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.

  • New York expands commercial lending disclosure coverage

    State Issues

    On February 16, the New York governor signed S898, which amends the state’s recently enacted commercial financing disclosure law to expand its coverage and delay the effective date. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, the governor signed S5470, which establishes consumer-style disclosure requirements for certain commercial transactions under $500,000. The law exempts (i) financial institutions (defined as a chartered or licensed bank, trust company, industrial loan company, savings and loan association, or federal credit union, authorized to do business in New York); (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) technology service providers;  and (v) lenders who make no more than five applicable transactions in New York in a 12-month period. The law is currently set to take effect on June 21, which is 180 days after the December 23, 2020 enactment. As noted by the sponsor memo, prior to signing the law, the governor “expressed concerns about the reach of the bill and the time needed to implement the required rulemaking.” After enactment, the legislature introduced S898, which contains the “negotiated change to the underlying chapter [to] address[] those concerns.”

    S898 increases the coverage of the consumer-style disclosure requirements to commercial transactions under $2.5 million and creates a new exemption for certain vehicle dealers. The law also extends the effective date to January 1, 2022.

    State Issues State Legislation Commercial Finance Commercial Lending Merchant Cash Advance

  • HUD to “fully enforce” prohibition against sex- and gender-based discrimination

    Federal Issues

    On February 11, HUD announced that it will administer and enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, in response to President Biden’s Executive Order (E.O.) 13988. According to a memorandum issued by HUD’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity (FHEO), the E.O. directs federal agencies to assess actions taken under federal statutes that “prohibit sex discrimination and to fully enforce those statutes to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,” in response to the recent Supreme Court opinion in Bostock v Clayton County (holding that prohibitions against sex discrimination in the workplace contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extend to and include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity). The memorandum notes that “the [FHA’s] sex discrimination provisions are comparable in text and purpose to those of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” thus HUD intends to enforce the FHA to prevent and combat similar discrimination. The memorandum directs HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to, among other things, (i) “accept and investigate all jurisdictional complaints of sex discrimination, including discrimination because of gender identity or sexual orientation…”; (ii) “conduct all activities involving the application, interpretation, and enforcement of the [FHA]’s prohibition on sex discrimination consistent with its conclusion that such discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity”; and (iii) ensure FHEO regional offices and other associated agencies review, within 30 days, all allegations of alleged discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation received since January 20, 2020.

    Federal Issues HUD Fair Housing Act Fair Lending Executive Order

  • OCC issues LIBOR self-assessment tool

    Federal Issues

    On February 10, the OCC issued Bulletin 2021-7, which provides a self-assessment tool for banks to evaluate their preparedness for the LIBOR cessation. The Bulletin reminds banks that they should “develop and implement risk management plans to identify and control risks related to expected [LIBOR] cessation,” and that banks are expected to cease entering into new contracts using LIBOR as a reference rate by December 31, 2021. The self-assessment tool may be used by banks to identify and mitigate the bank’s transition risks, and management should use the tool to “consider all applicable risks (e.g., operational, compliance, strategic, and reputation) when scoping and completing [LIBOR] cessation preparedness assessments.” Not all sections of the tool will apply to all banks, based on the size and complexity of the bank’s LIBOR exposure.

    Continuing InfoBytes coverage on the LIBOR transition available here.

    Federal Issues OCC LIBOR Bank Regulatory

  • States reach $4.2 million settlement to resolve credit card interest overcharges

    State Issues

    On February 8, state attorneys general from Pennsylvania, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina entered into an assurance of voluntary compliance with a national bank to resolve allegations that it overcharged credit card interest for certain consumers. According to the investigating states, between February 2011 and August 2017, the bank allegedly failed to properly reevaluate and reduce the annual percentage rate (APR) for certain consumer credit card account holders who were entitled to a reduction, as required by the CARD Act and state consumer protection laws. The announcement follows a 2018 CFPB settlement, in which the bank agreed to provide $335 million in restitution to affected consumers (covered by InfoBytes here). At the time, the Bureau noted that it did not assess civil monetary penalties due to efforts undertaken by the bank to self-identify and self-report violations to the Bureau. The states also acknowledged that the bank self-identified issues with its APR reevaluation process through an internal compliance program. The bank denied liability or that it violated the states’ consumer protection laws and has agreed to pay $4.2 million to approximately 25,000 current and former affected consumers, which will be limited to consumers who received a payment of $500 or more in restitution from the bank for the original violation.

