InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court approves grocery store data breach settlement
On January 25, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois preliminarily approved a class action settlement, resolving allegations that a grocery chain was responsible for a data breach that exposed the credit card information of consumers. The preliminary settlement would allow class members to receive reimbursement of up to $225 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the breach, including (i) unreimbursed bank, overdraft, and late fees; (ii) long distance and cell phone charges; and (iii) costs related to credit monitoring and identity theft protection. Additionally, class members may be awarded up to $5,000 for “extraordinary unreimbursed monetary losses” resulting from the compromise of personal information. Moreover, the grocery chain agreed to “establish and maintain security enhancements that are estimated to cost more than $20 million.” Class members who do not agree to the settlement may keep their right to independently sue if they opt out by May 24.
Court permanently bans companies and officer from payment processing
On January 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered judgments (available here and here) prohibiting two companies and one officer from engaging in payment processing services, credit card laundering, and telemarketing as a result of their involvement in a credit card laundering scheme. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July 2017, the FTC filed a complaint against 12 defendants, comprised of an independent sales organization (ISO), sales agents, payment processors, and identified principals, for allegedly violating the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by laundering credit card transactions on behalf of a “telemarketing scam” operation through fictitious merchant accounts. The defendants purportedly (i) underwrote and approved the operation’s fictitious companies; (ii) set up merchant accounts with its acquirer for the fictitious companies; (iii) used sales agents to market processing services to merchants; (iv) processed nearly $6 million through credit card networks; and (v) transferred sales revenue from the transactions to companies controlled by the defendants. In addition to the permanent injunctions, the court entered into an over $4.6 million suspended judgment against the companies and an over $460,000 suspended judgment against the officer. However, the judgments can be lifted should the court find that the officer failed to disclose material assets or the accurate value of material assets.
OCC addresses permissible activities for chartered national banks
On January 11, the OCC published an interpretive letter #1176 addressing the OCC’s authority to charter national banks within the scope of 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) of the National Bank Act. As described by the OCC, the statute “recognizes the authority of the OCC to charter a bank that limits its operations to those of a trust company and activities related thereto.” Trust company activities include those “permissible for a state trust bank or company even if those state authorized activities are not necessarily considered fiduciary in nature under 12 U.S.C. § 92a and 12 CFR Part 9.” Accordingly, the letter explains that a national bank chartered under 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) is not limited to fiduciary activities as defined for purposes of 12 C.F.R. Part 9 and may engage in any permissible activities of a trust company. The letter also discusses (i) standards the OCC considers when assessing whether an activity is conducted in a fiduciary capacity; (ii) implications for chartering de novo institutions that limit activities to those of a trust company; (iii) permissible activities of converting state-chartered institutions and the handling of nonconforming assets; and (iv) permissible activities for national banks that do not have fiduciary powers.
OCC addresses qualifying activities for CRA final rule
On January 4, the OCC issued interpretive letter #1177, which addresses qualifying activities of the affiliates and subsidiaries of national banks and savings associations under the OCC’s 2020 final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert here, the 2020 final rule, among other things (i) updated deposit-based assessment areas; (ii) mandated the inclusion of consumer loans in CRA evaluations; and (iii) included a non-exhaustive illustrative list of activities that qualify for CRA consideration. The interpretive letter states that qualifying activities under the 2020 final rule may include the CRA qualifying activities of the consolidated subsidiaries of a bank, but that a bank’s qualifying activities generally do not include the activities of the bank’s nonbank affiliates. The OCC notes that the “very factors demonstrating the tight link between a bank and its consolidated subsidiary…suggest that activities conducted by a bank’s parent and sister companies should generally not receive CRA credit.” Thus, banks will not be given credit for qualifying activities conducted by such affiliates unless the bank “directly financed or otherwise supported such activities.”
HUD issues Mortgagee Letter regarding temporary statutory authority to insure operating loss loans under Section 223(d)
On January 15, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued Mortgagee Letter 2021-1 to implement its temporary statutory authority to insure operating loss loans under Section 223(d) of the National Housing Act in order to mitigate the Covid-related temporary reduction of revenue of healthcare facilities. The Mortgagee Letter sets forth requirements for the supplemental loans for hospitals and residential care facilities. The Mortgagee Letter is effective for applications for insurance submitted for which firm commitments are issued no later than September 30, 2021. HUD also is imposing an application receipt deadline of Monday, August 30, 2021 to account for statutory time constraints and processing times. HUD noted that additional guidance is forthcoming.
