InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB settles with eighth lender on misleading VA advertising
On September 14, the CFPB announced a settlement with an eighth mortgage lender for mailing consumers advertisements for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgages that allegedly contained misleading statements or lacked required disclosures. According to the Bureau, the lender offers and provides VA guaranteed mortgage loans, and allegedly sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements to servicemembers and veterans in violation of the CFPA, the Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. Among other things, the Bureau alleged the advertisements (i) failed to include required disclosures; (ii) stated credit terms that the lenders were not actually prepared to offer; (iii) made “misrepresentations about the existence, nature, or amount of cash available to the consumer in connection with the mortgage credit product”; (iv) gave the false impression the lenders were affiliated with the government; and (v) used the name of the consumer’s current lender in a misleading way.
The settlement imposes a civil money penalty of $625,000 and bans the lender from future advertising misrepresentations similar to those identified by the Bureau. Additionally, the settlement requires the lender to use a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws.
The latest enforcement action is part of the Bureau’s “sweep of investigations” related to deceptive VA-mortgage advertisements. Previously, the Bureau issued consent orders against seven other mortgage lenders for similar violations, covered by InfoBytes here, here and here.
OCC, FDIC announce disaster relief guidance
On September 14, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Sally “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. Earlier in the week, the OCC also issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by wildfires in Oregon and Washington.
Separately, on September 14, the FDIC issued FIL-89-2020 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Puerto Rico affected by Tropical Storm Isaias. In the guidance, the FDIC notes that, in supervising institutions affected by the severe weather, the FDIC will consider the unusual circumstances those institutions face. 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,” so the institutions can “contribute to the health of the local community and serve the long-term interests of the lending institution.” Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services that revitalize or stabilize designated disaster areas. The FDIC states, among other things, that it will also consider relief from certain filing and publishing requirements, and recommends institutions experiencing disaster-related compliance difficulties contact the New York Regional Office.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
Senate committee revisits the need for federal data privacy legislation
On September 16, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announced it will convene a hearing on September 23 to “examine the current state of consumer data privacy and legislative efforts to provide baseline data protections for all Americans.” The hearing will also examine the lessons learned from the EU’s Global Data Protection Regulation and recently enacted state privacy laws, along with the data privacy impacts from Covid-19.
The current slate of key witnesses include a number of former chairmen and commissioners of the FTC.
SEC charges participants of two allegedly fraudulent ICOs
On September 11, the SEC announced charges against five Atlanta-based individuals for allegedly promoting unregistered and fraudulent initial coin offerings (ICOs) owned by one of the defendants, a film producer, who promised investors he would build a digital streaming platform and a digital-asset trading platform. Two companies controlled by the film producer that conducted the ICOs were also charged. According to the SEC’s complaint, the film producer, among other things, allegedly misappropriated the funds raised in the ICOs, transferred and sold certain tokens to generate an additional $2.2 million in profits, and engaged in manipulative trading to artificially inflate the price of other tokens. The SEC charged the film producer with violating the registration, antifraud, and anti-manipulation provisions of the federal securities laws. The other defendants were charged with various securities violations, including violating registration, antifraud, and anti-touting provisions for their roles in promoting, offering, selling, or conducting the ICOs. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, and civil monetary penalties, as well as an officer-and-director bar against the film producer and certain prohibitions against the other defendants.
The SEC’s press release noted that it had entered into proposed settlements subject to court approval with several of the defendants except for the film producer, which would require three of the defendants to each pay a $25,000 penalty and subject them to “conduct-based injunctions prohibiting them from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any digital asset security for a period of five years.” An order reached with another defendant—who neither admitted nor denied the findings—imposes a $75,000 civil monetary penalty and bans the defendant from participating in the offering or sale of digital-asset securities for at least five years.
OFAC sanctions Russia-linked individuals for interfering in elections
On September 10, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced its decision to sanction four Russia-linked individuals for allegedly attempting to influence the U.S. electoral process. According to OFAC, these designations are intended to “promot[e] accountability for Kremlin-linked individuals seeking to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic processes.” Three of the designated individuals are employed by the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian “troll factory,” which was previously designated by OFAC along with its Russian financier, for providing material support to IRA activities. The three designated individuals allegedly supported the IRA’s cryptocurrency accounts, which OFAC claimed are used to “fund activities in furtherance of their ongoing malign influence operations around the world.” As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to, or owned by, the identified individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and “any entities 50 percent or more owned by one or more designated persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are also generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with the designated individuals.
9th Circuit upholds $50 million order in FTC action against publisher
On September 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a split decision, upheld the district court order requiring a publisher and conference organizer and his three companies (defendants) to pay more than $50.1 million to resolve allegations that the defendants made deceptive claims about the nature of their scientific conferences and online journals and failed to adequately disclose publication fees in violation of the FTC Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the FTC alleged the defendants misrepresented that their online academic journals underwent rigorous peer reviews; instead, according to the FTC, the defendants did not conduct or follow the scholarly journal industry’s standard review practices and often provided no edits to submitted materials. Additionally, the FTC alleged that the defendants failed to disclose material fees for publishing authors’ work when soliciting authors and that the defendants falsely advertised the attendance and participation of various prominent academics and researchers at conferences without their permission or actual affiliation. The district court agreed with the FTC and, among other things, ordered the defendants to pay more than $50.1 million in consumer redress.
