InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senate Banking holds hearing on crypto
On December 14, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing to hear from witnesses about how customer and investor protections should apply to cryptocurrencies, among other topics. Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) opened the hearing by emphasizing that it is the committee’s job “to keep learning more about the collapses” of crypto firms, and that there should be collaboration with regulators to put consumers—not the crypto industry—first. Brown warned that crypto has “ushered in a whole new dimension of fraud and threats to national security.” Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) expressed similar concerns, stating that the “dark underbelly of crypto is its critical link to financing terrorism and human trafficking and drug dealing and helping rogue nations like North Korea and Iran.” Warren went on to describe her bipartisan bill, the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act, noting that it “requires crypto to follow the same money laundering rules” that every bank and every broker are subjected to. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) also advocated for the regulation of digital asset trading, and providing consumers with adequate bankruptcy protection, disclosures, and stable coin regulation. Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) expressed openness to the possibility of regulations tailored to crypto, including more disclosure from issuers and oversight of secondary market trading. Toomey argued against pausing cryptocurrency before legislation. Additionally, some witnesses discussed drafting potential cryptocurrency legislation. One witness told the committee that when crypto assets are made from thin air, they can be “used to obscure financial realities.” Another witness said cryptocurrencies are “at best a vehicle for speculation, an exercise in a zero-sum game of chance, much like online poker,” but, “at worst, they are an instrument of crime.”
FTC proposes to permanently ban credit repair operation
On December 15, the FTC announced proposed court orders to permanently ban a group of companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”) from offering or providing credit repair services. In May the FTC filed a complaint against the defendants for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act, and the TSR, among other statutes, by making deceptive misrepresentations about their credit repair services and charging illegal advance fees (covered by InfoBytes here). At the time, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants. The proposed court orders (see here and here) were agreed to by the defendants, and contain several requirements: (i) a permanent ban against the defendants from operating or assisting any credit repair service of any kind; (ii) a prohibition against making unsubstantiated claims “about the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any good or service without sufficient supporting evidence”; and (iii) the release of numerous possessions that will be liquidated by a court-appointed receiver and used by the FTC to provide refunds to impacted consumers. The proposed court orders also include a total monetary judgment of more than $18.8 million, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
OCC reports on third quarter mortgage performance
On December 15, the OCC announced the release of OCC Mortgage Metrics Report, Third Quarter 2022, in which it reported that “97.2 percent of mortgages included in the report were current and performing at the end of the quarter, compared to 95.6 percent a year earlier.” As explained in the report, servicers initiated 9,835 new foreclosures in the third quarter of 2022—a decrease from the previous quarter but an increase from a year ago. The foreclosure volume in this reporting period is lower than pre-Covid-19 pandemic foreclosure volumes, the OCC said. Servicers also completed 16,160 mortgage modifications in the third quarter—a 42.5 percent decrease from the previous quarter. Of these modifications, 72.4 percent reduced a loan’s pre-modification monthly payment, and 93.1 percent consisted of a combination modification containing multiple actions such as interest rate reductions and term extensions. Additionally, the OCC found that during the reporting period, first-lien mortgages represented 22 percent of all outstanding residential mortgage debt (or approximately 12 million loans equaling $2.7 trillion in principal balances).
Fed issues final rule for LIBOR replacement
On December 16, the Federal Reserve Board adopted a final rule to implement the Adjustable Interest Rate Act by identifying benchmark rates based on the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) that will replace LIBOR in certain financial contracts after June 30, 2023. The final rule ensures that LIBOR contracts adopting a benchmark rate selected by the Fed will not be interrupted or terminated following LIBOR’s replacement. Among other things, the final rule identifies: (i) SOFR-based Fed-selected benchmark replacements for LIBOR contracts that will not mature prior to the LIBOR replacement date and do not contain clear and practicable benchmark replacements; (ii) different SOFR-based Fed-selected benchmark replacements for different categories of LIBOR contracts, including overnight, one-month, three-month, six-month, and 12-month LIBOR contracts subject to the Act; and (iii) certain benchmark replacement conforming changes related to the implementation, administration, and calculation of the Fed-selected benchmark replacement. The Fed noted that in response to comments, the final rule restates safe harbor protections contained in the Act for selection or use of the replacement benchmark rate selected by the Fed, and clarifies who would be considered a “determining person” able to choose to use the replacement benchmark rate.