    State Issues State Attorney General Enforcement Credit Cards Interest CARD Act

  • Insurance company not obligated to indemnify retailer’s payment card claims following data breach

    Courts

    On February 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that an insurance company is not obligated to indemnify a national retailer (plaintiff) for settlements paid to multiple banks to resolve claims over the costs of canceling and reissuing customers’ compromised credit and debit cards after a 2013 data breach. After the data breach, the banks sued the plaintiff for the costs associated with cancelling and reissuing the cards (payment card claims). The plaintiff notified the defendant of its potential liability for payment card costs associated with the data breach, claiming that the payment card claims were covered under the defendant’s commercial general liability policies. The defendant denied coverage under the policies, and the plaintiff filed a breach-of-contract action seeking both declaratory judgment that its liability for the payment-card claims was covered under the policies, as well as judgment against the defendant for the settlement payments related to the payment card claims. In granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court determined, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to “establish[] a connection between the damages incurred for settling claims related to replacing the payment cards and the value of the use of those cards, either to the payment-card holders or issuers.” As such, “the connection between the damages claimed and the loss of use of the payment cards is insufficiently direct and, therefore, the damages claimed are not loss-of-use damages covered under the policies,” the court stated, noting that the defendant’s policies only allowed for indemnification when the plaintiff had a legal obligation to pay damages because of a “loss of use” of “tangible property that is not physically injured.”

    Courts Insurance Indemnification Data Breach Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • NYDFS says climate-based activities may qualify for state CRA credit

    State Issues

    On February 9, NYDFS issued new guidance stating that financing activities that support the climate resiliency of low- and moderate-income (LMI) and underserved communities may receive credit under the New York Community Reinvestment Act (the “New York CRA”). The industry letter notes that LMI and underserved communities are “disproportionally affect[ed]” by climate change because they “tend to be more susceptible to flooding and heat waves” and have “fewer resources to recover from natural disasters.” NYDFS reminds institutions that one way banking institutions subject to the New York CRA are evaluated is the extent to which their activity revitalizes or stabilizes both LMI geographies and underserved geographies, and that financing climate resiliency actions “may help mitigate climate change risks and at the same time revitalize or stabilize those geographic areas.” Accordingly, NYDFS outlines a non-exhaustive list of specific examples that may qualify for credit under the New York CRA, including (i) “renewable energy, energy-efficiency and water conservation equipment or projects for affordable housing…”; (ii) “microgrid or battery storage projects in LMI areas with high flood and/or wind risk…”; and (iii) “installation of air conditioning in multifamily buildings offering affordable housing….” Moreover, NYDFS states that banking institutions may also receive credit for climate resiliency promoting investments or loans to Community Development Financial institutions, among others.

    State Issues NYDFS CRA State Regulators Bank Regulatory

  • Ueijo says CFPB focus is on the economically vulnerable; urges attention to consumer complaints

    Federal Issues

    On February 10, CFPB acting Director Dave Uejio published a blog post sharing his “broad vision” for the Division of Consumer Education and External Affairs (CEEA). This guidance, Uejio emphasized, will help to immediately advance the Bureau’s policy priorities and protect economically vulnerable consumers, which includes making sure consumers who submit complaints to the Bureau “get the response and the relief they deserve.” Observing that some companies have not met their obligations to respond to consumer complaints, Uejio reiterated that “[i]t is the Bureau’s expectation that companies provide substantive responses that address the issues consumers describe in their complaints.” He also noted that because consumer advocates have identified disparities in certain companies’ responses to Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities, he asked Consumer Response to provide an analysis identifying companies with poor track records on these issues. To achieve his goal of assisting economically vulnerable consumers, Uejio asked CEEA to take the following steps:

