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.

  • California begins accepting applications for their Covid-19 rent relief program

    State Issues

    On March 15, California launched their CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Program to aid landlords and renters who have unpaid rental debt due to Covid-19. In order to be eligible, a tenant must have “suffered a financial hardship” as a result of Covid-19 and have 80% or less of the area median income for their location. Landlords with eligible tenants may receive up to 80% of a tenant’s unpaid rent if they agree to waive the remaining 20%.

    State Issues California Covid-19 Mortgages Tenant Rights

  • Nevada Dept. of Business and Industry extends work from home guidance

    State Issues

    On March 15, the Nevada Department of Business of Industry, Division of Mortgage Lending extended its provisional guidance allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home (previously covered herehere, and here) until June 30, 2021.

    State Issues Covid-19 Nevada Mortgages Mortgage Licensing Licensing Mortgage Origination

  • Michigan regulator urges institutions to protect stimulus payments from overdrafts, fees

    State Issues

    On March 15, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services issued a bulletin “strongly” encouraging financial institutions to protect payments made to customers under the American Rescue Plan from overdrafts and fees. The bulletin further instructs that if a financial institution’s system automatically applies such a payment to a preexisting overdraft, the institution should reverse the application of the direct payment as promptly as possible.

    State Issues Covid-19 Michigan Bank Compliance Overdraft Financial Institutions

  • Michigan regulators, business associations urge underserved businesses to apply for PPP loans

    State Issues

    On March 15, the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, the Michigan Bankers Association, Community Bankers of Michigan, the Michigan Credit Union League and the National Business League urged minority-owned and other underserved businesses in Michigan to apply for forgivable loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) prior to the March 31, 2021 deadline. The announcement highlighted that community development financial institutions offer specialized support to underserved communities and can assist customers with limited or no credit history to obtain a PPP Loan.

    State Issues Covid-19 Michigan Lending

  • Colorado governor extends suspension of regulatory statutes

    State Issues

    On March 15, the Colorado governor issued an executive order extending numerous previous executive orders for 30 days. Among other things, the previous orders suspended certain aspects of Colorado statutes concerning foreign entity qualifications to conduct business in Colorado.

    State Issues Colorado Covid-19

  • California delays implementation of tax treatment law for forgiven PPP loans

    State Issues

    On March 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a joint statement along with the California Senate president pro tempore and Assembly speaker related to the tax treatment of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. California intends to delay those portions of Assembly Bill 1577 that was signed into law on September 9, 2020 relating to forgiven PPP loans, pending detailed guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department regarding certain provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act.

    State Issues Covid-19 California Lending Department of Treasury

  • 4th Circuit affirms $10 million penalty for appraisal practices

    Courts

    On March 10, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment that an appraisal practice common before 2009 was unconscionable under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. According to the opinion, a class of borrowers filed a lawsuit against a lender and an appraisal management company, alleging the defendants relayed home value estimates provided by borrowers on their applications to appraisers and allegedly asked appraisers “to take another look” if the appraisal value came in lower than the estimated value. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that this practice constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under West Virginia law. Plaintiffs also filed a civil conspiracy claim against the defendants. The district court conditionally certified the class. It ultimately imposed a $9.6 million statutory penalty and awarded class members the appraisal fees paid as damages for breach of contract in an amount totaling nearly $1 million. However, no damages were awarded for conspiracy. The defendants appealed, arguing that summary judgment was wrongfully granted and that the class should not have been certified since individual issues predominated over common ones.

    On appeal, the majority determined, among other things, that the acceptability of the challenged practice “shifted dramatically during the class period,” and that “[w]hat started out as a common (though questionable) practice became one that, in short order, was explicitly forbidden.” The majority determined the plaintiffs established their claim for unconscionable inducement, and that it “was unethical for Defendants to attempt to pressure or influence appraisers.” The majority also affirmed the district court’s ruling on the conspiracy claim. However, the appellate court concluded that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and ordered the district court to reexamine whether breach of contract occurred and whether the plaintiffs suffered resulting damages.

    The dissenting judge called the majority opinion “startling,” writing that “[t]his is an unjust punishment indeed for a company that followed a practice that was both customary and legal and only later modified to avoid potentially influencing appraisers.”

