InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed extends temporary repurchase agreement facility through September 2021
On December 16, the Federal Reserve Board announced extensions of its temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap lines, as well as the temporary repurchase agreement facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA Repo Facility), through September 31, 2021. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FIMA Repo Facility was established in March in response to the Covid-19 pandemic to allow central banks and other international monetary authorities with accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to enter into repurchase agreements with the Federal Reserve to temporarily exchange their U.S. Treasury securities held with the Federal Reserve for U.S. dollars, which can then be made available to institutions in their jurisdictions. While the FIMA Repo Facility was originally extended through March 31, 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here), the Board states that a “further extension . . . will help sustain recent improvements in global U.S. dollar funding markets by serving as an important liquidity backstop.”
Minnesota regulator issues telework guidance
On December 15, the Minnesota Commerce Department issued guidance regarding non-depository financial institution telework. The guidance provides that if the licensed location is still offering financial products or services, employees can work from home to perform tasks as long as the following are met: (i) transactions are tied to the licensed/registered location; (ii) consumers are not physically going to an unlicensed location (e.g., employee’s home); (iii) no physical records are maintained at the unlicensed location; and (iv) the employee is able to maintain the company’s data security policies and standards while working remotely.
Court: Lender does not owe PPP fees to law firm
On December 15, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order dismissing an action against a California bank over whether a law firm is entitled to a portion of the fees paid by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to lenders making loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). According to the order, the law firm argued that it assisted a borrower in applying for a PPP loan from the bank and was therefore entitled to collect an agent fee. The court was unpersuaded and dismissed the action, concluding that the CARES Act—which created the PPP—“undermines, rather than supports” the law firm’s position. While “the statute affirmatively obligates the SBA Administrator to pay processing fees to lenders that make PPP loans,” it “does not create an affirmative obligation on the part of the SBA Administrator, or anybody else, to pay a fee to agents who assist borrowers in applying for PPP loans,” the court ruled. Instead, the statute “‘merely establishes that there can be a ceiling on the amount of such fees if they are collected.’” The court’s decision follows rulings issued by other federal courts, which have also dismissed similar agent fee actions (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). The order states that to date, every court that has addressed this question has concluded that PPP lenders do not have a mandatory obligation to pay fees to agents assisting borrowers with their PPP loan applications.
FinCEN clarifies financial crime information sharing program
On December 10, FinCEN Director Kenneth A. Blanco spoke at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference hosted by the American Bankers Association and American Bar Association to discuss the importance of information sharing in identifying, reporting, and preventing financial crime. Specifically, Blanco addressed recently updated guidance designed to provide additional clarity on FinCEN’s information sharing program under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides financial institutions “the ability to share information with one another, under a safe harbor provision that offers protections from civil liability, in order to better identify and report potential money laundering or terrorist financing.”
FinCEN provided three main clarifications:
- While financial institutions may share information about suspected terrorist financing or money laundering, they “do not need to have specific information that these activities directly relate to proceeds of [a specified unlawful activity (SUA)], or to have identified specific laundered proceeds of an SUA.” FinCEN also stated that a conclusive determination that an activity is suspicious does not need to be made in order for a financial institution to benefit from the statutory safe harbor. Furthermore, information may be shared “even if the activities do not constitute a ‘transaction,’” such as “an attempted transaction, or an attempt to induce others engage in a transaction.” FinCEN added that there is no limitation under Section 314(b) on the sharing of personally identifiable information and no restrictions on the type of information shared or how the information can be shared, including verbally.
- “An entity that is not itself a financial institution under the Bank Secrecy Act [(BSA)] may form and operate an association of financial institutions whose members share information under Section 314(b),” FinCEN noted, adding that this includes compliance service providers.
- An unincorporated association of financial institutions governed by a contract between its members “may engage in information sharing under Section 314(b).”
In prepared remarks, Blanco reiterated, among other things, that companies should be specific in describing the activity they see in their suspicious activity reports (SAR), and discussed FinCEN’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in September (covered by InfoBytes here), which solicited comments on questions concerning potential regulatory amendments under the BSA. Blanco also highlighted recent FinCEN’s advisories and guidance related to Covid-19 fraud (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here) and encouraged the audience to review the agency’s dedicated Covid-19 webpage.
Court denies arbitration bid in tribal loan usury action
On December 10, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to compel arbitration filed by a collection company and its chief operations officer (collectively, “defendants”), ruling that the arbitration agreements are “unconscionable” and therefore “unenforceable” because of the conditions under which borrowers agreed to arbitrate their claims. According to the order, the plaintiffs received lines of credit from an online lending company purportedly owned by a federally recognized Louisiana tribe. After defaulting on their payments, the defendants purchased the past-due accounts and commenced collection efforts. The plaintiffs sued, alleging the defendants’ collection efforts violated the FDCPA and Florida’s Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) because the defendants knew the loans they were trying to collect were usurious and unenforceable under Florida law. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration agreement in the tribal lender’s line-of-credit agreement, and filed—in the alternative—motions for judgment on the pleadings.
The court ruled, among other things, that while the plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate all disputes when they took out their online payday loans, the “proposed arbitration proceeding strips Plaintiffs of the ability to vindicate any of their substantive state-law claims or rights,” and that, moreover, “the setup is a scheme to hide behind tribal immunity and commit illegal usury in violation of Florida and Louisiana law.” The court also granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. First, in denying in part, the court ruled that because the “tribal choice-of-law provision in the [tribal lender’s] account terms is invalid,” the plaintiffs’ accounts are subject to Florida law. Therefore, because Florida law is applicable to the plaintiffs’ accounts, they present valid causes of action under the FDCPA and FCCPA. The court, however, ruled that the plaintiffs seemed to “conflate Defendants’ communications to facilitate the collection of the outstanding debts with a communication demanding payment,” pointing out that FDCPA Section 1692c(b) only punishes that latter, which “does not include communications to a third-party collection agency.”
