InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS: Regulated financial institutions must manage climate change-related financial risks
On October 29, NYDFS issued a letter encouraging state-regulated financial institutions to “prudently manage” climate change-related financial risks. The letter was sent to “all New York-regulated banking organizations, branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, mortgage bankers and servicers, and limited purpose trust companies (regulated organizations), as well as New York-regulated non-depositories (other than New York regulated mortgage bankers, mortgage servicers, and limited purpose trust companies), including New York regulated money transmitters, licensed lenders, sales finance companies, premium finance agencies, and virtual currency companies (regulated non-depositories).” The letter outlines NYDFS’s expectations for regulated organizations, beginning with changing their governance frameworks, risk management processes, and business strategies to reflect the increasing financial risks of climate change. Regulated non-depositories are expected to conduct risk assessments that consider the “disruptive consequences of climate change” on their customers and in the communities they serve, and should start developing strategic plans to mitigate risk.
NYDFS encourages institutions to take a “proportionate approach” that reflects the complexity of their business and exposure to financial risks. In addition, when developing their approach to climate-related financial risk disclosures, regulated organizations are also encouraged to consider engaging with the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework and other established initiatives. NYDFS’ press release further notes that it “is developing a strategy for integrating climate-related risks into its supervisory mandate and will engage with regulated organizations and regulated non-depositories, as well as work and coordinate with the Department’s U.S. and international counterparts, to develop effective supervisory practices, as well as guidance and best practices to mitigate the financial risks from climate change within the financial services industry.”
OFAC sanctions entities for Iranian petrochemical sales
On October 29, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13846 against eight entities for their alleged “involvement in the sale and purchase of Iranian petrochemical products brokered by [a petrochemical company]. . .designated by Treasury in January 2020.” The designated entities—based in Iran, China, and Singapore—allegedly aided the petrochemical company’s efforts to process and move funds generated by the sale of these products, which were then used to finance the Iranian regime’s “destabilizing agenda of support to corrupt regimes and terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and, more recently, Venezuela.”
In addition, OFAC also updated its List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons to add additional aliases for an Iraq-based bank that was previously designated, among other things, for being “used by Iran’s Central Bank Governor to covertly funnel millions of dollars on behalf of the IRGC-QF to support Hizballah.”
As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to, or owned by, the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are also “generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.” OFAC further warned foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitating significant transactions or providing significant support to the designated persons may subject them to sanctions that terminate their access to the U.S. financial system.
OFAC warns of sanctions risks for high-value artwork
On October 30, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued an art advisory highlighting characteristics and vulnerabilities in the high-value artwork market that pose sanctions risks. The advisory advises “art galleries, museums, private art collectors, auction companies, agents, brokers, and other participants in the art market” of the importance of maintaining risk-based compliance programs to mitigate exposure to sanctions-related violations. The advisory further emphasizes that the “Berman Amendment” to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act “does not categorically exempt all dealings in artwork from OFAC regulation and enforcement.” According to OFAC, shell companies and intermediaries are often used to remit and receive payments for high-value artwork. The anonymity that these channels provide, OFAC cautions, allows blocked and other illicit persons to cloak their true identities and helps conceal prohibited conduct from law enforcement and regulators.
The report references previously issued OFAC guidance and discusses a report issued by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in July (covered by InfoBytes here), which details findings from a two-year investigation related to how Russian oligarchs appear to have used the art industry to evade U.S. sanctions. According to the report, while the art industry is largely unregulated, and, unlike financial institutions, is not subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and is not required to maintain anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-terrorism financing controls, sanctions imposed by OFAC do apply to the industry, and U.S. persons are not permitted to conduct business with sanctioned individuals or entities.
SEC issues two separate whistleblower awards totaling over $38 million
On November 3, the SEC announced a more than $28 million whistleblower award in connection with a successful enforcement action. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower (i) first reported the information internally, which prompted an internal investigation; (ii) saved the SEC time and resources; and (iii) assisted the SEC with testimony and provided identification of a key witness.
