InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB rescinds abusiveness policy statement
On March 11, the CFPB announced it has rescinded its January 2020 policy statement, which addressed prohibitions on abusive acts or practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued the policy statement to provide a “common-sense framework” for how it planned to apply the “abusiveness” standard in supervision and enforcement matters as authorized under Dodd-Frank. Under the 2020 policy statement, the Bureau stated it would only cite or challenge conduct as abusive if the agency “concludes that the harms to consumers from the conduct outweigh its benefits to consumers.” The Bureau also stated it would generally avoid challenging conduct as abusive if it relies on all, or nearly all, of the same facts alleged to be unfair or deceptive, and that it would decline to seek civil money penalties and disgorgement for certain abusive acts or practices, absent unusual circumstances.
The Bureau now states that it is rescinding the 2020 policy statement after reaching the conclusion that the principles set forth do not actually provide clarity to regulated entities. Among other things, the Bureau notes that the 2020 policy statement is counterproductive, “afford[s] the Bureau considerable discretion in its application,” and adds uncertainty to market participants. Moreover, the Bureau claims that after reviewing and applying the 2020 policy statement, it has had “the opposite effect on preventing harm.” Going forward, the Bureau states it intends to “exercise the full scope of its supervisory and enforcement authority to identify and remediate abusive acts and practices” as established by Congress.
OFAC sanctions additional individuals and entities connected to designated Burmese military coup leader
On March 10, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14014 against two individuals along with six of their companies. The individuals are the adult children of a previously designated Commander-in-Chief of the Burmese military forces (covered by InfoBytes here)—an individual OFAC claims is “the leading actor in the overthrow of Burma’s democratically elected government.” Under E.O. 14014, foreign persons may be sanctioned who are the spouses or adult children of a person whose property and interests in property are blocked. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned individuals and entities, 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. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific license.
SBA changes income calculations for self-employed PPP applicants
On March 12, the Small Business Administration (SBA) updated its Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) frequently asked questions to reflect recent changes allowing self-employed, Schedule C filers to use gross income to calculate PPP loan amounts. As previously covered by InfoBytes, SBA issued an interim final rule earlier this month implementing the calculation change for loans approved after March 4, 2021. The new FAQ includes options for lenders assisting filers who already applied for a PPP loan but who now want to use gross income to calculate their loan amount. Although some filers may update their calculation, SBA’s guidance states that if a lender “has disbursed the loan and filed the related Form 1502 Report reporting disbursement of the loan, no changes can be made to the loan amount calculation.” Additionally, SBA issued updated guidance on maximum loan amount calculations for First Draw PPP loans, as well as revenue reduction and maximum loan amount calculations for Second Draw PPP loans.
HUD approves settlement resolving Fair Housing Act violation
On March 8, HUD released a Conciliation Agreement between an African-American consumer and a mortgage lender to resolve allegations that the consumer’s home was appraised at an amount lower than its actual worth due to her race. Under the Fair Housing Act, a homeowner’s race may not influence the valuation of a home, HUD stated. While the lender denied having engaged in any discriminatory behavior, it agreed to pay $50,000 to the consumer and will provide mandatory training to all of its home lending advisors and client care specialists nationwide on the reconsideration of value (ROV) process and fair lending issues related to appraisals. Training will include information on how to handle complaints of discrimination in the appraisal process and the process for consumers to submit ROV requests.
UK FCA announces LIBOR cessation dates
On March 5, the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced the dates that all LIBOR settings will cease to be provided by any administrator and will no longer be representative. All sterling, euro, Swiss franc and Japanese yen settings, and one-week and two-month U.S. dollar settings will cease immediately after December 31, 2021, while all remaining U.S. dollar settings will cease immediately after June 30, 2023. Following these dates, representative LIBOR rates will be unavailable and publication of most LIBOR settings will immediately end. The FCA stated it does not expect that any LIBOR settings will become unrepresentative prior to the aforementioned dates, noting that the announcement is intended to “provide certainty on when the LIBOR panels will end. Publication of most of the LIBOR benchmarks will cease at the same time as the panels end. Market participants must now complete their transition plans.”
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on LIBOR here.
FinCEN issues antiquities and art warning
On March 9, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an advisory notice alerting financial institutions with existing Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations about illicit activity associated with trade in antiquities and art. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act) was enacted in January as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021, and made significant changes to BSA and AML laws, including amending the definition of “financial institution” under the BSA to include persons “engaged in the trade of antiquities.” Among other things, FinCEN’s advisory notice updates financial institutions on AML Act measures related to the regulation of antiquities, noting in particular that the Department of Treasury, in coordination with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney General, and Homeland Security, “will perform a study of the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade in works of art.” The notice further warns financial institutions that crimes related to the trade of antiquities “may involve their institution” and could include the “sale of stolen or counterfeit objects,” as well as money laundering and sanctions violations. The advisory notice also provides suspicious activity report filing instructions related to trade in antiquities and art.
