InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Chinese government officials for human rights violations
On March 22, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against two current Chinese government officials for alleged corruption violations of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. According to OFAC, the sanctioned persons are connected to serious human rights abuse against ethnic minorities, including Uyghurs, in the Xinjiang region. The sanctions follow previous OFAC designations taken against several other Chinese government entities and current or former government officials for similar corruption violations (covered by InfoBytes here and here). As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons, and “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more” by them, subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations generally prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these persons, which includes “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person or the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods or services from any such person.”
Fed targets flood insurance violations
On March 18, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a Pennsylvania-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and its implementing Regulation H. The consent order assesses a $105,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
Department of Education streamlines borrower defense relief process
On March 18, the Department of Education announced a new, streamlined approach for ensuring federal borrowers who attended institutions that engaged in certain misconduct are able to receive full discharges of their William D. Ford Direct Loan Program loans. The new approach—which rescinds a methodology announced in December 2019 that relied “on publicly available earnings data and a scientifically robust statistical methodology to determine harm”—will immediately create a path for borrowers with approved borrower defense claims to date to receive full loan discharges, including borrowers who already had their claims approved and received only partial relief. In addition, the Department said full relief under the new approach will also include requests to credit bureaus to remove any negative ratings tied to the loans, and reinstatement of a borrower’s federal student aid eligibility, where applicable.
Court rules CDC eviction moratorium unconstitutional
On February 25, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that decisions to enact eviction moratoriums rest with the states and that the federal government’s Article I power under the U.S. Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and enact necessary and proper laws to that end “does not include the power” to order all evictions be stopped during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an eviction moratorium order last September (set to expire March 31), which “generally makes it a crime for a landlord or property owner to evict a ‘covered person’ from a residence” provided certain criteria are met. The CDC’s order grants the DOJ authority to initiate criminal proceedings and allows the imposition of fines up to $500,000. The plaintiffs—owners/managers of residential properties located in Texas—argued that the federal government does not have the authority under Article I to order property owners to not evict specified tenants, and that the decision as to whether an eviction moratorium should be enacted resides with the given state. The CDC countered that Article I afforded it the power to enact a nationwide moratorium, and argued, among other things, that “evictions covered by the CDC order may be rationally viewed as substantially affecting interstate commerce because 15% of changes in residence each year are between States.”
However, the court disagreed stating that the CDC’s “statistic does not readily bear on the effects of the eviction moratorium” at issue, and that moreover, “[i]f statistics like that were enough, Congress could also justify national marriage and divorce laws, as similar incidental effects on interstate commerce exist in that field.” The court determined that the CDC’s eviction moratorium exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. “The federal government cannot say that it has ever before invoked its power over interstate commerce to impose a residential eviction moratorium,” the court wrote. “It did not do so during the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic. . . .Nor did it invoke such a power during the exigencies of the Great Depression. [] The federal government has not claimed such a power at any point during our Nation’s history until last year.”
The DOJ issued a statement on February 27 announcing its decision to appeal the court’s decision, citing that the court’s order “‘does not extend beyond the particular plaintiffs in that case, and it does not prohibit the application of the CDC’s eviction moratorium to other parties. For other landlords who rent to covered persons, the CDC’s eviction moratorium remains in effect.’”
Washington passes law allowing mortgage employees to work from home
On March 24, the Washington legislature passed SB 5077, allowing licensed mortgage loan originator activity to be conducted from the mortgage loan originator’s residence if, among other things, certain state and information security requirements are satisfied.
SBA increases lending limit for Covid-19 EIDL program
On March 24, the Small Business Administration (SBA) announced that the maximum amount small businesses and non-profit organizations can borrow through its Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program will increase beginning the week of April 6. According to the announcement, SBA will raise the loan limit for Covid-19 disaster loans “from 6-months of economic injury with a maximum loan amount of $150,000 to up to 24-months of economic injury with a maximum loan amount of $500,000.” New loan applications, as well as loans-in-process when the increase takes effect “will automatically be considered” for the new maximum loan limit. This change follows SBA’s announcement earlier this month, which extended the deferment period for all disaster loans, including Covid-19 EIDLs, until 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here).
CFPB: 54 percent increase in consumer complaints from 2019
On March 24, the CFPB published its Consumer Response Annual Report for 2020, providing a review of the Bureau’s complaint process and a description of complaints received from consumers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia between January 1 and December 31, 2020. According to the report, the Bureau handled approximately 542,300 consumer complaints—an almost 54 percent increase from 2019. Of these complaints, the Bureau noted that roughly 32,100 complaints referenced the Covid-19 pandemic or related keywords, but emphasized that complaints that did not include Covid-19 as a keyword were not necessarily an indication that the complaint was not related to the financial impact of the pandemic. Additionally, roughly 84 percent of the complaints were submitted to companies for review and response, nine percent were referred to other regulatory agencies, and seven percent were determined to be incomplete. Report data showed that more than 3,300 companies responded to complaints received by the Bureau, with roughly 11,100 complaints receiving administrative responses. In addition, as of February 1, 2021, approximately 3,900 complaints were still being reviewed by companies, the report stated. The top products and services—representing approximately 92 percent of all complaints—were credit or consumer reporting, debt collection, credit cards, checking or savings accounts, and mortgages. The Bureau also received complaints related to: (i) money transfers and virtual currency; (ii) vehicle finance; (iii) prepaid cards; (iv) student, personal, and payday loans; (v) credit repair; and (vi) title loans. The CFPB also reported that 89 percent of consumers who submitted complaints indicated that they first tried to resolve their issues with the companies.