Earlier on October 29, the SEC announced an award of over $10 million to a whistleblower in connection with a successful enforcement action prompted and aided by the whistleblower. The SEC notes that the individual provided “substantial ongoing assistance to [the] SEC,” including “more than a dozen communications with the staff” that helped the SEC “decipher communications, and distill[] complex issues.” According to the redacted order, the individual first raised concerns about the conduct internally, but “after determining the [c]ompany would not remedy the problem,” the individual brought the information to the SEC. The SEC denied two other claimants related to the enforcement action, concluding that the other claimants were not eligible for the award because either (i) the information was not used in and had no impact on the enforcement action; or (ii) there was no record of communications with the claimant and the agency.
The SEC has now paid approximately $715 million to 110 individuals since the inception of the program.
District Court: National bank agrees to obtain customer consent before Covid-19 forbearance placement
On November 2, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an agreed order resolving a class of homeowners’ motion for preliminary injunction. The national bank defendant voluntarily agreed it will not place mortgages into Covid-19-related forbearance plans unless a customer or their authorized representative has made the request. The agreed order will remain in place until the court enters either a superseding order or a final judgment in the matter. In addition to not activating Covid-19 forbearances without customer permission, the bank has also agreed to stop extending forbearances for any mortgage customers beyond the originally disclosed terms unless an extension has been requested, or a customer or their authorized representative has failed to respond to attempts made by the bank to determine whether the customer would like to extend the forbearance. At issue are allegations made by the plaintiffs that the bank, among other things, “unilaterally” placed their mortgages into CARES Act forbearance without their consent which negatively impacted their credit reports. The agreement notes that nothing in the order prohibits the bank “from delaying or deferring enforcement of any noteholder’s rights and remedies under the applicable mortgage loan documents,” and that, moreover, the agreement does not concede any disputed issue related to the pending preliminary injunction motion or the plaintiffs’ complaint.
CFPB finalizes certain debt collection rules
On October 30, the CFPB issued (along with blog post from Director Kraninger) its final rule amending Regulation F, which implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), addressing debt collection communications and prohibitions on harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices. The final rule does not include several significant provisions from the proposed rule, including those related to consumer disclosures. The Bureau states a second “disclosure-focused” final rule will be released in December 2020. This final rule is expected to address the model debt validation notice and time-barred debt disclosures previously proposed by the Bureau. As previously covered by InfoBytes (here and here) the Bureau issued the proposed rule in May 2019 and a supplemental proposed rule in February 2020, addressing time-barred debt disclosures. The final rule is effective November 30, 2021.
Among other things, the final rule: (i) prohibits a debt collector from calling a consumer about a particular debt more than seven times within seven consecutive days or within seven consecutive days of having had a telephone conversation; (ii) allows consumers to set preferences with debt collectors on certain communications, including communications with third parties and allowing consumers a reasonable way to opt-out of electronic communications; and (iii) clarifies that the FDCPA’s prohibition on harassing, oppressive, or abusive conduct applies to email and text messages. Additionally, the final rule also contains the procedures for state application for exemption from the provisions of the FDCPA.
Fed lowers Main Street Lending Program minimum loan size
On October 30, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an adjustment to the terms of the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP) in order to expand support to smaller businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Fed reduced the minimum loan size for the three Main Street facilities from $250,000 to $100,000 and adjusted the associated fees.
Additionally, the Fed and the U.S. Department of Treasury issued an FAQ clarifying that up to $2 million of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans may be excluded for purposes of determining the maximum loan size under the MSLP. If a borrower has applied for forgiveness, the amount that is eligible for forgiveness may be excluded from the “existing outstanding and undrawn available debt” calculation under the MSLP program. If the borrower has not yet applied for forgiveness, the amount to be excluded from the calculation is the amount that “its principal executive officer has a reasonable, good-faith basis to believe will be forgiven in accordance with applicable PPP requirements.”