Agencies provide no-action relief to facilitate transfers of certain legacy swaps
On December 11, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC issued a joint statement addressing the ability of a covered swap entity to service cross-border clients. (See also OCC Bulletin 2020-108.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed, OCC, FDIC, FHFA, and Farm Credit Administration adopted an interim final rule (IFR) in 2019 to amend the Swap Margin Rule to assist covered swap entities preparing for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The IFR addresses the situation where the withdrawal occurs without a negotiated agreement and entities located in the UK transfer existing swap portfolios that face counterparties located in the EU over to affiliates located in the US or the EU. Specifically, the IFR provides that certain swaps under this situation will not lose their “legacy” status—will not trigger the application of the Swap Margin Rule—if carried out in accordance with the conditions of the rule. The OCC notes that the absence of an agreement between the UK and the EU that addresses passporting rights (defined in the joint statement as the “EU’s system of cross-border authorizations to engage in regulated financial entities) would result in UK entities losing the ability to continue servicing their EU clients when the transition period expires.
The joint statement explains that the Fed and OCC “will not recommend that their respective agencies take action if a covered swap entity is a party to a legacy swap that was amended under [certain] conditions.” The no-action relief is applicable to the transfer of legacy swaps completed by the later of January 1, 2022, or one year after the expiration of EU passporting rights, unless amended, extended, terminated, or superseded, and is intended “to provide certainty to covered swap entities currently operating in the affected jurisdictions as to the legacy status of transferred swaps in light of the uncertainty regarding whether the EU will agree to a free trade agreement granting UK companies passporting rights related to financial services.”
CFPB and Arkansas AG settle with company for failing to provide risk-based pricing notices
On December 11, the CFPB and the Arkansas attorney general announced a proposed settlement with a Utah-based home-security and alarm company for allegedly failing to provide proper notices under the FCRA. According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the company allows consumers to defer payment for the alarm and security-system equipment over the life of a long-term contract, and therefore extends credit to its customers. The company—in extending credit to its customers—allegedly obtained and used consumers’ credit scores to determine the amount of activation fees it would charge for its products and services, and then charged consumers who had lower credit scores higher fees without providing those consumers with required risk-based pricing notices. Under the FCRA and implementing regulation, Regulation V, companies are required to provide notice to consumers if a consumer receives less favorable credit terms based on a review of his or her credit report. Under the proposed settlement, the company is required to pay a $600,000 civil money penalty, of which $100,000 will be offset provided the company pays that amount to settle related litigation with the State of Arkansas that is currently pending in state court. The company will also be required to provide proper risk-based pricing notices under the FCRA.
Senate passes NDAA with significant AML provisions
On December 11, the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 in a 84-13 vote, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier in the week. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NDAA includes a number of anti-money laundering provisions, such as (i) establishing federal disclosure requirements of beneficial ownership information, including a requirement that reporting companies submit, at the time of formation and within a year of any change, their beneficial owner(s) to a “secure, nonpublic database at FinCEN”; (ii) expanding the declaration of purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and establishing national examinations and supervision priorities; (iii) requiring streamlined, real-time reporting of Suspicious Activity Reports; (iv) expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include dealers in antiquities; and (v) including digital currency in the AML-CFT enforcement regime by, among other things, expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include businesses engaged in the transmission of “currency, funds or value that substitutes for currency or funds.” The NDAA has been sent to President Trump, who has publicly threatened to veto the measure; however, the legislation passed both the Senate and the House with majorities large enough to override a veto.
FTC settles with payment processor for fraud
On December 10, the FTC announced a settlement with a payment processor and its former CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly processing consumer credit card payments for certain entities “when they knew or should have known that the schemes were defrauding consumers,” in violation of the FTC Act. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly arranged for merchants engaged in fraud to obtain merchant accounts with acquiring banks in order to process “unlawful credit and debit card payments through the card networks” totaling more than $93 million in consumer charges. The FTC alleges the defendants knew or should have known that the merchant accounts were being used by third parties that the defendants had not underwritten or being used by merchants to sell products that the defendants had not underwritten. Specifically, the FTC argues that the defendants ignored “clear red flags” that the merchants were operating fraudulent schemes, including high rates of consumer chargebacks and the use of multiple accounts to artificially reduce the number of chargebacks. The FTC notes that a number of the merchants the defendants contracted with were shut down by federal law enforcement.
The proposed order requires the defendants to pay $1.5 million to provide redress to affected consumers, and permanently bans the defendants from (i) acting as a payment processor for any companies providing free trial offers for nutraceutical products; (ii) engaging in credit card laundering; and (iii) assisting companies in the evasion of financial institutions’ fraud monitoring. Additionally, the defendants must conduct enhanced screening and monitoring of merchant clients.
Special Alert: CFPB redefines Qualified Mortgage; “GSE Patch” to expire
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week released two final rules further defining what types of loans can be a “qualified mortgage loan” for purposes of the bureau’s Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule). The General QM Final Rule substantially revamps the general rules defining what constitutes a General QM and removes the existing debt-to-income threshold over which a loan cannot be considered a General QM. The Seasoned QM Final Rule creates a new class of QM that allows certain rebuttable presumption QMs and non-QMs to achieve “safe harbor” QM status three years after origination provided the consumer has strong repayment history.
Importantly, the “GSE Patch,” which provides QM status to loans qualifying for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, expires for applications submitted before July 1, 2021, at which point the General QM Rule will take effect (although compliance with both rules is permitted 60 days after publication in the Federal Register).