InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB outlines plan to disclose data on small-business lending
On September 15, the CFPB released its “Outline of Proposals Under Consideration and Alternatives Considered” (Outline) for implementing the requirements of Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which instructs the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The detailed Outline describes the proposals under consideration and discusses other relevant laws, the regulatory process, and potential economic impacts. The Bureau also released a high-level summary of the Outline. Highlights of the proposals include:
- Scope. The Bureau is considering proposing that the data collection and reporting requirements would apply only to applications for credit by a small business. Financial institutions would not be required to collect and report data for women- and minority-owned businesses that are not considered “small,” as defined by the Small Business Act and the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) implementing regulations.
- Covered Lenders. The Bureau is considering proposing a broad definition of “financial institution” that would apply to a variety of entities engaged in small business lending, but is also considering proposing exemptions based on either a size-based (examples include $100 million or $200 million in assets), or activity-based threshold (examples range from 25 loans or $2.5 million to 100 loans or $10 million), or both.
- Covered Products. The Bureau is considering proposing exemptions from the definition of “credit” to include consumer-designated credit, leases, factoring, trade credit, and merchant cash advances.
- Application. Because an “application” would trigger requirements under Section 1071, the Bureau is considering proposing a definition that is largely consistent with Regulation B; however, the Bureau is also considering “clarifying circumstances,” such as inquiries/prequalifications, that would not be reportable.
- Data Points. The Bureau is considering a range of data points for collection, including, in addition to the mandatory data points required by Section 1071, “discretionary data points” to aid in fulfilling the purposes of Section 1071: “pricing, time in business, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, and number of employees.”
- Privacy. The Bureau is considering using a “balancing test” for public disclosure of the data. Specifically, data “would be modified or deleted if its disclosure in unmodified form would pose risks to privacy interests that are not justified by the benefits of public disclosure.”
Additionally, the Bureau will convene a panel, as required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), in October 2020 to “consult small entities regarding the potential impact of the proposals under consideration.” Feedback on the proposals is due no later than December 14.
Joint settlement requires forgiveness on $330 million of student loans
On September 15, the CFPB filed a complaint and proposed stipulated judgment against a trust, along with three banks acting in their capacity as trustees to the trust, for allegedly providing substantial assistance to a now defunct for-profit educational institution in engaging in unfair acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau asserted that the trust owned and managed private loans for students attending the defunct institution, even though the trust “allegedly knew or was reckless in not knowing that many student borrowers did not understand the terms and conditions of those loans, could not afford them, or in some cases did not even know they had them.” The Bureau alleged that the defunct institution induced students to take out loans through several unfair practices, including “using aggressive tactics, and in some cases, gaining unauthorized access to student accounts to sign students up for loans without permission.” These loans, the Bureau contended, carried default rates well above what was expected for student loans. According to the Bureau, the trust was allegedly actively involved in the servicing, managing, and collection of these student loans.
If approved by the court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would require the trust to (i) cease collection efforts on all outstanding loans owned and managed by the trust; (ii) discharge all outstanding loans owned and managed by the trust; (iii) ask all consumer reporting agencies to delete information related to the trust’s loans; and (iv) notify all affected consumers of these actions. The Bureau estimated that the total amount of loan forgiveness is roughly $330 million.
This settlement is the third reached by the Bureau in relation to the defunct institution’s private loan programs. In 2019, the defunct institution reached a settlement with the Bureau (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of a $60 million judgment. Additionally, the Bureau entered into another settlement in 2019 with a different company that managed student loans for the defunct institution’s students, which required the loan management company to comply with similar requirements as the trust (covered by InfoBytes here).
Also on September 15, attorneys general from 47 states plus the District of Columbia reached a national settlement with the trust.
DOJ settles with Texas furniture company on SCRA violations
On September 15, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Texas-based furniture and appliance company, resolving allegations that the company charged excess interest on servicemembers’ purchases in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). According to the press release, the DOJ launched an investigation into the company after receiving a referral from a United States Army Staff Judge Advocate. After receiving notice of the investigation, the company conducted a self-audit and determined that between March 2014 and May 2019, it had not granted the request for the full six percent interest rate cap required by the SCRA for 184 out of the 322 servicemembers that requested the relief. The complaint, filed by the DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, states that the company “engaged in a pattern or practice of violating” the SCRA by “failing or refusing to timely and/or accurately lower the interest rate on pre-service obligations obtained by at least 184 SCRA protected servicemembers to 6% per year after being provided with the documentation required by the SCRA.”