OCC rescinds FDCPA section of booklet
On December 15, the OCC announced that the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s Task Force on Consumer Compliance adopted revised examination procedures for the FDCPA and its implementing regulation, Regulation F. Among other things, the revised interagency examination procedures incorporate the CFPB's 2020 and 2021 FDCPA that went into effect in November 2021. The announcement noted that the agency is rescinding the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act” section of the “Other Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations” booklet of the Comptroller's Handbook. The revised interagency examination procedures address, among other things: (i) determinations of whether a bank is a debt collector under the FDCPA and Regulation F; (ii) prohibitions on certain communications with consumers in connection with debt collection; and (iii) requirements for a reasonable and simple method that consumers can use to opt out of additional communications and attempts to communicate.
DOJ settles with Alabama housing authority on discrimination allegations
On December 15, the DOJ announced the approval of a consent decree by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which resolves a Fair Housing Act lawsuit against an Alabama public housing authority, as well as several related parties, accused of engaging in racial steering. According to the DOJ, the defendants allegedly maintained largely segregated housing and steered Black applicants away from several overwhelmingly white housing communities to two predominantly Black housing communities. In the DOJ’s investigation, tenants and residents reportedly highlighted “the deep psychological stigma and harm suffered by hundreds of Black families who have lived in segregated housing for generations.” Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $275,000 in damages to 23 current or former tenants who were allegedly harmed by the race discrimination, as well as a $10,000 civil money penalty. Among other requirements, the defendants must (i) implement policies and procedures to remedy the alleged segregation and to ensure applicants are not offered housing community units based on their race or color; (ii) undergo fair housing training; and (iii) periodically submit compliance reports to the DOJ.
Chopra testifies at congressional hearings
On December 14, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra testified at a hearing titled Consumers First: Semi-Annual Report of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau held by the House Financial Services Committee on the CFPB’s most recent semi-annual report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra’s prepared statement focused on: (i) the current state of the economy and household finance; (ii) promoting an open, competitive, and a decentralized market; and (iii) actions by Congress where bipartisan support is expected. Chopra also cited concerns regarding the accuracy of medical debt credit reporting and noted that the CFPB is continuing “to examine how medical debt burdens are impacting household balance sheets.”
House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) praised Chopra’s leadership in her opening statement, stating that the Bureau has combated “redlining, housing discrimination, illegal evictions, and foreclosures, and has worked tirelessly to root out appraisal bias.” However, Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-PA) argued that the Bureau’s “lack of transparency is of grave concern.” McHenry discussed the CFPB’s six compliance bulletins, five advisory opinions, five interpretive rules, and seven circulars published this year, which he considers to have fostered “uncertainty” within the financial services industry. McHenry also warned Chopra that he can expect “much more thorough” oversight next year when Republicans take control of the House and when McHenry becomes the chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
During the hearing, Chopra acknowledged that the Bureau's Section 1071 Rulemaking “is on track to issue a final rule by March 31, 2023”—a deadline established by court order in July as a result of a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, related to the collection of small business lending data (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra added that the Bureau wants to ensure it has “an implementation period that gives the smaller firms more time, and the ability to make sure it’s not duplicative with existing requirements under the Community Reinvestment Act.”
During the hearing, Republican committee members inquired about the agency’s creation and use of the term “junk fees” to describe, among other things, legal fees that banks charge for financial products and services. According to Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) “there is no such word in financial services lexicon,” and the Bureau is “making up a word and then using it to go out and enforce something that doesn’t exist.” Republican committee members also inquired about the Bureau’s recent updates to its UDAAP exam manual. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in March, the CFPB announced significant revisions to its UDAAP exam manual, in particular highlighting the CFPB’s view that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service. Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY) commented that “this is not interpretive guidance,” and said Chopra is “trying to change the law.”
Chopra reiterated the Bureau’s priorities in his December 15 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. During the hearing, Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-OH) noted that Republican lawmakers proposed legislation to subject the CFPB to appropriations and to change the CFPB's single-director structure to a commission. Chopra was also questioned by Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) who raised concerns regarding the Bureau’s “overreach and pursuit of a politicized agenda.” He further argued that “the Dodd-Frank Act exempted the CFPB from appropriations,” and “empowers the CFPB to simply take funds from the Fed, which is itself also not subject to appropriation, thereby doubly insulating the CFPB from any congressional control.” Other topics discussed during the hearing included, among other things, military lending, credit cards, and overdraft fees.
