InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court holds Arizona car dealerships violated TILA and CLA
On February 5, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part summary judgment in favor of the FTC, concluding the owners of a car dealership with locations in Arizona and New Mexico (collectively, “defendants”) failed to include legally required information in violation of TILA and the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August 2020, the FTC brought charges against the defendants for violations of TILA, the CLA, and FTC Act, on the grounds that the defendants purportedly falsified consumers’ income and down payments on credit applications in order to make the consumers seem more creditworthy, which resulted in consumers “default[ing] at a higher rate than properly qualified buyers.” The FTC asserted that these advertising practices were deceptive in that they concealed the true nature and terms of the financing or leasing offers and thus were in violation of federal law for failing to disclose the required terms.
Subsequently, the corporate defendants stipulated to a permanent injunction and monetary judgment and the FTC moved for summary judgment against the co-owners. As against the owners, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the FTC on the TILA and CLA claims, concluding that the advertisements were “missing legally required information such as the terms of repayment or the annual percentage rate.” However, the court denied summary judgment as to the FTC Act claims, after the defendants provided declarations from a small sample of consumers admitting to knowing the down payment and income information was misreported. The court determined that based on the declarations, a reasonable jury could infer that “consumers were not likely deceived or misled, only led astray and persuaded to participate in a lie.” However, the court did not grant full relief requested by the FTC. In particular, the court did not grant summary judgment on the FTC Act claims and held it was premature to hold one of the owners individually responsible for the TILA and CLA claims. Provided these findings presented unresolved factual issues, the court found reason to delay the entry of judgment.
California Department of Real Estate reissues FAQs regarding licensing process
On February 10, the California Department of Real Estate reissued FAQs regarding licensing and examination processes of the department during Covid-19. The FAQs respond to questions regarding, among other things, capacity limitations at exam centers, how to reschedule a cancelled exam, the best way to complete a renewal of an expiring real estate license, completing continuing education requirements, how the shelter in place orders affect the fingerprinting process, and whether the DRE will accept electronic signatures on licensing documents.
Florida reminds lenders of their credit reporting requirements under the CARES act
On February 10, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation released a set of “Compliance Tips” reminding lenders and their servicers that they may be required to report certain delinquent loans as “current” pursuant to the CARES Act. The guidance reminds lenders and loan servicers that under the federal CARES Act, those consumers who were not delinquent as of April 1, 2020 and who subsequently received an accommodation and are complying with the accommodation agreement should be reported as “current.” The tips also urged lenders to be proactive with borrowers to resolve credit reporting errors. Lastly, the tips advised lenders to seek out how reporting errors may have been made, and implement additional internal controls to ensure similar errors do not reoccur.
FHFA extends foreclosure moratorium, increases forbearance and deferral timelines
On February 9, the FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) will extend their moratorium on single-family foreclosures and real estate owned (REO) evictions until at least March 31 (which was set to expire on February 28, previously covered here). The foreclosure moratorium applies to homeowners with a GSE-backed, single-family mortgage only, and the REO eviction moratorium applies to properties that were acquired by the GSEs through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transactions. Additionally, FHFA announced that borrowers may be eligible for up to a three-month forbearance extension so long as they are on a Covid-19 forbearance plan as of February 28 (details on the Covid-19 forbearance covered by InfoBytes here) and the Covid-19 payment deferral may now cover up to 15 months of missed payments (previously covering up to 12 months of missed payments, additional details covered by InfoBytes here).
Additionally, FHFA issued an extension of several loan origination guidelines put in place to assist borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, FHFA extended until March 31 existing guidelines related to: (i) alternative appraisal requirements on purchase and rate term refinance loans; (ii) alternative methods for documenting income and verifying employment before loan closing; and (iii) expanding the use of power of attorney to assist with loan closings.
The extensions are implemented in updates to Fannie Mae Lender Letters LL-2021-02, LL-2021-03, LL-2021-04; LL-2021-07; and Freddie Mac Guide Bulletin 2021-6; Bulletin 2021-7 and Selling FAQs.
Fed further extends temporary exception to allow bank insiders access to PPP
On February 9, the Federal Reserve Board announced the second extension of a temporary exception from the requirements of section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and corresponding provisions of Regulation O to allow bank directors and shareholders to apply for Small Business Administration (SBA) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans from their affiliated banks. The extension is effective immediately and goes through March 31. The Fed reiterated that any PPP loans extended to bank directors and shareholders must be consistent with SBA’s PPP lending restrictions and done without favoritism from the bank. The original extension was announced on April 17 and already extended once (covered by InfoBytes here).
NYDFS details redlining issues from nonbank lenders
On February 4, NYDFS released a report on redlining in the Buffalo metropolitan area, concluding that there is a “distinct lack of lending by mortgage lenders, particularly non-depository lenders” to majority-minority populations and to minority homebuyers in general. Among other things, the report concluded that (i) while minorities in the Buffalo region comprise about 20 percent of the population, they receive less than 10 percent of total loans made in the region; (ii) nonbank lenders lent at a lower rate in majority-minority neighborhoods than depository institutions did; and (iii) several of the nonbank mortgage lenders did not have adequate fair lending compliance programs and do not make an effort to serve majority-minority neighborhoods. The report made numerous recommendations, including a recommendation to amend the New York Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to cover nonbank mortgage lenders and a request that the OCC and the CFPB investigate federally regulated institutions serving the Buffalo area for violations of fair lending laws.
