InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB analyzes effects of Covid-19 on the housing market
On March 1, the CFPB released a report, Housing Insecurity and the COVID-19 Pandemic, analyzing the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the housing market, particularly with respect to low-income and minority households. According to the Bureau, as of December 2020, more than 11 million households were overdue on their rent or mortgage payments, placing them at heightened risk of losing their homes to foreclosure or eviction as Covid-19 relief programs expire in the upcoming months. Of these households, the Bureau noted that Black and Hispanic households bear a disproportionate financial burden and “were more than twice as likely to report being behind on housing payments than white families.” Additional statistics include: (i) 2.1 million households are more than 90 days behind on their payments; (ii) roughly 263,000 families noted as being “seriously behind” on their mortgages (and not enrolled in forbearance plans) will have limited options to avoid foreclosure once relief programs end; (iii) an estimated 8.8 million tenant households are behind on their rent, with 9 percent of renters reporting that they are likely to be evicted in the next two months; and (iv) of the 2.7 million borrowers noted as being in active forbearance as of January 2021, more than 900,000 of these borrowers will have been in forbearance for more than a year as of April 2021. The Bureau noted most borrowers that have exited forbearance after six or fewer months “have been able to resume payments without any issue.” However, borrowers who have been in forbearance longer are more likely to have difficulties resuming payments.
In a blog post released the same day, acting Director Dave Uejio acknowledged that mortgage servicers and landlords have been working to help keep borrowers and renters in their homes, noting that “[m]ost mortgage servicers are working hard to engage with the record number of homeowners in forbearance and the many other homeowners struggling to make payments.”
Connecticut Department of Banking extends work from home guidance for licensees
On March 1, the Connecticut Department of Banking issued a memorandum extending through June 30, 2021, its no-action position (previously discussed here, here, and here) with respect to various licensees temporarily working from home during Covid-19, provided that certain criteria set forth in the memorandum are met.
FinCEN issues warning about fraud targeting Covid-19 economic impact payments
On February 24, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an advisory alerting financial institutions to potential fraud and other financial crimes targeting Covid-19 economic impact payments (EIP). The advisory is based on FinCEN’s analysis of Covid-19 related information obtained from Bank Secrecy Act data, public reporting, and law enforcement partners, and outlines potential methods of EIP fraud, associated red flags, and information for reporting suspicious activity related to such fraud. According to FinCEN, U.S. authorities have detected a wide range of EIP-related fraud, including (i) fraudulent, altered, or counterfeit checks; (ii) theft of EIPs; (iii) phishing schemes using EIPs as a lure, in which emails, letters, phone calls, and text messages are used by fraudsters in order to obtain personal information such as account numbers and passwords; and (iv) private companies with control over a person’s finances that seize a person’s EIP for wage garnishment or debt collection and do not return the inappropriately-seized payment.
FinCEN also issued a notice for filing suspicious activity reports (SAR) related to Covid-19. The notice consolidates filing instructions and key terms for fraudulent activities, crimes, and cyber/ransomware attacks related to the pandemic. FinCEN reminded financial institutions to consult previously issued advisories and notices to access additional SAR filing instructions and other Covid-19-related advisories and alerts (available here).
FHFA further extends foreclosure moratorium
On February 25, the FHFA announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) will extend their moratorium on single-family foreclosures and real estate owned (REO) evictions until June 30. The foreclosure moratorium applies only to homeowners with a GSE-backed, single-family mortgage, and the REO eviction moratorium applies only to properties that were acquired by the GSEs through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transactions. Additionally, FHFA announced that borrowers may be eligible for up to a three-month forbearance extension so long as they are on a Covid-19 forbearance plan as of February 28 (details on the Covid-19 forbearance covered by InfoBytes here), and that the Covid-19 payment deferral may now cover up to 18 months of missed payments (previously covering up to 15 months of missed payments, additional details covered by InfoBytes here). The extensions are implemented in Fannie Mae Lender Letter LL-2021-07 and Freddie Mac Guide Bulletin 2021-8.
House discusses lending discrimination, proposed fair lending legislation
On February 24, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing entitled “How Invidious Discrimination Works and Hurts: An Examination of Lending Discrimination and Its Long-term Economic Impacts on Borrowers of Color.” The subcommittee’s memorandum regarding the hearing discussed the importance of exploring “available tools and potential legislative solutions to detect hidden discrimination and deter discrimination in lending and housing,” and addressed topics such as modern-day redlining, racial wealth gaps, and matched-pair testing (a method for detecting impermissible differences in treatment based on protected classes).