    Courts Appraisal Settlement Mortgages Appellate Fourth Circuit State Issues

  • SBA defers all disaster and EIDL loans until 2022

    Federal Issues

    On March 12, the Small Business Administration (SBA) extended the deferment period for all disaster loans, including the Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, until 2022. Specifically, the first payment due date for SBA disaster loans made in calendar year 2020 is extended from 12-months to 24-months from the date of the note. SBA disaster loans made in calendar year 2021 will have their first payment due date extended from 12-months to 18-months from the date of the note. SBA notes that existing SBA disaster loans approved before 2020 that were in regular servicing status of March 1, 2020 (and that previously had received an extended initial deferment period through March 31), will automatically be granted an additional 12-month deferment of principal and interest payments. SBA stresses, however, that interest will continue to accrue on outstanding loan balances through the duration of the deferment.

    Federal Issues SBA Covid-19 Small Business Lending CARES Act EIDL

  • Biden extends Covid-19 regulatory relief

    Federal Issues

    On March 11, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the Act), which will, among other things, extend certain emergency authorities and temporary regulatory relief contained in the CARES Act to address the continued impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Under a section titled, “Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,” the Act will provide an additional $7.25 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), extend the eligibility of certain nonprofit entities for covered loans under the PPP, and amend certain aspects of the program allowing for certain businesses to take second loans. However, the Act does not actually extend the PPP, which is currently set to expire on March 31 (covered by InfoBytes here). The Act also allocates nearly $10 billion through the Homeowner Assistance Fund to allow eligible entities to provide direct assistance for mortgage payments, property insurance, utilities, and other housing-related costs to help prevent delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures. Moreover, a provision related to fair housing activities provides $20 million “to ensure fair housing organizations have additional resources to address fair housing inquiries, complaints, investigations, and education and outreach activities, and costs of delivering or adapting services, during or relating to the coronavirus pandemic.” Additionally, the Act provides $15 billion for Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) advance payments, including $5 billion for supplemental targeted EIDL advance payments for the hardest hit.

    In addition to providing Covid-19 relief, the Act also includes, among other things, a section that modifies the treatment of student loan forgiveness. Specifically, Section 9675 will exclude from gross income any amount of student loan debt that is modified or discharged (in whole or in part) after December 31, 2020, and before January 1, 2026. The tax exemption will include federal, private, and institutional loans. According to a press release issued by Senators Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the provision is intended to “ensur[e] borrowers whose debt is fully or partially forgiven are not saddled with thousands of dollars in surprise taxes.”

    Federal Issues Federal Legislation Covid-19 Biden CARES Act SBA EIDL Student Lending American Rescue Plan Act of 2021

  • Non-signatory may not arbitrate privacy claims

    Courts

    On March 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a global technology company’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative consumer privacy class action, ruling that the technology company is not party to a co-defendant telecommunications company’s terms and conditions, which require consumer disputes to be arbitrated. The proposed class alleged that the defendants “engaged in false, deceptive and materially misleading consumer-oriented conduct” in violation of state law “by ‘failing to disclose that its practice of recycling phone numbers linked to SIM cards, and selling those SIM cards to consumers without requiring prior users to manually disassociate their [] IDs from the phone numbers associated with the recycled SIM cards, did not protect the privacy of users’ data and confidential personal information.’” The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions contained in the telecommunications company’s terms and conditions.

    The court first reserved its decision on one of the plaintiff’s claims because there was an open question as to whether the plaintiff received a copy of the terms and conditions at the time the plaintiff purchased the SIM card. With respect to the other plaintiff’s sole claims against the technology company, the court ruled that the technology company cannot enforce an agreement to which it is not a party. “This general rule stems from the principle that arbitration is a matter of consent, since ‘no party may be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate,’” the court said. The court also ruled, among other things, that the plaintiff’s claims “do not allege any interdependent or concerted misconduct by” the defendants, and as such they are not so entangled that the plaintiff must arbitrate his claims against the non-signatory technology company.

    Courts Arbitration Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Class Action

Pages

Upcoming Events