The settlement notes that the company voluntarily disclosed its findings to the DOJ and issued over $59,000 in refund checks and over $28,000 in account credits to affected servicemembers. The settlement requires the company to pay an additional $500 to each affected servicemember, and to hire an independent consultant to determine if any other servicemembers were overcharged. Additionally, the company is required to make a $50,000 payment to the United States.
Agencies adopt Covid-19 rules on regulatory capital and appraisals
Recently, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and FDIC (collectively, “the agencies”) adopted four interim final rules issued as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic as two final rules. Highlights of the rules include:
- Regulatory Capital. The agencies issued a final rule covering revisions to the regulatory capital rule and the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) rule made under three interim final rules. The final rule, which adopts three of the interim final rules as final with no changes, (i) allows financial institutions to participate in the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility (MMLF) and Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility (PPPLF) by neutralizing the regulatory capital effects of participating in each of the programs (covered by InfoBytes here and here); and (ii) modifies the agencies’ LCR rule to support participation in the MMLF and the PPPLF (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Appraisals and Evaluations. The agencies adopted as final, with one revision, an interim final rule (covered by InfoBytes here) allowing regulated financial institutions to defer completion of appraisals and evaluations for certain residential and commercial real estate transactions, excluding those involving the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate. Financial institutions are allowed up to 120 days from the closing date to obtain the required appraisal or evaluation in order to expedite the liquidity needs of borrowers. The final rule is effective through December 31.
CFTC charges multi-level cryptocurrency marketing scheme
On September 11, the CFTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against four individuals accused of operating a purported multi-level marketing scheme involving the solicitation of nearly $100,000 in customer funds that were to be used to speculate in cryptocurrency. The CFTC alleged that the defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act by, among other things, creating the false illusion that their business employed “master traders” with years of cryptocurrency trading experience, that customers’ earnings would increase based on the amount of their deposits, and that customers who made referrals would receive bonuses. Additionally, the defendants posted misleading trade statements online that failed to “accurately reflect the Bitcoin trading purportedly undertaken by [the d]efendants and led certain customers to believe they were earning significant amounts of money from [the d]efendants’ trading of Bitcoin on their behalf.” The CFTC further claimed that when customers tried to unsuccessfully withdraw their funds, the defendants would first claim their website or smartphone app were experiencing technical problems, but then eventually stopped responding to the customer requests. The CFTC seeks to enjoin the defendants’ allegedly unlawful acts and practices, to compel compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, and to further enjoin the defendants from engaging in any commodity interest-related activity. In addition, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, restitution, trading and registration bans, and other statutory, injunctive, or equitable relief as the court may deem necessary and appropriate.
SEC issues $10 million whistleblower award
On September 14, the SEC announced a more than $10 million award to a whistleblower in connection with a successful agency enforcement action. According to the SEC’s press release, the whistleblower’s information and assistance “were of crucial importance” to the action. The redacted order on the whistleblower award claim states that (i) the whistleblower provided “extensive and ongoing assistance,” which included “identifying witnesses and helping staff understand complex fact patterns and issues”; (ii) the SEC used the information to “craft its initial document requests” and create its investigation plan; and (iii) the whistleblower “made persistent efforts to remedy the issues, while suffering hardships.”
New York AG settles with student loan debt collector for $600k
On September 11, the New York attorney general announced one of the nation’s largest debt collectors will pay $600,000 in restitution to student loan borrowers and will make significant changes to its debt collection practices in order to resolve allegations that it made false, misleading, and deceptive statements in lawsuits and in communications with borrowers. According to the AG, the debt collector, among other things, (i) filed complaints that falsely identified trusts, which hold the defaulted loans, as the borrower’s “original creditor,” when in fact, the trusts are the assignees of the original financial institutions that originated the loans; (ii) filed various misleading sworn affidavits; (iii) filed complaints that represented borrowers applied for loans from a “servicing agent” when, in fact, borrowers never dealt with the entity; (iv) filed lawsuits beyond the applicable three-year statute of limitations; and (v) threatened legal action against borrowers even though the trusts “could not or would not sue because the statute of limitations for suing on the debt had expired.”
