InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal agencies issue disaster relief guidance for North Carolina, Indiana, and Hawaii
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
On May 16, the Department of Veterans affairs released Circular 26-18-10, requesting relief for veterans impacted by Hawaii’s volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Among other things, the Circular (i) encourages loan holders to extend forbearance to borrowers in distress because of the storms; (ii) requests that loan holders establish a 90-day moratorium on initiating new foreclosures on loans affected by the major disaster; and (iii) waives late charges on affected loans. Previously on May 14, the VA released Circular 26-18-08 and Circular 26-18-09, which provide for similar relief in areas affected by severe storms and flooding in Hawaii and North Carolina.
FDIC
On May 16, the FDIC issued FIL-28-2018 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and facilitate recovery in areas of Indiana affected by severe storms and flooding from February 14 through March 4. The FDIC is encouraging institutions to consider, among other things, extending repayment terms and restructuring existing loans that may be affected by the natural disasters. Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration for certain development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The FDIC also issued FIL-29-2018, which provides similar guidance for financial institutions for areas of North Carolina affected by tornadoes and severe storms on April 15.
Find more InfoBytes disaster relief coverage here.
D.C. Circuit rejects challenge to FTC’s 2016 staff letter on soundboard technology
On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a challenge to a November 2016 FTC staff letter, which announced the FTC would treat calls using soundboard technology as robocalls. According to the D.C. Circuit opinion, the FTC’s 2016 staff letter rescinded a 2009 staff letter, which reached the conclusion that soundboard technology was not subject to robocall regulation. The Soundboard Association filed suit, seeking to enjoin the rescission of the 2009 letter, arguing that the 2016 staff letter violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing a legislative rule without notice and comment and that it unconstitutionally restricted speech in violation of the First Amendment. The lower court granted summary judgment for the FTC holding that the 2016 letter did not violate the First Amendment and that the letter was an interpretive rule and therefore not subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA. Upon appeal, the D.C. Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision and dismissed the action in its entirety, holding that the 2016 letter was not a “final agency action” and therefore, the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under the APA.
District Court rules that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies under False Claims Act
On May 9, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) against a national bank and its predecessors-in-interest (defendants), which alleged that the defendants presented false information to Federal Reserve Banks (FRBanks) in connection with their applications for loans. The court held that allegations of false or fraudulent claims being presented to the FRBanks cannot form the basis of an FCA action because the FRBanks cannot be characterized as the federal government for purposes of the FCA.
The relators in the action originally brought a whistleblower lawsuit against the bank, alleging that the defendants inaccurately represented their financial condition in order to be eligible to borrow from the FRBanks’ discount window at lower interest rates. By way of background, in order for liability to incur under the FCA, a false or fraudulent claim must be made to the federal government or its agents. Therefore, the court needed to resolve two legal issues: (i) whether FRBanks should be characterized as the government or its agents for purposes of the FCA, and (ii) whether the federal government paid any portion of the loans the defendants received or reimbursed the FRBanks for issuing the loans.
In supporting its conclusion that FRBanks are not government actors, the court reasoned that the Federal Reserve Act (FRA), which created the Federal Reserve districts and FRBanks, did not designate the FRBanks as part of an executive department or agency. The court also noted that although the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Board) is a federal agency, each FRBank operates as a private corporation owned by private stockholders, receives no government appropriations, and generates its own income from interest earned on government securities. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the Board provides only general policy supervision, FRBank employees are not government employees, and FRBanks lack the ability to promulgate regulations and operate independently of the Board and the government.
In resolving the second issue, the court agreed with the defendants’ argument that the bank’s loan requests did not create FCA liability for claims, because the relators did not, and could not, “allege that the [g]overnment either provided any portion of the money loaned to the defendants, or reimbursed [FRBanks] for making the loans.”
FTC Commissioner calls for stricter penalties and structural remedies against recidivist companies that violate consent orders
On May 14, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra released a memo to FTC staff and commissioners calling for more forceful penalties and structural remedies against companies and individuals that fail to comply with consent orders. Chopra announced that a key consideration for the FTC will be “whether the proposed remedies address the underlying causes of the noncompliance.” He proposed several “structural remedies” for the FTC to consider implementing against “recidivist” companies such as (i) banning certain business practices; (ii) forcing divestiture or closure of problematic operating units; (iii) removing company executives and board directors responsible for overseeing conduct that violates an order; (iv) dismissing third-party compliance consultants who fail to detect conduct that violates an order; (v) targeting company executives and through “clawbacks, forfeitures, and reforms to executive compensation agreements;” and (vi) requiring firms to raise equity capital should corporate debt “create risks to consumers and competition in the form of an order violation.” Chopra stated that repeat offenders who “flout our orders must face severe consequences—irrespective of whether they are small-time scammers or sophisticated corporations.”
