InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Georgia adds installment lender and branch approval licenses to NMLS
On September 1, NMLS announced that it is now accepting installment lender and branch approval license applications and transition filings for Georgia licensees. New applicants and existing licensees may now make submissions for Georgia Department of Banking and Finance licenses directly through NMLS. According to the announcement, “[c]ompanies holding these license types are required to submit a license transition request through NMLS by filing a Company Form (MU1) and an Individual Form (MU2) for each of their control persons by October 15.” The transition follows the enactment of SB 462, which took effect June 30. The statute transferred all “duties, powers, responsibilities, and other authority relative to industrial loans from the Industrial Loan Commissioner to the Department of Banking and Finance,” which utilizes the NMLS to manage its licensees. Specific details on the licensing requirements in Georgia can be accessed here.
House hearing addresses diversity and inclusion accountability
On September 8, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion held a hearing entitled “Holding Financial Regulators Accountable for Diversity and Inclusion: Perspectives from the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion.” Two panels consisting of Office of Minority and Women Inclusion directors and acting directors from the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, FDIC, NCUA, Treasury Department, SEC, FHFA, and CFPB answered questions posed by subcommittee members on strategies taken to promote diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the industries they regulate as well as within the agencies themselves. Panelists discussed in-house D&I areas of focus, such as improving minority recruitment and retention in the workforce and increasing diversity in leadership teams, vendor and contractor relationships, and hiring panels. Panelists also discussed efforts for mitigating unconscious bias. While the majority of the hearing focused on in-house strategies, some panelists also touched upon key steps their agencies are taking to promote D&I at regulated entities. For example, NCUA’s representative stated that it is committed to improving workforce diversity in the broader financial services sector and ensuring credit unions are offering products and services that reflect the communities they serve. FDIC’s representative noted that the agency is trying to get capital into the hands of minority small businesses, while Treasury’s representative discussed efforts taken during the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure minority depository institutions’ participation in the Paycheck Protection Program. Some of the panelists raised concerns about the low number of diversity self-assessments that lenders voluntarily provide to regulators, however they noted that there has been an increase in submissions over the past few years and that providing more information to the institutions has been beneficial. Subcommittee members also discussed proposed legislation to address D&I problems—including H.R 8160, the “Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Banking Act,” which would require regulators to examine D&I at regulated entities to promote equality under the law.
CFPB alleges debt collection, debt buying companies violated 2015 consent order
On September 8, the CFPB filed a complaint against the largest U.S. debt collector and debt buyer and its subsidiaries (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the terms of a 2015 consent order related to their debt collection practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the defendants allegedly engaged in robo-signing, sued (or threatened to sue) on stale debt, made inaccurate statements to consumers, and engaged in other illegal collection practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), FDCPA, and FCRA. According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the defendants have collected more than $300 million from consumers using practices that did not comply with the 2015 consent order. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated the terms of the consent order—and again violated the FDCPA and CFPA—by (i) filing lawsuits without possessing certain original account-level documentation (OALD) or first providing required disclosures; (ii) failing to provide consumers with OALD within 30 days of the consumer’s request; (iii) filing lawsuits to collect on time-barred debt; and (iv) failing to disclose that consumers may incur international-transaction fees when making payments to foreign countries, which “effectively den[ied] consumers the opportunity to make informed choices of their preferred payment methods.” The Bureau seeks injunctive relief, damages, consumer redress, disgorgement, and civil money penalties. In addition, the Bureau asks the court to permanently enjoin the defendants from committing future violations of the CFPA or FDCPA.
VA encourages mortgage relief after Hurricane Laura
On September 4, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-20-34 to encourage mortgagees to provide relief for VA borrowers affected by Hurricane Laura. The Circular encourages loan holders and servicers to (i) extend forbearance to distressed borrowers and to members of the National Guard assisting in the recovery efforts; (ii) establish a 90-day moratorium on initiating new foreclosures; (iii) waive late charges; and (iv) suspend credit reporting on affected loans. The Circular will be rescinded October 1, 2021. Mortgage servicers and veteran borrowers are also encouraged to review the VA’s Guidance on Natural Disasters.