Subcommittee members also discussed recently introduced H.R. 166, the “Fair Lending for All Act,” which would, among other things: (i) direct the CFPB to establish an Office of Fair Lending Testing charged with testing creditors’ ECOA compliance, and permit the Bureau to refer ECOA violations to the attorney general for appropriate action; (ii) extend the protected classes under the law to sexual orientation, gender identity, and an applicant’s location based on zip code or census tract; (iii) establish criminal penalties under ECOA for knowing and willful violations of prohibited credit discrimination, including personal liability for executive officers and directors; (iv) require the Bureau to review loan applications for compliance with ECOA and other federal consumer laws; and (v) amend HMDA Section 304(b)(4) to add the new prohibited credit discrimination categories.
Court grants injunctive relief against pension advance company
On February 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the CFPB’s motion for default judgment and appointment of receiver in an action alleging defendants violated the CFPA and TILA by falsely representing that their lump-sum pension advances were not loans and that they carried no applicable interest rate. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed a complaint against the defendants in 2018 claiming that consumers were actually required to pay back advances with interest and were charged various fees for the product. The Bureau also alleged, among other things, that the defendants failed to provide customers with TILA closed-end-credit disclosures, and provided income streams from the advance payments as 60- or 120-month cash flow payments to third-party investors, promising between 6 and 12 percent interest rates.
In its decision, the court upheld a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, which concluded that the Bureau’s complaint sufficiently stated “a deception claim” under the CFPA, as well as violations of TILA and Regulation Z by the corporate defendants. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the Bureau “a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the law,” redress and a civil money penalty awarded jointly and severally against the defendants, and appointment of a receiver. The court overruled various objections raised by the individual defendant’, including for failure to timely raise the objection before the magistrate judge, and because certain claims were without merit. Ultimately, the court granted the Bureau a default judgment against the defendants and adopted the report and recommendations of the magistrate judge for injunctive relief, consumer redress, a civil money penalty, and the appointment of a receiver.
FDIC releases fair lending videos
On February 23, the FDIC released nine technical assistance videos on fair lending compliance. The videos provide FDIC-supervised institutions with a high-level overview on ways to assess and mitigate fair lending risk and understand how examiners evaluate fair lending compliance. Information provided in the videos includes: (i) an overview of federal fair lending laws and regulations for bank directors and senior managers; (ii) ways a bank’s compliance management system can mitigate fair lending risk; (iii) a discussion on how FDIC examiners evaluate fair lending risk during consumer compliance examinations; and (iv) commentary on the following specific fair lending risk factors, one each for overt discrimination, underwriting, pricing, steering, redlining, and marketing.
Convenience store chain agrees to pay $12 million to resolve data security incident
On February 19, consolidated class members filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to resolve data security incident claims. Class members—comprised of a nationwide group of consumers whose credit and debit card information was compromised in a 2019 data security incident affecting a nationwide convenience store chain—alleged that “despite the foreseeability of a data breach” the convenience store chain, among other things, “failed to implement adequate measures to protect the sensitive, non-public payment card information entrusted to it by its customers.” The claims also alleged that certain class members continued to experience fraudulent transactions on their payment cards, and that many class members spent time responding to the data security incident, spent money on protective measures, and may experience a heightened risk of future misuse of their payment card information.
Following mediation, the parties agreed to the preliminary settlement terms, which will provide monetary relief to class members through a three-tier system totaling up to $9 million, plus $3.2 million for attorneys’ fees and expenses and class representative service awards. The convenience store chain is also required to take additional measures for a period of two years to prevent future unauthorized intrusions, including (i) retaining a qualified security assessor; (ii) conducting annual tests of its cybersecurity protocols; (iii) operating payment systems that encrypt payment card information and comply with credit card issuers’ security procedures, including systems at point-of-sale fuel pump terminals; and (iv) maintaining information security programs, policies, and procedures.
New York reaches $18.5 million settlement with virtual currency operators
On February 23, the New York attorney general announced a $18.5 million settlement with the operators of a virtual currency trading platform and the “tether” virtual currency issuer, along with their affiliated entities, to resolve allegations that the companies deceived clients by overstating available reserves and hiding $850 million in co-mingled client and corporate funds. According to the AG, one of the companies operated an online trading platform for exchanging and trading virtual currency, which allowed users to store virtual or fiat currency, convert virtual currency into fiat currency, and withdraw funds, while the “tether” virtual currency issuer represented that the “stablecoin” it issued was backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars in reserve. However, an AG investigation found, among other things, that the companies made false statements about the backing of the stablecoin and moved hundreds of millions of dollars between the two companies in an attempt to conceal massive losses, and that the stablecoins were, in fact, no longer backed one-to-one by U.S. dollars in reserve, contrary to the company’s representations. The AG also noted that a national bank, which acted as the correspondent bank for the companies and was used to fill orders for U.S. dollars, elected to stop processing U.S. dollar wire transfers from the companies, forcing the companies to find alternative banking arrangements and ultimately leading to a liquidity crisis. Further, the AG stated that the companies failed to disclose these issues to the public. In 2019, a court order enjoined the companies from engaging in activities that may have defrauded investors trading in cryptocurrency (covered by InfoBytes here).
