InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Nicaraguan bank and government officials
On October 9, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13851 against a Nicaraguan financial institution, as well as two government officials for supporting the Ortega regime, which “continue[s] to undermine Nicaragua’s democracy.” According to OFAC, the financial institution served as a tool for Ortega to “siphon money from [] $2.4 billion in oil trusts and credit portfolios…in order to remain in power and pay a network of patronage.” As a result, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned individuals and entities, and any entities owned 50 percent or more by such persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from entering into transactions with the sanctioned persons.
OFAC sanctions 18 major Iranian banks
On October 8, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, sanctioned 18 major Iranian banks, consistent with E.O. 13902, which identified Iran’s financial sector “as an additional avenue that funds the Iranian government’s malign activities.” E.O. 13902 provides Treasury with the authority to sanction any Iranian financial institution. The sanctioned banks include 16 banks operating in Iran’s financial sector and one bank that is owned or controlled by a sanctioned Iranian bank. In addition, OFAC sanctioned an Iranian military-affiliated bank under Treasury’s counter-proliferation authority pursuant to E.O. 13382. “Today’s action to identify the financial sector and sanction eighteen major Iranian banks reflects our commitment to stop illicit access to U.S. dollars,” Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin stated. OFAC noted that the sanctions under E.O. 13902 do not affect existing authorizations and exceptions for humanitarian trade (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), “which remain in full force and effect for these seventeen banks.”
As a result, all property and interests in property of the designated entities that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with the designated entities. OFAC is providing a 45-day period for non-U.S. persons to wind down non-humanitarian transactions that may become subject to sanctions as a result of the designations. OFAC further warned that “financial institutions and other persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with the sanctioned entities after a 45-day wind-down period may expose themselves to secondary sanctions or be subject to an enforcement action.”
Concurrent with the action, OFAC issued General License L, which outlines transactions and activities involving the sanctioned entities “that are authorized, exempt, or otherwise not prohibited under the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations.” Additional guidance is also provided in recently issued FAQs.
CSBS and others release ransomware mitigation tool
On October 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), joined by the Bankers Electronic Crimes Task Force and the U.S. Secret Service, released a self-assessment tool to help supervised financial institutions mitigate the risk of ransomware attacks. The tool will also help financial institutions assess how well they are managing risks and identify gaps for increasing security. CSBS developed the tool in conjunction with the U.S. Secret Service and the Bankers Electronic Crimes Task Force as incidents of ransomware have been on the rise and continue to spread.
Illinois adopts regulations for student loan servicers
On October 9, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation adopted regulations implementing provisions of the Student Loan Servicing Right Act related to licensing fees, operations, and supervision. Among other things, the provisions (i) establish license, examination, and hearing fees, as well as assessment costs; (ii) require servicers to file notice within 10 business days of any application changes; (iii) require servicers to maintain websites and toll-free telephone services for borrowers and cosigners to access information on existing loans; (iv) require servicers to provide borrowers with information on alternative repayment and loan forgiveness options; (v) outline requirements related to the maintenance of account information, payment processing, cosigner payments, and books and records; (vi) provide record retention requirements; and (vii) address the preparation of independent audit reports and examination ratings. The regulations are effective immediately.
7th Circuit: No FDCPA liability when collection letter leaves future ambiguity
On October 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that itemized breakdowns in collection letters that include zero balances for interest and other charges would not confuse or mislead the reasonable “unsophisticated consumer” to believe that future interest or other charges would be incurred if the debt is not settled. A creditor charged-off a consumer’s credit card debt and informed the consumer that it would no longer charge interest or fees on the account. The debt was reassigned to a collection agency. Consistent with the original creditor’s communication with the consumer, the collection agency sent a collection letter to the consumer that included an itemized breakdown reflecting a zero balance for “interest” and “other charges.” The “balance due at charge-off” and “current balance” were both listed as $425.86. The letter offered to resolve the debt and stated that no interest would be added to the account balance through the course of collection efforts. The consumer filed a putative class action alleging that the collection letter implied that the original creditor would begin to add interest and fees to the charged-off debt if the collection agency stopped its collection efforts in the future and, therefore, the debt collector violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive and misleading representations to collect a debt, and failed to disclose the amount of the debt in a clear and unambiguous fashion. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the collection letter accurately disclosed the amount of the debt.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court. Specifically, according to the opinion, the appellate court concluded that the breakdown of charges in the letter “cannot be construed as forward looking,” rejecting the consumer’s argument that including zero balances implies that future interest or charges could be incurred if he did not accept the collector’s offer. Moreover, the appellate court noted that when a collection letter “only makes explicit representations about the present that are true, a plaintiff may not establish liability on the basis that it leaves ambiguity about the future.” The statement in the letter that no interest would accrue while the collector pursued the debt is not misleading because it “makes no suggestion regarding the possibility that interest will or will not be assessed in the future if [the debt collector] ends its collection efforts.”