FHA: Temporary endorsement of mortgages under forbearance will expire March 31
On March 23, FHA issued a reminder regarding the upcoming expiration of the temporary guidance concerning endorsement processes for mortgages where a borrower was granted a forbearance related to the Covid-19 pandemic prior to the loan being endorsed for FHA insurance. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the temporary guidance—announced last June in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2020-16—granted mortgagees the ability to submit a mortgage for insurance endorsement involving a borrower who is experiencing financial hardships due to the Covid-19 pandemic, provided the mortgagee “executes a two-year partial indemnification agreement.” The temporary guidance was last extended in ML 2020-45, and is set to expire March 31.
SBA implements newest PPP changes
On March 22, the SBA published an interim final rule (IFR) implementing recent changes to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) that were included in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, enacted on March 11 (covered by InfoBytes here). These changes include “expanding the eligibility for First- and Second-Draw PPP loans, revising the exclusions from payroll costs for purposes of loan forgiveness, and providing that a PPP borrower that receives a PPP loan after December 27, 2020 can be approved for a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant [(SVOG)] under certain conditions.” Specifically, if a borrower received a First- or Second-Draw PPP loan after December 27, 2020, the amount of the subsequently approved SVOG will be reduced by the amount of the PPP loan. However, if a PPP applicant is approved for an SVOG before SBA issues a PPP loan number, the applicant will be ineligible for the PPP loan and “acceptance of any PPP loan proceeds will be considered an unauthorized use.” The IFR also provides several other clarifications and changes, which will apply to PPP loans approved, as well as loan forgiveness applications submitted, on or after March 11, 2021. The IFR took effect March 18. To assist SVOG applicants, SBA announced the launch of a splash page for the SVOG application portal, which will begin accepting applications April 8.
Earlier on March 18, SBA also released the following updated forms: (i) PPP loan guaranty application for lenders; (ii) Second-Draw loan guaranty lender application; (iii) First-Draw and Second-Draw PPP loan application forms; and (iv) First-Draw and Second-Draw PPP borrower applications for Schedule C filers using gross income.
CFPB and FTC release 2020 FDCPA report
On March 22, the CFPB and the FTC released their 2020 annual report to Congress on the administration of the FDCPA. Under a memorandum of understanding, the agencies are provided joint FDCPA enforcement responsibility and may share supervisory and consumer complaint information, as well as collaborate on education efforts. Among other things, the report provides a broad overview of the debt collection industry during the Covid-19 pandemic and highlights enforcement actions, education efforts, policy initiatives, and supervisory findings. The report also notes that the Bureau handled roughly 82,700 complaints filed by consumers about first- and third-party debt collectors in 2020, up from the 75,000 complaints it received in 2019, and engaged in four public enforcement actions arising from alleged FDCPA violations. Judgments resulting from these actions yielded nearly $15.2 million in consumer redress and $80,000 in civil money penalties. Additionally, the report discusses the Bureau’s FDCPA-rulemaking actions taken last year, including the issuance of two final rules amending Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The report notes that both final rules are scheduled to take effect on November 30, but also refers to a February statement released by acting Director Dave Uejio, in which he “directed staff to ‘explore options for preserving the status quo’” with respect to the debt collection rules.
Earlier in the week, the FTC announced it provided the CFPB last month with its annual summary of debt collection-related activities taken in 2020. While the FTC’s debt collection program primarily focuses on enforcement investigations and litigation with respect to violations of the FDCPA and the FTC Act, the summary also highlights Commission efforts to engage in public outreach, as well as partnerships with the Bureau and other government agencies to combat unlawful debt collection practices. Highlights of the summary include:
- The creation of Operation Corrupt Collector, a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort led by the FTC in coordination with the CFPB and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC filed or resolved seven cases against 39 defendants, obtaining $26 million in judgments.
- The FTC accused a company and three of its officers of allegedly engaging in passive debt collection—a practice known as “debt parking”—in which the defendants placed debts that consumers did not owe or the defendants were not authorized to collect on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumers about the debts (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC and the New York attorney general permanently banned an individual defendant accused of engaging in “serious and repeated violations of law” from participating in debt collection activities (covered by InfoBytes here).
- The FTC produced educational materials for both consumers and debt collectors covering rights and responsibilities under the FDCPA and FTC Act, including resources specifically for Spanish speakers.