CFPB and New York AG take action against debt collection operation
On September 8, the CFPB and the New York attorney general jointly filed a lawsuit against a debt collection operation based near Buffalo, New York. The defendants include five companies, two of their owners, and two of their managers (collectively, “defendants”). According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FDCPA, and various New York laws by using illegal tactics to induce consumer payments, such as (i) threatening arrest and imprisonment; (ii) claiming consumers owed more debt than they actually did; (iii) threatening to contact employers about the existence of the debt; (iv) harassing consumers and third parties by using “intimidating, menacing, or belittling language”; and (v) failing to provide debt verification notices.
The lawsuit seeks consumer redress, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and injunctive relief against the defendants.
Kansas extends orders relating to the Covid-19 pandemic
On September 10, the Kansas governor issued another executive order delaying the sunset date of several existing executive orders relating to Covid-19 to January 26, 2021, or until the statewide state of disaster emergency relating to Covid-19 expires, whichever is earlier, with some exceptions (previously covered here). Among others, the executive order delays the sunset date for the order halting certain foreclosures and evictions (previously covered here), the order extending professional and occupational licenses (previously covered here and here), as well as the order temporarily allowing remote notarizations (previously covered here).
Treasury, Delaware sign MOU to strengthen sanctions-related information sharing
On September 2, the U.S. Treasury Department and the State of Delaware announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) intended to foster cooperative efforts to “shut down or otherwise disrupt the illicit activities of entities that should not be operating in the United States.” Under the MOU, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and Delaware’s Department of Justice will communicate frequently and meet as needed to identify and shut down entities on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) or that are otherwise blocked. The MOU is intended, among other things, to (i) promote certain U.S. economic sanctions-related information sharing and facilitate coordinated investigations; (ii) foster cooperative efforts to “heighten awareness of U.S. economic sanctions within both the Delaware business community and the general public” and “protect national security by promoting compliance with U.S. trade and economic sanctions laws”; (iii) support litigation against entities identified on the SDN List; (iv) “[i]mprove transparency into corporate structures used to disguise illicit business dealings”; and (v) “[p]revent abuse of U.S. companies by criminal and terrorist organizations, corrupt individuals, and other blocked persons through cancellation of entities or imposition of OFAC penalties.”
OFAC sanctions officials for supporting Maduro regime
On September 4, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13692 against four current or former Venezuelan government officials for allegedly facilitating “the illegitimate Maduro regime’s efforts to undermine the independence and democratic order of Venezuela,” and for engaging in a scheme to, among other things, “control[ ] the state’s wealth and assets for regime purposes.” As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the identified individuals subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by the designated individuals are also blocked.” OFAC further noted that U.S. persons are generally prohibited from dealing with any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons.
OFAC sanctions entities for providing support to Iranian petrochemical company
On September 3, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated six entities, pursuant to Executive Order 13846, for allegedly providing support to a petrochemical company previously designated for “transfer[ing] the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of exports from the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), which helps to finance Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its terrorist proxies.” According to OFAC, the designated entities “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of” the sanctioned petrochemical company by, among other things, (i) selling and purchasing thousands of tons of petrochemicals on behalf of the company; (ii) brokering the sales of petrochemicals for the company; (iii) facilitating the shipment and resale of petrochemical products for the company; and (iv) processing millions of dollars in proceeds of petrochemical sales.
As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC further warned foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitating significant transactions or providing significant support to the designated entities may subject them to sanctions and could sever access to the U.S. financial system.
California DBO investigates auto title lender over out-of-state bank partnership
On September 3, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) announced a formal investigation into a California auto title lender to determine whether the lender is evading state interest rate caps through a recent partnership with a Utah-based bank. The California Fair Access to Credit Act—enacted in 2019—caps annual simple interest rates on loans between $2,500 and $10,000 made by state-licensed lenders at around 36 percent (covered by InfoBytes here). The CDBO asserts that prior to the new interest rate caps taking effect, the auto title lender frequently made loans carrying interest rates in excess of 100 percent. Rather than reducing its interest rates to comply with the new law, the lender “stopped making state-licensed auto title loans in California,” and instead used “its existing lending operations and personnel” to market and service auto title loans purportedly made by the Utah-based bank. These loans, the CDBO claims, still carry interest rates greater than 90 percent, but because the Utah-based bank is not regulated or supervised by the CDBO it is not subject to the interest rate caps when lending in California. According to the CDBO, its investigation is intended to find out whether the auto title lender’s “role in the arrangement is so extensive as to require compliance with California’s lending laws” and if the arrangement is a “direct effort to evade the Fair Access to Credit Act,” which CDBO contends would be illegal.