CFPB: Lenders cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity
On March 9, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule to clarify that ECOA’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. “This prohibition also covers discrimination based on actual or perceived nonconformity with traditional sex- or gender-based stereotypes, and discrimination based on an applicant’s social or other associations,” the Bureau stated. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that “the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination.” Following the Court’s decision, the Bureau issued a request for information (RFI) seeking, among other things, feedback on ways to provide clarity under ECOA and/or Regulation B related to the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of a sexual orientation or gender identity. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Consistent with the Bostock decision and supported by many comments received in response to the RFI, the Bureau issued the interpretive rule to address any regulatory uncertainty that may still exist regarding the term “sex” under ECOA/Regulation B in order to protect against discrimination and ensure fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for both individuals and communities. The interpretive rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
The Bureau also announced plans to review—and update as needed—publication and examination guidance documents to reflect the interpretive rule, and intends to take appropriate enforcement action against financial institutions that violate ECOA.
9th Circuit: Debt collector can invoke bona fide effort defense in time-barred suit
On March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of an FDCPA lawsuit, holding that while “strict liability” under the statute applies when a debt collector threatens litigation or files a lawsuit seeking to collect time-barred debt, the debt collector can avoid liability by invoking the bona fide error defense. In the case that gave rise to the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim, the plaintiff contested the debt collector’s state court lawsuit, arguing that it was filed outside the four-year statute of limitations applicable to sale-of-goods contract claims. The debt collector countered that Oregon’s six-year statute of limitations for other contract claims applied. After the state court ruled for the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the defendants alleging violations of Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because the state statute of limitations was unclear when the defendants attempted to collect the debt.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit disagreed with the district court, concluding that because the “FDCPA takes a strict liability approach to prohibiting misleading and unfair debt collection practices, [] a plaintiff need not plead or prove that a debt collector knew or should have known that the lawsuit was time barred to demonstrate that the debt collector engaged in prohibited conduct.” However, the 9th Circuit held that the defendants may be able to avoid liability through the FDCPA’s affirmative defense for bona fide errors. The appellate court distinguished its holding from a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, which held that mistakes about the FDCPA’s meaning are excluded from the bona fide error defense. Instead, the 9th Circuit found that “a mistake about the time-barred status of a debt under state law could qualify as a bona fide error within the meaning of the FDCPA” because it is a mistake of fact and not of law.
Court dismisses credit repair association’s suit against CFPB, FTC
On March 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a credit repair industry association’s challenge against the CFPB and the FTC for exceeding their constitutional authority in promulgating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). In 2020, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on behalf of two member companies that were subject to TSR enforcement actions, seeking judgments (i) against the FTC for exceeding “its statutory authority in promulgating the TSR,” (ii) against both agencies on the basis that the TSR, as applied, “is an unconstitutional content-based restriction on protected speech,” and (iii) against both agencies on the basis that the TSR “is underinclusive and not narrowly tailored.” The plaintiff also alleged, among other things, that the Bureau was increasing its application of the TSR by “encouraging consumer reporting agencies not to investigate disputes submitted by credit repair organizations” that are reasonably determined to be “frivolous or irrelevant.” The agencies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) six-year statute of limitations and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim.
In granting the agencies’ motion to dismiss, the court ruled that the lawsuit was filed far beyond the APA’s six-year statute of limitations as the TSR first appeared in the Federal Register in 1995; thus all procedural attacks on the TSR were time barred. The court also ruled that because sending a civil investigative demand or filing a complaint is not considered “a final agency action,” the plaintiff failed to allege a final agency action taken by the agencies against the plaintiff’s members. Further, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s argument regarding the Bureau’s position on investigating frivolous or irrelevant disputes, ruling that the Bureau’s April 2020 Statement on Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V in Light of the CARES Act (covered by InfoBytes here) is just “a policy statement that has nothing to do with the TSR at issue in this case and is not a final agency action.”
States urge Department of Education to protect student loan borrowers
On March 9, NYDFS sent a letter on behalf of a multi-state coalition of financial regulators inviting recently confirmed Department of Education Secretary Dr. Miguel Cardona to partner with the states to ensure protections for student loan borrowers. Specifically, the letter urges Secretary Cardona to reverse two policies instituted by former Secretary Betsy DeVos that the coalition claims “undermine state supervision of private companies that service federal student loans.” The first is a 2018 interpretation (covered by InfoBytes here), which takes the position that state regulation of servicers of loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program is preempted by federal law. The coalition argues that the Department’s 2018 preemption interpretation has made “state-level oversight of student loan servicers more burdensome.” As such, the coalition urges Secretary Cardona to promulgate a regulation rejecting federal preemption of state consumer protection laws to ensure borrowers can “benefit from state oversight of student loan servicers.” The letter also discusses former Secretary DeVos’s attempt to use the Privacy Act of 1974 “as a shield from necessary state oversight”—an action the coalition claims leaves states “with no choice but litigation” to obtain documents needed for industry oversight.