InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS releases proposed guidance for mitigating climate-related risks
On December 21, NYDFS proposed guidance for regulated banking and mortgage institutions to support efforts for responding to evolving risks stemming from climate change. The proposed guidance—which was developed to align with the climate-related work of federal and international banking regulators—will aid institutions in identifying, measuring, monitoring, and controlling material climate-related financial risks, consistent with existing risk management principles. Institutions should “minimize and affirmatively mitigate adverse impacts on low- and moderate-income communities while managing climate-related financial risks,” NYDFS said, explaining that the proposed guidance focuses on areas of risk management related to corporate governance, internal control frameworks, risk management processes, data aggregation and reporting, and scenario analysis that also accounts for unknown future risks. Among other things, the proposed guidance warned institutions of the importance of ensuring fair lending is provided to all communities, including low- to moderate-income neighborhoods that may face heightened risks, when managing climate-related financial risks. The proposed guidance also outlined tools institutions should use to measure and protect against climate change risks. NYDFS warned institutions that they may have to directly absorb a greater portion of losses and should plan for insurance coverage premiums to either increase or be withdrawn entirely in areas where climate risks are prevalent.
NYDFS commented that the proposed guidance serves as a basis for supervisory dialogue and instructed interested parties to provide input as it undertakes a data-driven approach to formulating the final guidance. Comments are due by March 21, 2023. A webinar will be held on January 11, 2023 to provide an overview of the proposed guidance.
“Regulators must anticipate and respond to new risks to operational resiliency and safety and soundness, jeopardizing an institution’s future,” Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris said. “NYDFS is committed to working with all stakeholders to further refine expectations and finalize guidance appropriate for institutions to address material climate-related financial risks.”
DFPI orders online platform to cease offering crypto-related products
On December 21, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced it has ordered an online platform offering several crypto-related services and products to desist and refrain from violating the California Securities Law and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law. According to DFPI, the company, which is registered with the California Secretary of State, offers services including (i) a peer-to-peer loan brokering service in which it claims that loans are secured by borrowers’ crypto assets; (ii) an interest-bearing crypto asset account that promises a fixed annual percentage rate yield; and (iii) an interest-bearing fiat account that promises a fixed annual percentage interest rate return. DFPI maintained that the company engaged in unlicensed loan brokering by offering and providing brokering services for personal loans made from one consumer to another (known as peer-to-peer lending), and conducted the unregistered sale of securities, in which consumers’ assets were pooled together with the stated purpose of generating passive returns. DFPI claimed that the company was and is not registered to offer investment contracts or to operate in this capacity with any relevant authority. Finding that these peer-to-peer lending services and interest-bearing accounts violate state law, including a prohibition against engaging in unlawful acts or practices, DFPI ordered the company to stop offering the services and products in California.
California privacy agency holds public meeting on CPRA
On December 16, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board held a public meeting to discuss the ongoing status of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CPRA (largely effective January 1, 2023, with enforcement delayed until July 1, 2023) was approved by ballot measure in November 2020 to amend and build on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). In July, the CPPA initiated formal rulemaking procedures to adopt proposed regulations implementing the CPRA, and in November the agency posted updated draft regulations (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The CPPA stated it anticipates conducting additional preliminary rulemaking in early 2023. After public input is received, the CPPA will discuss proposed regulatory frameworks for risk assessments, cybersecurity audits, and automated decisionmaking.
During the board meeting, the CPPA introduced sample questions and subject areas for preliminary rulemaking that will be provided to the public at some point in 2023, and finalized and approved at a later meeting. The questions and topics relate to, among other things, (i) privacy and security risk assessment requirements, including whether the CPPA should follow the approach outlined in the European Data Protection Board’s Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment, as well as other models or factors the agency should consider; (ii) benefits and drawbacks for businesses should the CPPA accept a business’s risk assessment submission that was completed in compliance with GDPR’s or the Colorado Privacy Act’s requirements for these assessments; (iii) how the CPPA can ensure cybersecurity audits, assessments, and evaluations are thorough and independent; and (iv) how to address profiling and logic in automated decisionmaking, the prevalence of algorithmic discrimination, and whether opt-out rights with respect to a business’s use of automated decisionmaking technology differ across industries and technologies. The CPPA said it is also considering different rules for businesses making under $25 million in annual gross revenues.
