InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Washington amends and extends proclamations regarding state of emergency, garnishments, and accrual of interest
On October 2, the Washington governor issued Proclamation 20-49.9, which amends and extends proclamations 20-49.5, (which amends and extends garnishment proclamations) 20-05 (declaring a state of emergency) 20-49, 20-49.1, 20-49.2, 20-49.3, and 20-49.4 (regarding garnishments and accrual of interest). These proclamations were previously covered here, here, and here. The referenced proclamations are amended to (1) recognize the extension of statutory waivers and suspensions by the Washington legislature until the termination of the Covid-19 state of emergency or 11:59 p.m. on November 9, 2020, whichever is first, and (2) similarly extend the prohibitions therein until the termination of the Covid-19 state of emergency or 11:59 p.m. on November 9, 2020, whichever is first.
Hawaii regulator extends authorization for reduced office hours, temporary closures
On October 2, the Hawaii Division of Financial Institutions extended interim guidance allowing Hawaii-located financial institutions to reduce hours or close offices during Hawaii’s Covid-19 state of emergency (see here and here for previous coverage). Similar to previously issued guidance, financial institutions and escrow depositories are required to provide notice of closures or reductions in hours. While mortgage loan originators, mortgage servicers and money transmitters are not required to provide notice, the regulator requests a courtesy notification of any closure or reduction in hours. The guidance is extended “in accordance with the county emergency orders found on each county website.”
SBA issues notice on PPP loan ownership changes
On October 2, the Small Business Administration issued a procedural notice providing guidance for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) lenders when a recipient of a PPP loan experiences a change in ownership. According to the guidance, a “change of ownership” occurs when (i) at least 20 percent of common stock or other ownership interest of a PPP borrower is sold or transferred; (ii) the PPP borrower sells or transfers at least 50 percent of its assets; or (iii) the PPP borrower merges with or into another entity. Borrowers must notify their PPP lenders in writing before the closing of any change in ownership. The guidance specifies that, regardless of the change of ownership circumstances, the loan terms still apply and PPP lenders are “required to continue submitting the monthly 1502 reports until the PPP loan is fully satisfied.” Among other things, the guidance explains that the PPP borrower remains responsible for performing all PPP loan obligations and PPP-related certifications (including the certification of economic necessity), as well as complying with all other applicable PPP requirements. Additionally, PPP borrowers are still required to obtain, prepare, retain, and provide all required documentation to their PPP lender or lender responsible for servicing the PPP loan or to the SBA upon request.
District court dismisses credit card usury claims
On September 28, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a putative class action alleging a national bank’s subsidiaries and trustee (collectively, “defendants”) violated New York usury and banking laws by charging and receiving payments at interest rates above the state’s 16 percent limits. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the claims are preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) because the national bank parent company, which is located in a state that does not impose interest rate limits so long as the rate is disclosed to the borrower, owned the credit card accounts underlying the securitization, and would therefore not be subject to New York’s limitations. The court agreed with the defendants, concluding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Madden v. Midland Funding LLC (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) supported the premise that the NBA preempts the usury claims. Specifically, the court noted that the case is distinguishable from Madden in that the national bank retained ownership of the credit card accounts throughout securitization and thus, “maintains a continuous relationship with the customer accounts that goes beyond its designation as originator of those accounts.” The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, because it was duplicative of the usury claim and therefore was also preempted. Thus, the court dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice, noting that “any pleading amendment would be futile.”
Bank settles spoofing charges with CFTC, SEC, and DOJ for nearly $1 billion
On September 29, a global bank and several of its subsidiaries agreed to resolve investigations into allegations that their traders engaged in manipulative trading of metals futures and U.S. Treasury securities using a practice known as spoofing. The CFTC’s order settled charges that numerous bank traders violated federal commodities laws over a period of at least eight years by allegedly placing hundreds of thousands of spoof orders in precious metals and Treasury futures contracts. According to the CFTC announcement, a broker-dealer subsidiary of the bank—a registered futures commission merchant—also allegedly failed to identify, investigate, and stop the misconduct, despite numerous red flags. While neither admitting nor denying any wrongdoing in connection with the CFTC’s allegations, “except to the extent that Respondents admit those findings in any related action against Respondents by, or any agreement with, the [DOJ] or any other governmental agency or office,” the bank and its subsidiaries have agreed to pay a $920 million penalty.
In a parallel matter, the SEC announced the same day that it had reached a settlement with the broker-dealer subsidiary for fraudulently engaging in manipulative trading of Treasury securities. The SEC alleged that the subsidiary traders place non-bona fide orders to buy or sell a particular Treasury security in order “to create a false appearance of buy or sell interest” to “induce other market participants to trade against the bona fide orders at prices that were more favorable to [the broker-dealer subsidiary] than [the broker-dealer subsidiary] otherwise would have been able to obtain.” The broker-dealer subsidiary agreed to the entry of the SEC’s cease-and-desist order, in which it admitted to the SEC’s factual findings and agreed to pay disgorgement of $10 million and a civil penalty of $25 million, which will be offset by amounts paid by the bank and its subsidiaries in parallel DOJ and CFTC actions.