Divided FCC says net neutrality reversal won't hurt public safety
On October 27, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt an Order on Remand in response to a 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (covered by InfoBytes here). The D.C. Circuit’s decision mostly ratified the Commission’s 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order that reversed the net neutrality rules barring internet service providers from slowing down or speeding up web traffic based on business relationships, however it remanded three “discrete issues” for the FCC’s further consideration, including how the reversal of the net neutrality rules could affect public safety issues. A Fact Sheet accompanying the Order on Remand stated that the FCC found “no basis to alter” its conclusions in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, noting that, among other things, “[n]either the Commission’s decision to return broadband Internet access service to its longstanding classification as an information service, nor its decision to eliminate the Internet conduct rules, is likely to adversely impact public safety.”
Merchant cash advance providers move to dismiss FTC allegations of deceptive and unfair conduct
On October 23, defendants in an FTC lawsuit filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss allegations claiming they misrepresented the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCA), used unfair collection practices, made unauthorized withdrawals from consumer accounts, and misrepresented collateral and personal guarantee requirements in advertisements. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint in August against the defendants—two New York-based merchant cash advance providers and two company executives—alleging deceptive and unfair conduct in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Earlier in October, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the FTC “lack[ed] the statutory authority to bring its claims in federal court” under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act because “none of the challenged conduct, to the extent it even occurred or was actionable, is plausibly alleged to be ongoing or ‘about to’ occur.” The FTC countered that it “need only allege” that it had “reason to believe Defendants are violating or are about to violate” Section 5 in order to file suit in federal district court. The FTC further contended that it had also alleged facts sufficient for individual liability.
The defendants responded to the FTC’s opposition to dismissal, arguing, among other things, that even if the FTC invoked the statutory authority under Section 13(b) to have the court hear its claims, the claims fail for other reasons, including that the complaint fails to state a claim under Section 5 by (i) only providing “fragments of advertisements without necessary context”; (ii) ignoring “the express fee disclosures in the MCA agreement” that outline the fees to be paid by a merchant; and (iii) ignoring the fact that “so-called ‘unauthorized’ ACH withdrawals were “explicitly authorized under the MCA agreement.” The defendants further argued that the individual liability claims should also be dismissed because the FTC failed to sufficiently allege that the individual defendants directly participated in or had authority over the alleged conduct.
Split en banc 11th Circuit vacates $6.3 million FACTA settlement
On October 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in a 7-3 en banc decision, vacated a $6.3 million Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) class action settlement, concluding the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege any concrete harm. According to the opinion, the named plaintiff filed a FACTA class action against a chocolate retailer, alleging that the retailer printed too many credit card digits on receipts over several years. The complaint only pursued statutory damages and explicitly stated it did “not intend[] to request any recovery for personal injury.” The parties agreed to settle the litigation for $6.3 million prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (holding that a plaintiff must allege a concrete injury, not just a statutory violation, to establish standing). After Spokeo, the district court approved the class action, and class objectors appealed, with one objector arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to approve the settlement because the named plaintiff did not allege an injury in fact. On appeal, the 11th Circuit issued multiple opinions, with the first two affirming the settlement approval. The full panel ordered a rehearing en banc, vacating the last opinion.
The en banc panel vacated the district court order approving the settlement, concluding that the named plaintiff lacked standing under Spokeo. Specifically, the panel rejected the named plaintiff’s argument that “receipt of a noncompliant receipt itself is a concrete injury,” noting that “nothing in FACTA suggests some kind of intrinsic worth in a compliant receipt.” Moreover, the panel disagreed with the named plaintiff’s distinction that his claim was a “substantive” violation and not just a “procedural” one, reasoning that “no matter what label you hang on a statutory violation, it must be accompanied by a concrete injury.” Because the complaint did not allege a concrete injury, the panel vacated the order.
In dissent, one judge argued that the named plaintiff plausibly alleged concrete harm by establishing that the retailer’s FACTA violation elevated his risk of identity theft. In the second dissent, another judge asserted that both common law and congressional intent support the conclusion that the plaintiff’s complaint constitutes a concrete injury in fact. And lastly, the third dissent argued that the order should not be dismissed outright because the majority made “assumptions about the risks of identity theft without the benefit of a factual record, expert reports, or adversarial testing of the issue in the district court.”