NYDFS virtual currency techsprint set for March
On January 21, NYDFS announced the details of its first-of-its-kind techsprint focusing on virtual currency that will open on March 1 and culminate on March 12. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the techsprint is a collaboration with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Alliance for Innovative Regulation, and the objective is “to achieve creative and collaborative prototyping as a step toward smarter regulatory reporting in virtual currency.” NYDFS notes that the virtual format will allow flexibility for the techsprint to include a combination of full-day facilitated exercises and self-paced, team-managed efforts. The teams will work to address one of several problem statements, including (i) “[h]ow can DFS achieve real-time or more frequent access to company financial data from virtual currency licensees and receive early warning signs of financial risks to the companies or their customers?” (i) “[h]ow can DFS obtain real-time transaction data from its licensees and automatically analyze the data to safeguard against illicit financing risks?” and (iii) “[h]ow can DFS use tools such as natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to identify risks by processing and analyzing supervisory reports that are submitted by licensees in a wide range of formats?”
Court orders arbitration on non-signatory claims
On January 21, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a national cable provider’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action alleging the company violated the FCRA by checking consumer credit reports without a permissible purpose. According to the opinion, after the consumer filed the putative class action, the company moved to arbitrate the claims pursuant to a provision contained “in various written materials that were originally provided to [the consumer]’s household in 2006” upon the opening of a company account. In response, the consumer asserts that the arbitration provision is not binding on him, because he was not the signatory on the document that contains the provision. The court disagreed with the consumer, concluding that, even though he was a non-signatory, he “actively sought and obtained benefits provided pursuant to the Subscriber Agreement, such that he is equitably estopped from avoiding the Arbitration Provision contained therein.” Specifically, the court acknowledged the existence of the arbitration agreement was not in dispute, but whether the consumer was bound by it. The court found that, not only did the consumer obtain benefits from the household account, he also “exceris[ed] control over the account,” including placing servicing calls regarding the account. Moreover, because the claims filed by the consumer fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, as they “relate[] to [company] and/or [consumer]’s relationship with [company],” and the court granted the company’s motion to compel arbitration.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of FDCPA claims for lack of standing
On January 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling dismissing a plaintiff’s FDCPA lawsuit for lack of standing. According to the opinion, the plaintiff claimed a debt collector violated the FDCPA when it sent her a collection letter including the following statement: “If you dispute this balance or the validity of this debt, please let us know in writing. If you do not dispute this debt in writing within 30 days after you receive this letter, we will assume this debt is valid.” The plaintiff argued that section 1692g(a)(3) of FDCPA does not specify how a consumer may dispute the validity of a debt, claiming that consumers should be allowed to dispute debts in whatever manner they choose. Instead of determining whether the debt collector violated section 1692g(a)(3) by requiring consumers to dispute debts in writing, the 7th Circuit determined that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue in the first place. The appellate court referenced an observation made by the district court that the plaintiff “‘did not allege she had any doubt that she owed the creditor the stated amount of money,” and that “she failed to allege any injury that flowed from her failure to dispute the debt.” Noting, however, that not all alleged section 1692g(a)(3) violations lack standing, the appellate court stated that in this case, the plaintiff “did not allege injury, because she did not try to show what good a dispute would have done her. She is no worse off than if the letter had told her that she could dispute the debt orally.”
Fed proposes SAR filing exemptions
On January 22, the Federal Reserve Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking, which would modify the requirements to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, U.S. offices of foreign banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve, and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries. The proposal would amend the Board’s SAR regulations to allow for the issuance of exemptions from the requirements of those regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December, the FDIC and the OCC issued similar proposals. As with the OCC and the FDIC proposals, the Board’s proposal is intended “to facilitate supervised institutions in meeting Bank Secrecy Act requirements more efficiently and effectively, including through development of innovative solutions.” Comments on the proposed rule are due February 22.
FDIC revises supervisory appeals guidelines
On January 19, the FDIC issued FIL-04-2021 announcing the adoption of revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations (Guidelines). The Guidelines, originally proposed last August (covered by InfoBytes here), will establish a new, independent Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office) replacing the current Supervision Appeals Review Committee. The new Office will have final authority to resolve appeals by a panel of reviewing officials and will be independent from other divisions within the FDIC that have authority to issue material supervisory determinations. The Guidelines provide that appeals submitted to the Office will be decided by a panel of term-appointed reviewing officials with bank supervisory or examination experience. Additionally, the division director will make an independent supervisory determination without deferring to the judgments of either party, with communications between the Office and members of either the supervisory staff or the appealing institution to be shared with the other party to the appeal. The Guidelines will also permit an institution to request expedited review of its appeal, and will amend the procedures and timeframes for considering formal enforcement-related decisions through the supervisory appeals process. The Guidelines will take effect once the new Office is fully operational. In the meantime, the current guidelines will remain in effect.