On appeal, the split 9th Circuit agreed with the district court, concluding that the defendants violated the FTC Act, noting that the despite the “overwhelming evidence against them,” the defendants “made only general denials” and did not “create any genuine disputes of material fact as to their liability.” The appellate court emphasized that the misrepresentations made by the defendants were “material” and “did in fact, deceive ordinary customers.” Moreover, among other things, the appellate court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to show that the FTC “overstated the amount of their unjust gains by including all conference-related revenue.” Specifically, the appellate court determined that conferences were “part of a single scheme of deceptive business practices,” even though the conferences were individual, discrete events. Because the marketing was “widely disseminated,” the court determined that the FTC was entitled to a rebuttable presumption that “all conference consumers were deceived.”
In partial dissent, a judge asserted the FTC “did not reasonably approximate unjust gains” by including all conference-related revenue, because “the FTC’s own evidence indicates that only approximately 60% of the conferences were deceptively marketed.” Thus, according to the dissent, the case should have been remanded to the district court to determine whether the FTC can meet its initial burden.
OCC outlines risk management guidance for loan purchases
On September 10, the OCC issued Bulletin 2020-81 to address sound risk management principles concerning loan purchase activities. The OCC reminded banks that loan purchase activities “are subject to certain regulatory standards and long-standing risk management guidelines,” and that banks are expected to engage in these activities “in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable accounting standards, laws, and regulations.” Banks should also ensure loan purchase activities align with strategic plans and are supported by sound risk management systems, the OCC added. The Bulletin includes examples of sound risk management of loan purchase activities, such as (i) developing well-defined strategic plans; (ii) conducting underwriting analysis and due diligence of loans prior to purchase; (iii) evaluating ways loan purchase activities may affect “credit, strategic, reputation, interest rate, liquidity, compliance, and operational risks”; and (iv) ensuring policies and procedures “support effective processes for engaging in loan purchase activities.” Other topics addressed include credit administration, such as due diligence and independent credit analysis, loan portfolio and pool purchases, and recourse arrangements. The OCC also emphasized that because entering into new, modified, or expanded products or services may alter a bank’s risk profile, “bank management should engage in sound risk management to identify, measure, monitor, and control the risks associated with new loan purchase activities.”
DOJ settles SCRA action with Florida towing company
On September 10, the DOJ announced a Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) settlement with a Florida-based towing and storage company, resolving allegations that the company auctioned cars owned by active duty servicemembers without first obtaining a court order. According to the complaint, filed on the same day as the settlement, the DOJ initiated the investigation into the company after “becoming aware of a complaint” by a U.S. Navy Lieutenant whose car was towed while he was deployed abroad. The DOJ asserts that between 2013 and 2020, the company “auctioned off motor vehicles, without court orders, belonging to at least 33 SCRA-protected servicemembers.” The settlement requires the company to pay nearly $100,000 in compensation to affected servicemembers and a $20,000 civil money penalty. Additionally, the company must develop new SCRA policies and procedures for enforcing storage liens and provide annual SCRA compliance training to all of its employees.
VA issues circular on loss mitigation options for CARES Act forbearance cases
On September 14, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued Circular 26-20-33, which clarifies whether, due to the impact of Covid-19, servicers may offer deferment as a Covid-19 loss mitigation option. Deferment may be used if the veteran is able to resume making monthly payment as scheduled under the loan contract after the conclusion of the forbearance period. However, for the VA’s purposes, servicers do not need to, and should not, enter into a modification agreement that modifies the terms of the existing loan for the purpose of applying a deferment. To accommodate the deferment option, the VA has temporarily waived the usual requirement that the final installment on any loan not be in excess of two times the average of the preceding installments. This waiver applies only where the servicer offers a deferment as a Covid-19 loss mitigation option to a borrower who requested CARES Act forbearance, among other conditions in the circular. The circular is rescinded October 1, 2021.
5th Circuit: Omitting a favorable credit item does not render a credit report misleading
On September 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s FCRA claims against two consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), holding that omitting a favorable credit item does not render a credit report misleading. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit after the CRAs stopped reporting a favorable item—a timely paid credit card account—and refused to restore it, alleging that the refusal to include the item on his consumer report violated section 1681e(b), which requires CRAs to follow “reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” of consumer information. As a result, the plaintiff claimed his creditworthiness was harmed, which caused him to be denied a credit card and rejected for a mortgage. The district court dismissed the suit.
In affirming the dismissal, the 5th Circuit found that the omission of a single credit item does not render a report ”inaccurate” or “misleading.” According to the appellate court, a “credit report does not become inaccurate whenever there is an omission, but only when an omission renders the report misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.” As such, “[b]usinesses relying on credit reports have no reason to believe that a credit report reflects all relevant information on a consumer.” The 5th Circuit further held, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of section 1681i(a), which requires agencies to conduct an investigation if consumers dispute “the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained in a consumer’s file.” The court held that because the plaintiff “disputed the completeness of his credit report, not of an item in that report,” the statute did not require an investigation.