States have their say on CFPB funding
Recently, a coalition of state attorneys general from 22 states, including the District of Columbia, filed an amicus brief supporting the CFPB’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that the Bureau’s funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. A separate coalition of 16 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief opposing the Bureau’s position and supporting the 5th Circuit’s decision, however these states also urged the Supreme Court to grant the Bureau’s petition to address whether the 5th Circuit’s conclusion was correct.
As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the 5th Circuit’s October 19 holding found that although the Bureau spends money pursuant to a validly enacted statute, the structure violates the Appropriations Clause because (i) the Bureau obtains its funds from the Federal Reserve (not the Treasury); (ii) the agency maintains funds in a separate account; (iii) the Appropriations Committees do not have authority to review the agency’s expenditures; and (iv) the Bureau exercises broad authority over the economy. The case involves a challenge to the Bureau’s Payday Lending Rule, which prohibits lenders from attempting to withdraw payments for covered loans from consumers’ accounts after two consecutive withdrawal attempts have failed due to insufficient funds. As a result of the 5th Circuit’s decision, lenders’ obligation to comply with the rule (originally set for August 19, 2019, but repeatedly delayed) will be further delayed while the constitutional issue winds its way through the courts. The Bureau’s petition also asked the court to consider the 5th Circuit’s decision to vacate the Payday Lending Rule on the premise that it was promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving unconstitutional funding. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Amicus brief supporting CFPB’s position. The 22 states urged the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit’s decision, arguing that the Bureau’s funding is lawful and that even if the Supreme Court were to find a constitutional defect in the funding scheme, vacating otherwise lawfully-promulgated regulations is neither justified nor compelled by law. “Left undisturbed, the court of appeals’ reasoning could jeopardize many of the CFPB’s actions from across its decade-long existence, to the detriment of both consumers protected by those actions and financial-services providers that rely on them to guide their conduct,” the states said. In their brief, the states argued, among other things, that the Supreme Court should grant the petition “to review at least the question of whether the court of appeals erred in vacating a regulation promulgated during a time when the CFPB received allegedly unconstitutional funding.” The states asserted that the decision “threatens substantial harm” to the states because the states and their residents “could stand to lose the benefits of the CFPB’s critical enforcement, regulatory, and informational functions if the decision [] stands and is interpreted to impair the CFPB’s ongoing operations.” With respect to questions related to the Bureau’s funding structure, the states claimed that it is altogether speculative as to whether the Bureau would have behaved differently if its funding had come from the Treasury rather than the Federal Reserve. Former Director Kraninger’s ratification and reissuance of the Payday Lending Rule “is strong evidence that the CFPB would have issued the same regulation once again, after any constitutional defect was corrected,” the states said.
- Amicus brief opposing CFPB’s position. The 16 opposing states argued, however, that the Supreme Court should grant the Bureau’s petition to provide states with “certainty over their role” in regulating the financial system, and should affirm the 5th Circuit’s decision to “restore the CFPB’s accountability to the states.” In their brief, the states asked the Supreme Court “to resolve this issue quickly” and to “reinvigorate the protections of the Appropriations Clause, not weaken them.” The states maintained that if the Supreme Court does not quickly resolve the dispute, states “will have to litigate the same issue in other districts and circuits over and over,” and “[a]ny continuing confusion could seriously impede the growth of the consumer-financial services market at a time when the economy is already strained.” According to the brief, congressional oversight “ensures a level of state participation that ordinary administrative processes don’t allow.” In summary, the states’ position is that the 5th Circuit’s decision on the funding question is correct and that the court “was right to vacate a rule enacted without constitutional funding.”