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the companies and related entities must, among other things, (i) discontinue any further trading activity in the state; (ii) pay $18.5 million in monetary relief; and (iii) take steps to increase transparency, including maintaining internal controls and procedures designed to ensure that their products and services are not used by New York persons and entities, providing compliance reports to the AG, and providing a list of utilized payment processors.
DFPI addresses several MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released several new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to virtual currency, agent of payee rules, and transactions in which recipients are paid before a company is reimbursed. Highlights from the redacted letters include:
- Agent of Payee Exemption – Online Gaming/Sports Betting. The redacted opinion letter reviewed whether a company’s payment processing services—which allow customers to use bank accounts to purchase stored value redeemable for goods and services, including “e-commerce, digital goods, financial services, travel, and online gaming/sports betting”—require licensure under the MTA. DFPI concluded that the company’s “pay-in” transactions qualify for the agent-of-payee exemption where the merchant is the payee, the customer is the payor, and the company is the agent of the payee, because the pay-in transactions are ultimately for goods and services since the customer is purchasing stored value redeemable in a closed loop of issuing merchant, and the company’s master agreement with the merchant states that payment to the company satisfies the customer’s obligation to pay the merchant. However, DFPI noted that the agent-of-payee exemption does not apply to transactions involving refunds and the pay-out of winnings. Pay-out transactions, DFPI explained, “constitute ‘receiving money for transmission’ because the [company] receives money from the [m]erchants for transfer to the [c]ustomers” and the customer does not provide goods or services to the merchant for which payment is owed.
- Agent of Payee Exemption – Payments to Daily Fantasy Sports Providers. The redacted opinion letter, which supersedes an interpretive opinion issued last August (covered by InfoBytes here), reviewed whether MTA licensure is required for a company that plans to offer U.S.-based merchant clients (primarily daily fantasy sports providers) an ACH payment platform to allow customers to use bank accounts to purchase credits for their accounts with the merchants. According to DFPI, pay-in transactions for stored monetary value “constitute ‘receiving money for transmission’”; however, DFPI noted that based on provided information, the pay-in activities qualify for the agent-of-payee exemption because the merchant is the payee, the customer is the payor, and the company is the agent of the merchant. Additionally, the company’s “receipt of funds from the [c]ustomer satisfies the [c]ustomer’s payment obligation to the [m]erchant for the goods or services.” Here, DFPI also explained that the pay-in transactions are closed loop since the customer’s stored value can only be redeemed for goods or services provided by the issuing merchant or its affiliate. DFPI further explained that “selling or issuing” closed loop stored value is excluded from the definition of money transmission. In both the first and second opinion letters, DFPI reiterated that MTA licenses cannot be issued to companies engaged in the transmission of money to facilitate unlawful activities, such as sports betting.
- Purchase and Sale of Cryptocurrency. The redacted opinion letter concluded that a company’s activities, which are limited to buying and selling virtual currency directly from and to consumers via ACH or wire transfer, do not trigger the licensing requirements of the MTA because the activities do “not involve the sale or issuance of a payment instrument, the sale or issuance of stored value, or receiving money for transmission.”
- Paying Recipients Before a Company is Reimbursed. The redacted opinion letter examined whether a company’s payment reimbursement model requires licensure under the MTA. The company offers transactions that result in beneficiaries being paid before the company receives money from the sender. The company “obtains a payment authorization on the customer’s debit card for the transaction,” and the debit card authorization then “puts a hold on the cardholder’s funds for the purchase and guarantees that [the company] will be paid.” Once the customer authorizes the transaction, the funds are instantly moved to the recipient’s wallet or bank account for immediate use. To be reimbursed, however, the company must initiate a second step, which actually processes the payment and converts the hold status to payment/post status. According to DFPI, the company’s payment reimbursement model does not involve transactions that constitute money transmission because the company “never ‘receives money for transmission. . ., does not actually or constructively receive, take possession of, or hold money or monetary value for transmission. . ., incurs no transmission liability,” or puts consumer funds at risk.