the bank “had neither credited the charge nor conducted a reasonable investigation” and imposed liability of more than $50. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, which the plaintiff appealed.
At issue, the three-judge panel determined, were two provisions under TILA: (i) the “Fair Credit Billing Act” (FCBA), which stipulates that creditors must “comply with particular obligations when a consumer has asserted that his billing statement contains an error,” and (ii) the “unauthorized-use provision,” which requires certain conditions to be met before a credit card issuer can hold the cardholder liable, up to a limit of $50, for any unauthorized use. The panel first addressed the district court’s finding that the bank’s obligations under FCBA were “never triggered” because his written notice came 63 days after the July statement first included the charge. The panel held that, because the plaintiff-appellant’s August billing statement showed a credit to his account for the charge and that “there was no longer anything to dispute” and no reason to believe his statement contained a billing error, the 60-day time limit should have started when the bank rebilled him in September. In addressing the second issue, the district court held that plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to “reimbursement” under the unauthorized-use claim. However, the panel opined that he was not seeking reimbursement but rather “actual damages,” for which the statute does provide relief. “We conclude that a cardholder incurs ‘liability’ for an allegedly unauthorized charge when the issuer, having reason to know the charge may be unauthorized, bills or rebills the cardholder for that charge,” the panel wrote.
3rd Circuit holds FDCPA statute of limitations begins to run on occurrence, not discovery, of violations, splitting from 4th and 9th Circuits
On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit issued an en banc ruling that the statute of limitations on the ability to sue for a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is one year from the date the Act is violated. The ruling is a departure from contrary decisions issued by the 4th and 9th Circuits, which both held that the statute of limitations begins to run when a violation is discovered, not when it occurs.
Citing the FDCPA’s provision that claims must be filed “within one year from the date on which a violation occurs,” the court found that intent of the FDCPA is that the statute of limitations should begin to run at the moment the alleged wrongdoing happens, and not when the cause of action is discovered. The Court found that the 4th and 9th Circuits’ decisions to the contrary failed to analyze the “violation occurs” language of the statute.
However, the court noted that its holding does not serve to undermine the doctrine of equitable tolling, and “should not be read to foreclose the possibility that equitable tolling might apply to FDCPA violations that involve fraudulent, misleading, or self-concealing conduct.” This question was not addressed, the court noted, because the plaintiff-appellant failed to preserve the issue on appeal.
FinCEN issues ruling temporarily suspending beneficial ownership requirements for automatic renewal products for 90 days
On May 16, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a ruling to provide a 90-day limited exceptive relief from the requirements for covered financial institutions to obtain and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers with respect to certificate of deposit rollovers and loans that renew automatically. As previously covered in InfoBytes, FinCEN clarified that covered financial institutions seeking to renew a loan or roll over a certificate of deposit must treat these as new accounts and require their legal entities customers to certify or confirm beneficial owners, “even if the legal entity is an existing customer.” FinCEN acknowledged, however, that certain covered financial institutions with automatic processes that do not treat these types of rollovers or renewals as new accounts, have expressed concerns regarding their ability to comply with the rule’s requirements. As a result, FinCEN’s ruling will apply to qualified products and services that were established before the May 11 compliance date and will continue until August 9, during which time FinCEN will re-evaluate the requirement to determine whether more permanent relief is needed.
9th Circuit will not rehear interest on escrow preemption decision
On May 16, a panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the petition for an en banc rehearing of its March decision, which held that a California law that requires a bank to pay interest on escrow funds is not preempted by federal law. In addition to the national bank’s appeal for a rehearing, the OCC notably filed an amicus brief supporting the rehearing, arguing that the court “comprehensively misinterpreted” the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision Barnett Bank of Marion County v. Nelson. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) The panel noted that the full court had been advised of the bank’s petition for rehearing, and no judge had requested a vote on rehearing.