    • Target resources to ensure struggling homeowners in delinquency or at risk of foreclosure and renters at risk of eviction know their rights.
    • Increase coordination efforts with other agencies to provide assistance and information to at-risk homeowners and renters.
    • Collaborate with coalitions of stakeholders, including consumer advocates, civil rights groups, grassroots, community-based organizations, and individual consumers to ensure homeowners receive information and assistance in languages and terminology they understand.
    • Help ensure homeowners and renters can access HUD-approved housing counseling organizations so they can manage financial hardships due to Covid-19.
    • Take the lead on updating the Bureau’s website so it is more user friendly and focused on consumers rights, and expand the Bureau’s social media presence so consumers can be heard from directly.
    • Aggressively rebuild and repair the Bureau’s relationships with external stakeholders who support economically vulnerable consumers, including consumer, civil rights, racial justice, and tribal and Indigenous rights groups.

    Since being named acting Director, Uejio has also published blog posts conveying his visions for the Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations and the Office of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (covered by InfoBytes here and here).

    Federal Issues CFPB Consumer Finance Consumer Complaints CFPB Succession Covid-19

  • SBA addresses PPP loan error codes

    Federal Issues

    On February 10, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an updated procedural notice providing instructions for lenders addressing Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan error codes. The notice, which revises guidance provided in a previously issued procedural notice (covered by InfoBytes here), addresses (i) Second Draw PPP loan guaranty applications where there is a hold code on the borrower’s First Draw PPP loan, as well as (ii) First Draw PPP loan guaranty applications and Second Draw PPP loan guaranty applications with compliance check error messages. SBA provides lenders with several methods for resolving hold codes and compliance check error messages, including resolution through lender certification or resolution through SBA review. The notice also addresses how SBA handles duplicate loans, loans with multiple DUNS numbers, and other hold codes that cannot be resolved by these processes. The same day, SBA also announced plans to take additional steps to improve the PPP, including (i) enabling “lenders to directly certify eligibility of borrowers for First Draw and Second Draw PPP loan applications with validation errors to ensure businesses who need funds and are eligible receive them as quickly as possible”; (ii) allowing “lenders to upload supporting documentation of borrowers with validation errors during the forgiveness process”; and (iii) creating “additional communication channels with lenders to assure [SBA is] constantly improving equity, speed, and integrity of the program, including an immediate national lender call to brief them on the Platform’s added capabilities.”

    Federal Issues SBA Covid-19 Small Business Lending CARES Act

  • SBA updates PPP processing fee guidance

    Federal Issues

    On February 8, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an updated procedural notice addressing changes to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) processing fees and reporting process. The notice covers the breakdown of fees for first-draw PPP loans made after December 27, 2020 and for second-draw PPP loans. The notice notes that “all processing fees are based on the balance of the PPP loan outstanding at the time of full disbursement of the loan.” The SBA states that lenders may request payment of processing fees after the lender successfully reports that the loan has been fully disbursed by using Form 1502. Moreover, the SBA states that it will remit Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) reconciliation payments from February 9 through February 19. As previously covered by InfoBytes, SBA is no longer deducting EIDL advances from PPP forgiveness payments, and for any forgiveness payments that were already reduced by an EIDL advance, the SBA will automatically remit a reconciliation payment to the PPP lender that will include the advance amount plus interest through the remittance date. 

    Federal Issues Covid-19 SBA EIDL

  • Court holds Arizona car dealerships violated TILA and CLA

    Courts

    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.

    Courts FTC Enforcement TILA CLA FTC Act Auto Finance

Pages

Upcoming Events