District court: Credit reporting restrictions preempted by FCRA
On October 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a trade association’s motion for declaratory judgment against the Maine attorney general and the superintendent of Maine’s Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection (collectively, “defendants”) after it sued the state for enacting amendments to the Maine Fair Credit Reporting Act. The trade association—whose members include the three nationwide consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs)—filed the lawsuit concerning the 2019 amendments, which, among other things, place restrictions on how medical debts can be reported by the CRAs and govern how CRAs must investigate debt that is allegedly a “product of ‘economic abuse.’” The trade association argued that the amendments, which attempt to regulate the contents of an individual’s consumer report, are preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The parties’ main contention was over how broadly the language under FCRA Section 1681t(b)(1)(E) concerning “subject matter regulated under . . . [15 U.S. C. § 1681c] relating to information contained in consumer reports” should be understood. Plaintiffs argued that the language should be read to encompass all claims relating to information contained in consumer reports. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that § 1681c should be read “as an itemized list of narrowly delineated subject matters, some of which relate to information contained in consumer reports, and only find preemption where a state imposes a requirement or prohibition that spills into one of those limited domains,” which in this case, the defendants countered, the amendments do not.
The court disagreed, concluding that, as a matter of law, the amendments are preempted by § 1681t(b)(1)(E). According to the court, Congress’ language and amendments to the FCRA’s structure “reflect an affirmative choice by Congress to set ‘uniform federal standards’ regarding the information contained in consumer credit reports,” and that “[b]y seeking to exclude additional types of information” from consumer reports, the amendments “intrude upon a subject matter that Congress has recently sought to expressly preempt from state regulation.”
New York district court grants interlocutory appeal request in escrow interest action
On September 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a national bank’s request for interlocutory appeal of the court’s September 2019 decision denying the dismissal of a pair of actions, which alleged that the bank violated New York law by not paying interest on escrow amounts for residential mortgages. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last September, the district court concluded that the National Bank Act (NBA) does not preempt a New York law requiring interest on mortgage escrow accounts, because there is “clear evidence that Congress intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.” The bank moved to amend the prior order and certify the preemption question for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court granted the motion stating that the case “presents one of the rare instances in which there would be system-wide benefits to granting an interlocutory appeal.” The court noted that certifying the question for appeal would foster an “effective and efficient judiciary” by saving the defendants and jurists “considerable time and effort” by not having to re-litigate the issue. Moreover, certifying for appeal would “materially advance the ultimate disposition of [the] litigation.”
FinCEN, federal banking agencies provide CIP program relief
On October 9, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in concurrence with the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA (collectively, “federal banking agencies”), issued an interagency order granting an exemption from the requirements of the customer identification program (CIP) rules for insurance premium finance loans extended by banks to all customers. The exemption is intended to facilitate insurance premium finance lending for the purchase of property and casualty insurance policies and will apply to loans extended by banks and their subsidiaries, subject to the federal banking agencies’ jurisdiction. According to FinCEN, insurance premium finance loans present a low risk for money laundering due to the purpose for which the loans are extended and the limitations on how such funds may be used. Moreover, FinCEN emphasized that “property and casualty insurance policies themselves are not an effective means for transferring illicit funds.” Banks, however, must still comply with all other regulatory requirements, including those implementing the Bank Secrecy Act that require the filing of suspicious activity reports. Furthermore, the federal banking agencies determined that the order is consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The order supersedes a September 2018 order, which previously granted an exemption from the CIP rule requirements for commercial customers (covered by InfoBytes here).
OCC, FDIC announce disaster relief guidance
On October 9, the FDIC issued FIL-96-2020 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and, starting on September 14, help facilitate recovery in areas of Florida affected by Hurricane Sally. The guidance notes that the FDIC will consider the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the hurricane. The guidance suggests that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are “done in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery. The FDIC states it will also consider relief from certain reporting and publishing requirements.
Additionally, on October 8, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Delta “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the 2012 Bulletin, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
Fed recommends derivatives market follow IBOR Fallback Protocol
On October 9, the Federal Reserve Board issued SR 20-22,which strongly advises supervised institutions to transition away from LIBOR and consider following the International Swaps and Derivatives Association’s (ISDA) IBOR Fallback Protocol and IBOR Fallback Supplement (collectively, “the Protocol”). The Fed warned market participants that because the publication of LIBOR is not guaranteed after 2021, its continued use poses financial stability risks. The Fed recommended that examiners alert supervised firms active in the derivatives market to strongly consider adhering to the Protocol, which will, among other things, “facilitate[] the transition away from LIBOR by providing derivatives market participants with new fallbacks for legacy and new derivative contracts,” and will “allow LIBOR derivatives contracts to continue to perform through the transition.” The ISDA released a statement the same day announcing the Protocol will be launched on October 23 and take effect on January 25, 2021.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on LIBOR here.