InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS launches online portal for anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulation compliance certification
On April 9, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced the launch of a new online portal that regulated entities may use to securely file certifications required under New York’s risk-based anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering regulation. This regulation took effect January 1, 2017, and regulated entities must file their first certification of compliance by April 16 and annually thereafter. The regulation requires regulated entities to maintain programs to monitor and filter transactions for potential Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering violations, and ban transactions with sanctioned entities. The announcement states that filing through the online portal is preferred over alternative filing mechanisms.
Student loan servicer seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to resolve dispute concerning preemption of state law
On April 4, a Pennsylvania-based student loan servicer (servicer) that services federal student loans on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Connecticut Department of Banking and its banking commissioner (together, the Connecticut Defendants), and the Department, seeking a judicial determination that the federal Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act) preempts Connecticut law requiring the servicer to disclose certain records containing confidential information about its student loan borrowers to the state, along with data related to borrower complaints, or risk revocation of its state servicer’s license. In addition, the servicer seeks injunctive relief against the Connecticut Defendants to prevent the enforcement of state law in contravention of the Privacy Act and revocation of the servicer’s license.
In support of the injunctive relief sought, the servicer cites several irreparable harms, including (i) the potential termination of its federal loan servicing contract; (ii) the revocation of its license to service, which would adversely affect approximately 100,000 student borrowers in the state, and (iii) the potential impact on loan servicing arrangements that the servicer has with “dozens of private lenders doing business in Connecticut.”
As previously covered in InfoBytes, on March 12 Department Secretary Betsy DeVos published an Interpretation that asserted the position that state “regulation of the servicing of Direct Loans” is preempted because it “impedes uniquely Federal interests,” and state regulation of the servicing of loan under the Federal Family Education Loan Program “is preempted to the extent that it undermines uniform administration of the program.” However, last month—as discussed in InfoBytes—a bipartisan coalition of 30 state Attorneys General released a letter urging Congress to reject Section 493E(d) of the Higher Education Act reauthorization—H.R. 4508, known as the “PROSPER Act”—which would prohibit states from “overseeing, licensing, or addressing certain state law violations by companies that originate, service, or collect on student loans.” The states expressed a concern that, if enacted, the law would preempt state consumer protection laws for student borrowers and constitute “an all-out assault on states’ rights and basic principles of federalism.”
VA releases FAQs on IRRRL policy guidance
On April 5, the Department of Veterans Affairs released FAQs regarding policy guidance for VA Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loans (IRRRL). The FAQs address a range of questions regarding the IRRRL policy guidance issued in February (previously covered by InfoBytes here), including noting that the requirement to provide the Lender Certification disclosure with initial disclosure documents has been removed. If a Lender Certification is necessary, the lender will be required to provide the document at closing. Additionally, the FAQs clarify that, while the lender will need to be able to demonstrate that the Veteran’s Statement was sent to and received by the veteran in the initial disclosure package, the VA will not require the veteran’s signature until the final statement given with the closing documents.
FFIEC joint statement addresses role of cyber insurance in risk management programs
On April 10, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) members issued a joint statement advising financial institutions to consider the role of cyber insurance as a component of their overall risk management programs in light of the increasing number of sophisticated cyber-attacks. While financial institutions are not required to have cyber insurance, the FFIEC stated that it can be an effective tool to help mitigate risk. However, the FFIEC emphasized that cyber insurance does not diminish the need for a sound control environment; rather, it “may be a component of a broader risk management strategy that includes identifying, measuring, mitigating and monitoring cyber risk exposure.” Additionally, cyber insurance may offset financial losses resulting from data breaches that may not be covered by traditional insurance policies. Considerations for financial institutions assessing the costs and benefits of adding cyber insurance include: (i) involving multiple stakeholders in the decision, (ii) conducting proper due diligence to understand coverage and identify any gaps; and (iii) reviewing cyber insurance as part of a financial institution’s annual insurance review and budgeting process.
9th Circuit amended opinion holds company not vicariously liable under TCPA
On April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued an amended opinion to further affirm a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant concerning allegations that it was vicariously liable for telemarketing activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The three-judge panel held that the defendant, who sells vehicle service contracts (VSCs) through automobile dealers and “marketing vendors,” was not vicariously liable under the TCPA for calls made by telemarketers employed by a company that sold VSCs for the defendant and multiple other companies. Last August, the three-judge panel determined that the company’s telemarketers acted as independent contractors, rather than as the defendant’s agents. In amending their opinion, the three-judge panel further determined that the telemarketers lacked actual authority (under express language contained within the parties’ contract) to place the unlawful calls, and that the defendant “exercised insufficient control over the manner and means of the work to establish vicarious liability under the asserted theory.”