FHA announces pandemic assistance on reverse mortgages
On December 15, FHA published Mortgagee Letter 2022-23, COVID-19 Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Property Charge Repayment Plan, which provides requirements for a new property charge repayment plan option for senior homeowners with HECMs who have gotten behind on their property charge payments as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The eligibility policies of the new repayment plan include, among other things:
- Making the plan available to borrowers who have applied for Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) assistance, if the HAF funds combined with the borrower’s ability to repay will satisfy the servicer’s advances for the delinquent property charges;
- Permitting the Covid-19 HECM Repayment Plan regardless of whether the borrower has been unsuccessful on a prior repayment plan and whether the borrower owes over $5,000 in property charge advances; and
- Requiring a verbal attestation from the borrower that they have been impacted by Covid-19.
Additionally, borrowers may receive a repayment plan regardless of the dollar amount of property charge payments owed. Further, servicers can offer homeowners a repayment plan of up to five full years (60 months) regardless of whether a prior repayment plan has been used.
Mortgage lender agrees to pay $38.5 million to settle False Claims Act underwriting allegations
On December 14, the DOJ announced a $38.5 million settlement with a mortgage lender to resolve alleged False Claims Act (FCA) violations related to its origination and underwriting of mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). According to the DOJ, a former underwriter filed a lawsuit under the FCA’s whistleblower provisions alleging the lender engaged in an underwriting process that allowed employees to disregard FHA rules and falsely certify compliance with underwriting requirements. These actions, the underwriter claimed, resulted in the government later paying insurance claims on loans that were improperly underwritten. Under the terms of the settlement, the lender will pay $38.5 million to the U.S., with the whistleblower receiving more than $11.5 million. Notably, not only did the DOJ not exercise its right to join the case and take over its prosecution, but also had sought unsuccessfully to have the case dismissed. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. regarding whether and when the government has authority to force such a dismissal of a False Claims Act brought by a whistleblower.
CFTC, DOJ, SEC file charges in crypto fraud scheme
On December 13, the SEC filed a complaint against the former CEO/co-founder (defendant) of a collapsed crypto exchange for allegedly orchestrating a scheme to defraud equity investors. According to the SEC, from May 2019 to November 2022, the defendant raised over $1.8 billion from investors who bought an equity stake in his company in part because they believed his representations that the platform had “top-notch, sophisticated automated risk measures in place.” The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendant orchestrated “a massive, years-long fraud” to conceal (i) the undisclosed diversion of customers’ funds to the defendant’s privately-held crypto hedge fund; (ii) the undisclosed special treatment afforded to the hedge fund on the company platform, including providing it with a virtually unlimited “line of credit” funded by the platform’s customers; and (iii) the undisclosed risk stemming from the company’s exposure to the hedge fund’s significant holdings of overvalued, illiquid assets, such as the platform-affiliated tokens. The complaint further alleged that the defendant used commingled funds at his hedge fund to make undisclosed venture investments, purchase lavish real estate purchases, and give large political donations. The SEC’s complaint charged the defendant with violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC is seeking injunctions against future securities law violations; an injunction that prohibits the defendant from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any securities, except for his own personal account; disgorgement of his ill-gotten gains; a civil penalty; and an officer and director bar.
The defendant was also indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on wire fraud, commodities fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, and campaign finance charges.
The CFTC also filed a complaint against the former CEO/co-founder, in addition to the collapsed crypto exchange and the hedge fund for making material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of digital commodities in interstate commerce. Specifically, the CFTC alleged that the exchange’s executives, at the former CEO’s direction, created a number of exceptions to benefit his hedge fund, including adding features in the underlying code to permit the hedge fund to “maintain an essentially unlimited line of credit” on the trading platform through an “allow negative flag,” which allowed the hedge fund to withdraw billions of dollars in customer assets from the company. The CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, as charged.
Later, on December 21, the SEC and CFTC filed charges (see here and here) against the former CEO of the hedge fund and the former chief technology officer of the collapsed crypto exchange for their roles in the scheme to defraud equity investors. The agencies stated that investigations into other securities law violations and into other entities and persons relating to the alleged misconduct are ongoing.