Additionally, NYDFS announced a settlement with a nonbank lender in connection with its lending to minorities and in majority-minority neighborhoods in Buffalo and Syracuse, New York. The settlement agreement found no evidence of intentional discrimination or fair lending law violations but rather weaknesses in the lender’s compliance program. The agreement outlines efforts the lender will take to “provide more meaningful access to residential loans and financing for minorities and individuals living in majority-minority neighborhoods” in Western and Central New York. Among other things, the lender will (i) develop a compliance management plan; (ii) increase marketing to majority-minority census tracts; (iii) create a $150,000 special financing program to increase loan originations for residents of majority-minority neighborhoods; and (iv) increase annual training.
11th Circuit: Future identity theft risk does not confer standing
On February 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a class action complaint, which raised several claims against a restaurant following a data breach that exposed customers’ financial information, for the named plaintiff’s lack of standing. According to the opinion, a restaurant chain suffered a data breach when hackers gained access to customers’ credit and debit card information through an outside vendor’s remote connection tool. The restaurant chain provided notice to customers that their information “‘may’ have been accessed.” A consumer, who made two purchases during the data breach period, cancelled the credit cards he used and filed a class action two weeks after the announcement of the breach, alleging the company was negligent in failing to safeguard the credit card data, and violated the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (FUDTPA), among others. The district court dismissed the action for lack of standing, concluding that the consumer failed to identify a “single specific, concrete injury in fact that he or anyone else [] suffered as a result of any misuse of customer credit card information.”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding. The appellate court rejected the consumer’s theories of standing, which were predicated on (i) a threatened “future injury” of identity theft, and (ii) the consumer’s alleged suffering of “mitigation injuries” (i.e., lost time, lost rewards points, and loss of access to accounts). The appellate court explained that in data breach cases like this, to have Article III standing the consumer must show a “substantial risk” of harm or that harm (e.g., identity theft) is “certainly impending.” The appellate court noted that despite the consumer still carrying “some risk of future harm involving identify theft,” that risk “is not substantial and is, at best, speculative” because the consumer “immediately cancelled his credit cards following disclosure [of the breach], effectively eliminating the risk of credit card fraud in the future.” Moreover, according to the appellate court, the consumer did not sufficiently allege an actual, present injury, through “inflicting injuries on himself to avoid an insubstantial, non-imminent risk of identity theft.” The appellate court reasoned that “[t]o hold otherwise would allow an enterprising plaintiff to secure a lower standard for Article III standing simply by making an expenditure based on a nonparanoid fear.”
OCC conditionally approves conversion of cryptocurrency trust company
On February 5, the OCC announced that it conditionally approved a Washington state-chartered trust company’s application to convert to a national trust bank. According to the OCC, the trust company—which will provide cryptocurrency custody services for clients in a fiduciary capacity—“is currently in the organizational phase of development and will have up to 18 months to meet the terms of its conditional approval before it converts to a national trust bank and begins to operate.” By receiving a national trust bank charter, the trust company will be allowed to provide nationwide services to customers through offices in Seattle, Boston, and New York, and over the internet. The trust company also intends to expand its custody services to support additional types of digital assets beyond cryptocurrencies, including certain tokens and stable coins, and plans to eventually offer, among other things, client-to-client trading and lending platforms. The OCC notes that approval of the conversion is subject to several conditions, including that the trust company “not engage in activities that would cause it to be a ‘bank’ as defined in section 2(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act.”
NYDFS issues Cybersecurity Insurance Risk Framework
On February 4, NYDFS issued a framework outlining industry best practices for state-regulated property/casualty insurers writing cyber insurance. The new Cyber Insurance Risk Framework provides guidance for effectively managing cyber insurance risk and is the first guidance released by a U.S. regulator on this topic. In recognizing the growing risk and the challenges insurers face when trying to manage that risk, NYDFS advised insurers to “establish a formal strategy for measuring cyber insurance risk that is directed and approved by its board or other governing entity[.]” According to the guidance, the insurer’s strategy should be proportionate to the insurer’s risk and take into account “the insurer’s size, resources, geographic distribution, and other factors.” NYDFS also advised insurers to:
- Eliminate exposure to “silent” cyber insurance risk resulting from a cyber incident that an insurer is obligated to cover even though its policy “does not explicitly mention cyber incidents.”
- Evaluate systemic risk, including how catastrophic cyber events impact third-party vendors.
- Measure and assess potential cybersecurity gaps and vulnerabilities through a data-driven approach.
- Educate insureds and insurance producers on the value of cybersecurity measures, as well as the uses and limitations of cyber insurance.
- Recruit and hire employees with cybersecurity experience.
- Include a requirement in cyber insurance policies that victim-insureds notify law enforcement when a cyber attack occurs.
Wyoming executive order instructing cooperation with federal agencies to implement Emergency Rental Assistance Program
On February 8, the governor of Wyoming issued Executive Order 2021-02, which instructs the Wyoming Department of Family Services (WDFS) to prepare for the implementation of the federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP.) Section (b) specifically charges WDFS to enter into “formal or informal” cooperative agreements with any necessary federal agency, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for “information-sharing, planning, and technical assistance” related to rolling out ERAP.