The assurance of discontinuance requires the debt collector to stop identifying the trusts as the original creditor and to cease using misleading language in communications with borrowers. In addition, the debt collector must (i) provide enhanced staff training; (ii) stop filing lawsuits beyond the statute of limitations, and voluntarily dismiss all wrongfully-filed lawsuits; (iii) voluntarily release “all pending garnishments, levies, liens, restraining notices, attachments, or any other judgment enforcement mechanism” obtained as a result of judgments obtained in wrongfully-filed lawsuits where the statute of limitations has expired; (v) take steps to vacate any judgment obtained in any of these wrongfully-filed lawsuits; and (vi) pay restitution to certain borrowers or to the state to be disbursed as appropriate.
CDBO releases proposed commercial financing disclosure regulations
On September 11, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) initiated the formal rulemaking process with the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for the proposed regulations implementing the requirements of the commercial financing disclosures required by SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). In September 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances (covered by InfoBytes here). In July 2019, California released the first draft of the proposed regulations (covered by InfoBytes here) to consider comments prior to initiating the formal rulemaking process with the OAL.
The new proposed regulations, which have been modified since the July 2019 draft, provide general format and content requirements for each disclosure, as well as specific requirements for each type of covered transaction. Additionally, the proposed regulations provide information on calculating the annual percentage rate (APR), including additional details for calculating the APR for factoring transactions, as well as calculating the estimated APR for sales-based financing transactions, among other things. Additional details about the proposed regulations can be found in the CDBO’s initial statement of reasons. Comments on the proposed regulations will be accepted through October 28.
Court orders investment training operation to pay $362 million in FTC action
On September 11, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered a California-based investment training operation to pay $362 million to resolve FTC allegations that the operation used deceptive claims to sell costly “training programs” targeting older consumers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC argued that the operation violated the FTC Act and the Consumer Review Fairness Act by using false or unfounded claims to market programs that purportedly teach consumers investment strategies designed to generate substantial income from trading in the financial markets “without the need to possess or deploy significant amounts of investable capital.” Additionally, the FTC alleged the operation required that dissatisfied customers requesting refunds sign agreements barring them from posting negative comments about the operation or its personnel, and prohibited customers from reporting potential violations to law enforcement agencies.
The district court agreed with the FTC, approving an order that requires the operation to pay a partially suspended judgment of $362 million, with three individual defendants required to pay $8.3 million, $158,000, and $736,300, respectively, and to surrender various assets. The remainder of the total judgment is suspended upon the completion of the individuals’ respective payments and surrender of assets, conditioned on the “truthfulness, accuracy, and completeness” of the sworn financial representations. Moreover, among other things, the order prohibits the operation from (i) making misleading claims of potential earnings or misrepresenting the time or effort required by consumers to “attain proficiency” in the operation’s trading strategy; and (ii) restricting customers from communicating with law enforcement or posting negative reviews. Additionally, the operation must notify all clients of their rights to post honest reviews and to file complaints.
FinCEN removes AML exemption for non-federally regulated banks
On September 14, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule, under its sole authority, to remove the anti-money laundering (AML) program exemption for non-federally regulated banks. According to FinCEN, the rulemaking was prompted by the “gap in AML coverage” between banks that have a federal functional regulator and those that do not, which has created “a vulnerability to the U.S. financial system that could be exploited by bad actors.” The final rule would bring non-federally regulated banks that are currently required to comply with certain Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations, such as filing currency transaction reports and suspicious activity reports to detect unusual activity, into compliance with the same standards applicable to all other banks. Specifically, the final rule outlines minimum standards for non-federally regulated banks to ensure the establishment and implementation of required AML programs, and extends customer identification program (CIP) requirements, as well as beneficial ownership requirements outlined in FinCEN’s 2016 customer due diligence (CDD) rule (covered by InfoBytes here), to banks not already subject to these requirements. FinCEN believes that non-federally regulated banks will be able to take a risk-based approach when tailoring their AML and CIP programs to fit their size, needs, and operational risks, and that those banks should be able to build on “existing compliance policies and procedures and prudential business practices to ensure compliance. . .with relatively minimal cost and effort.” The final rule takes effect November 16.
For more details, please see a Buckley Special Alert on the final rule.