Additionally, the DOJ announced it had entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the bank to resolve criminal charges of two counts of wire fraud related to the aforementioned allegations. The agreement imposes a payment of more than $920 million, which consists of a criminal monetary penalty, criminal disgorgement, and victim compensation, with the criminal penalty credited towards the equal amount in penalties imposed by the CFTC. The bank and its subsidiaries must also continue to cooperate with any ongoing or future investigations and prosecutions, and it must report evidence or allegations of misconduct that could further violate federal anti-fraud, securities, or commodities statutes. Furthermore, the bank and its subsidiaries are required to enhance internal compliance programs as appropriate.
CFPB, FTC, and states announce debt collection enforcement operation
On September 29, the CFPB, FTC, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners announced a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort titled “Operation Corrupt Collector” to address illegal debt collection practices. As of the date of the announcement, according to the CFPB, the operation includes five cases by the FTC, two cases by the CFPB, and three criminal cases by the DOJ and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Moreover, 16 states have also reported actions as part of the operation. Among the five cases brought by the FTC, two were announced in conjunction with the operation. In the first, the FTC brought charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina alleging that a debt collection operation (consisting of five entities and three persons) used deceptive tactics to threaten false legal action through the use of robocalls in order to collect debts consumers did not owe or the operation did not have the legal right to collect. In the second, filed with the same district court, FTC alleges a company and its operators, with the assistance of the defendants in the first action, falsely claimed to represent a law firm and threatened consumers with arrest if the debts were not paid. According to the FTC, the district court granted temporary restraining orders against the defendants in both actions.
SEC settles with ratings agency for $2 million over inadequate policies
On September 29, the SEC announced a credit ratings agency agreed to pay more than $2 million to resolve separate charges alleging the agency’s commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and collateralized loan obligation combination notes (CLO Combo Notes) policies and procedures were insufficient. According to the CMBS order, in violations of Section 15E(c)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act, the agency allowed analysts to “use their professional judgment” to make adjustments, which had material effects on final CMBS ratings, without an analytical method to follow nor a requirement to document the rationale for the adjustments. Moreover, according to the CLO Combo Notes order, in violations of Rule 17g-8(b)(1) of the Exchange Act, the agency failed to establish and maintain policies and procedures that addressed the probability that CLO Combo Notes issuers may “default, fail to make timely payments, or otherwise not make payments to investors.”
Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, the agency agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1.25 million in the CMBS action, a $600,000 civil penalty in the CLO Combo Notes action, and $160,000 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest into a Fair Fund for affected persons.
OFAC sanctions Syrian government officials
On September 30, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced three individuals and 13 entities were added to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, pursuant to Syria sanctions authorities. As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the designated individuals and entities subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC further noted that its regulations “generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons,” and warned that non-U.S. persons that engage in transactions with the designated persons may expose themselves to designation.
Moreover, OFAC issued a new Syria General License 20, “Authorizing Transactions and Activities Necessary for Wind Down of Transactions with Emma Tel LLC,” and updated the FAQs to reflect the new issuance.
California enacts student loan servicing requirements
On September 25, the California governor signed AB 376, which provides new requirements for student loan servicers. Among other things, these requirements require servicers to (i) timely post, process, and credit payments within certain timeframes; (ii) apply overpayments “consistent with the best financial interest of a student loan borrower,” and apply partial payments so that late fees and negative credit reporting are minimized; (iii) diligently oversee service providers; and (iv) provide specialized training for personnel responsible for offering advice to “military borrowers, borrowers in public service, borrowers with disabilities, and older borrowers.” The bill also prohibits student loan servicers from, among other things, engaging in unfair or deceptive practices or abusive acts and practices. Additionally, the bill will allow a borrower “who suffers damages as a result of a person’s failure to comply with these provisions as well as all applicable federal laws relating to student loan servicing to bring an action for actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief, including treble damages in certain circumstances.” The bill also provides for an opportunity to cure alleged violations. The bill further stipulates that, starting July 1, 2021, the Commission of Business Oversight will be authorized to compile information on student loan servicers’ business conduct and various activities in order to monitor and assess consumer risk.
Virginia AG reaches $1.2 million settlement with internet lender
On September 29, the Virginia attorney general announced a roughly $1.2 million settlement with a Nashville-based online lender to resolve allegations that it violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the method through which consumer disputes would be resolved. According to the AG, the lender offers short-term loans in the form of open-end cash advances carrying periodic interest rates as high as 360 percent. The contracts borrowers sign require the lender to resolve disputes through either arbitration or small claims court; however, the AG claimed that the lender hired counsel, filed nearly 2,000 collection cases against borrowers in general district courts throughout Virginia, and obtained default judgments and accepted payments from garnishees. Under the terms of the settlement, the lender—which does not admit liability—is required to (i) pay restitution of approximately $359,000; (ii) credit “attorney’s fees and costs awarded as part of the judgments, which total in excess of $830,000”; and (iii) pay $10,000 in civil penalties and $10,000 in attorney’s fees. The lender has also agreed to a permanent injunction to prevent the occurrence of future violations.