Federal Reserve Board to vote on national bank’s asset growth restriction
On May 10, Federal Reserve Board (Board) Chairman Jerome H. Powell responded to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s request concerning a formal commitment by the Board to vote on whether a national bank’s remediation plans to improve its compliance and operational risk management program meet the terms set forth by the Board’s February 2 order to cease and desist (Order). (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to Powell, the decision to lift the asset growth restriction placed on the bank as part of the Order will be determined by a vote of the Board of Governors. In addressing an additional request made by Sen. Warren that the third-party review of the bank’s remedial actions required by the Order be publicly released, Powell stated that when the third-party review is ready, “we will review that report to determine whether and to what extent the report can be publicly disclosed without impairing protected interests.” Powell noted that typically evaluations of that kind are not released to the public because they contain confidential supervisory information that would, if disclosed, “likely impair the effectiveness of the supervisory process,” among other things.
Court preliminarily approves $80 million settlement for shareholders after global internet company data breach
On May 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a preliminary approval of a settlement between a global internet media company and its shareholders over alleged securities law violations related to cybersecurity breaches in 2013 and 2014. The $80 million settlement resolves a consolidated shareholder action accusing the company of making misleading statements to shareholders about the company’s data security. According to the order, the settlement applies to all shareholders who acquired the company’s securities between April 30, 2013 and December 14, 2016. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the company was recently ordered by the SEC to pay $35 million to resolve allegations related to the same cybersecurity incidents.
FCC seeks comments on interpretation of autodialer under TCPA
On May 14, 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 v. FCC. (Covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert.) The notice requests, among other things, comment on what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system” (autodialer) due to the court setting aside the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of an autodialer as “unreasonably expansive.” Specifically, the FCC requests comment on how to interpret the term “capacity” under the TCPA’s definition of an autodialer (“equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers”) and requests comment on the functions a device must be able to perform to qualify as an autodialer, including how “automatic” the dialing mechanism must be. Additionally, the notice seeks comment on (i) how to treat reassigned wireless numbers under the TCPA; (ii) how a party may revoke prior express consent to receive robocalls; and (iii) three pending petitions for reconsideration, including the 2016 Broadnet Declaratory Ruling and the 2016 Federal Debt Collection Rules. Comments are due by June 13 and reply comments are due by June 28.
On May 3, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Bankers Association, and over a dozen more trade associations petitioned the FCC seeking a declaratory ruling on the definition of an autodialer under the TCPA, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Maryland expands authority over credit reporting agencies
On May 8, Maryland governor Larry Hogan signed HB848, which expands Maryland’s authority over Credit Reporting Agencies (CRAs) by requiring CRAs to develop a secure system to process electronic requests for placing, lifting, or removing a security freeze. Additionally, the law expands the definition of “protected consumer” for purposes of free security freezes to include persons age 85 or older, certain members of the military, and incarcerated individuals. The law also (i) codifies an existing requirement that CRAs register with the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation (OCFR); (ii) allows the OCFR to investigate written consumer complaints against CRAs; and (iii) increases the maximum civil monetary penalty to $1,000 for the first violation and $2,500 for each subsequent violation. The law is effective October 1.
Supreme Court says states can legalize sports gambling
On May 14, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which, among other things, bans most states from authorizing sports gambling, violates the 10th Amendment “anticommandeering” principle. The decision results from a lawsuit filed by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and four major professional sports leagues alleging that a 2012 New Jersey state law legalizing sports betting violated PASPA. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed with the NCAA and New Jersey revised the law in 2014. The new law removed existing bans on sports gambling at horseracing tracks, casinos, and gambling houses in Atlantic City as long as the wagers did not involve New Jersey college teams or a collegiate event in the state. The NCAA filed suit again and the district court, with the 3rd Circuit affirming, held that the revised law violated PASPA. New Jersey appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that PASPA violates the “anticommandeering” principle of the Constitution.
In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that the PASPA provision, which prohibits state authorization of sports gambling, “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.” The Court rejected the NCAA’s argument that PASPA preempts, not commandeers, state laws that conflict with its provisions, concluding that preemption applies to private actors and the prohibition cannot be understood “as anything other than a direct command to the States.” The Court went on to hold that no provision of PASPA is severable from the anti-authorization provision and, therefore, the entire law should be struck down. The majority acknowledged that the legalization of sports gambling is an important, yet controversial, policy choice but not a choice for the Court to make. “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own.”
Federal banking agencies seek comments on proposal to revise regulatory capital rules
On May 14, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC published a joint notice and request for comment on a proposal to revise regulatory capital rules to, among other things, identify which credit loss allowances are “eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital” under changes made to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), described within Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13 (ASU 2016-13). The proposed rulemaking would provide (i) banking organizations subject to the agencies’ regulatory capital rules with “the option to phase in the day-one adverse effects on regulatory capital that may result from the adoption of the new accounting standard;” (ii) amendments to certain regulatory disclosure requirements to reflect applicable changes to U.S. GAAP covered under ASU 2016-13; (iii) amendments to stress testing regulations, which would grant covered banking organizations that have adopted ASU 2016-13 an extension until the 2020 stress test cycle to “include the effect of ASU 2016-13 on their provisioning for purposes of stress testing;” and (iv) conforming amendments to other regulations referencing credit loss allowances. Comments must be submitted by July 13.