Oregon amends debt collection statute to expand coverage to debt buyers
On April 3, the Oregon governor signed SB 1553, which amends Oregon’s debt collection laws to provide that a debt buyer (or a debt collector acting on a debt buyer’s behalf) engages in unlawful collection practice if it collects or attempts to collect a debt without providing a debtor, within 30 days of their request, documents which establish the nature and amount of debt.
District court rejects motions for summary judgement on FDCPA claims filed by CFPB, debt collection law firm
On April 9, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio rejected motions for partial summary judgment and summary judgment filed respectively by the CFPB and a law firm accused of making false representations regarding attorney involvement in debt collection calls in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Dodd-Frank. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the CFPB alleged in its complaint that the law firm sent demand letters and made collection calls to consumers that falsely implied that the consumer’s account files had been meaningfully reviewed by an attorney, when, in most cases, no attorney had reviewed the account file. Among other things, the law firm countered that, because its communications truthfully identified it as a law firm and it was acting as a debt collector, these communications were not misleading to the “least sophisticated consumer”—a factor of measurement for analyzing FDCPA violations. The court ruled that “whether the communications at issue are misleading is a question of fact that must be determined by a jury.” The jury trial is set for May 1.
Agencies seek OMB approval on November 2017 Call Report revisions
On April 11, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC—as members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)—published a joint notice and request for comment for OMB review and approval regarding revisions to the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for financial institutions. The finalized changes modify Call Reports applicable to banks with (i) domestic offices only and less than $1 billion in total assets (FFIEC 051); (ii) domestic offices only (FFIEC 041); and (iii) domestic and foreign offices (FFIEC 031). The changes include removing or consolidating certain data items and adding a new or raising certain existing reporting thresholds in the three versions of the Call Report. Comments must be submitted by May 11. Subject to OMB approval, the revisions would take effect as of the June 30, 2018 report date. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the changes were originally proposed in November 2017.
CFPB releases RFI on consumer complaints and inquiries
On April 11, the CFPB released its twelfth (and apparently final) Request for Information (RFI) in a series seeking feedback on the Bureau’s operations. This RFI solicits public comment to assist the Bureau in assessing its handling of consumer complaints and consumer inquiries. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is required to “facilitate the centralized collection of, monitoring of, and response to consumer complaints regarding consumer financial products or services.” According to the RFI, a “consumer complaint” relates to an issue a consumer has with an identifiable entity, whereas a “consumer inquiry” is a consumer request for information from the CFPB regarding a financial product or service, a CFPB action, or the status of a complaint. While the Bureau is seeking feedback on all aspects of its consumer complaints and consumer inquiries processes, the RFI specifically seeks comments related to (i) how the Bureau distinguishes between complaints and inquiries, including if there should be a process for companies to reclassify consumer submissions; (ii) the complaint submission process, including the channels of submission and whether consumers should be allowed to authorize a third-party to submit on their behalf; and (iii) whether the Bureau should develop a process for companies to provide responses to consumer inquiries. The RFI is expected to be published in the Federal Register on April 16. Comments will be due 90 days from publication.
The CFPB sought information on the publication of complaints in the Consumer Complaint Database and other forms of complaint reporting in an earlier RFI, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Federal Reserve proposes changes to simplify capital rules for large banks
On April 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) announced proposed changes intended to simplify the capital regime applicable to bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets by integrating the Board’s regulatory capital rule (capital rule) and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and stress test rules. The proposal introduces a “stress capital buffer” (SCB) requirement which will replace the existing fixed capital conservation buffer requirement. Under the proposal, the size of the SCB will be based on the annual stress test and will be added to the bank’s capital requirements for the coming year. For globally systemically important banks (GSIB), a GSIB surcharge will be added to the determined SCB amount. According to the Board’s announcement, the amount of capital required for GSIBs will generally stay the same or somewhat increase, while non-GSIBs will generally see a modest decrease. Overall, the Board states that the changes would reduce the number of capital-related requirements from 24 to 14. Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.