NYDFS announces benchmark for mortgage lending institutions
On December 16, NYDFS issued industry guidance to all mortgage lending institutions in the state regarding a New York subprime law requirement and the discontinued publication of the primary mortgage market survey rate for 5/1 adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans. According to NYDFS, as required by state law, lending institutions must use the weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS), published by Freddie Mac, for loans that are comparable to the term of the underlying loan, to assess whether a home loan qualifies as “subprime” in New York. In November, Freddie Mac discontinued publication of its weekly PMMS average commitment rate for loans in the U.S. for the 5/1 ARM. NYDFS noted that Freddie Mac’s decision “disrupted the ability of lending institutions to determine whether a residential mortgage loan with a comparable duration to the 5/1 ARM is a subprime home loan.” NYDFS continued that the “inability to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 6-m has made it impossible for lending institutions to offer this loan product in New York, limiting the availability of certain mortgage financing for consumers in New York.” To address availability of mortgage financing in New York, NYDFS announced the designation of the Average Prime Offer Rate for 5/1 ARMs, as published by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, as the replacement benchmark lending institutions should use for calculating the subprime threshold for loans with a fixed rate for at least three years.
New Jersey settles with car dealerships over consumer protection violations
On December 15, the New Jersey attorney general announced that the Division of Consumer Affairs has now reached settlements with six car dealerships totaling over $260,000 to resolve alleged consumer protection violations. Among other things, the dealerships allegedly failed to honor the advertised price of used vehicles, charged excessive vehicle preparation fees that were not properly itemized or disclosed, failed to disclose the vehicle’s full sale price, and engaged in deceptive advertising. Under the terms of the most recent settlement (joining five other settlements announced earlier in the year), the dealership is required to pay $180,000, and must stop engaging in any unfair or deceptive acts practices. The dealership must also (i) comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including the Consumer Fraud Act, the Motor Vehicle Advertising Regulations, and the Automotive Sales Practices Regulations; (ii) honor all advertised sale or lease prices; (iii) accurately disclose a vehicle’s sale price; (iv) disclose previous damage and substantial repairs done to used cars when advertising; (v) clearly and conspicuously disclose all disclaimers, qualifiers, or offer limitations in advertisements; and (vi) enter binding arbitration to resolve any pending consumer complaints, as well as any additional complaints received by the Division for a one-year period.
NYDFS reminds institutions to seek prior approval before engaging in virtual currency activities
On December 15, NYDFS released virtual currency guidance for regulated banking institutions and licensed branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations. NYDFS reminded covered institutions that they must seek prior approval at least 90 days before engaging in any new or significantly different virtual currency-related activity. The agency noted that this requirement also applies in situations where any portion of the activity will be handled by a third party. The guidance outlines the process institutions should observe for seeking prior approval and summarizes the following categories of information that the agency will consider when assessing proposals: business plan, risk management, corporate governance and oversight, consumer protection, financials, and legal and regulatory analysis. The guidance includes a supplemental checklist of initial documents and required information.
NYDFS reiterated that prior approvals “to engage in virtual currency-related activity does not constitute general consent for that institution to engage in other types of virtual currency-related activity, nor does it authorize other Covered Institutions to undertake that same activity.” Institutions already engaging in virtual-currency related activities should immediately notify NYDFS, if they have not already done so. The guidance, which is not intended to limit the scope or applicability of any law or regulation, is effective as of its release date and applies to all regulated institutions for all virtual currency-related activities.
CFPB to issue $95 million in redress to victims of student loan debt relief operation
On December 13, the CFPB announced that it will distribute more than $95 million in redress to over 87,000 consumers harmed by a student loan debt relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the defendants for allegedly deceiving thousands of student loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. In the complaint filed October 21, 2019, and unsealed on October 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Bureau and the states alleged that since at least 2015, the defendants have violated the CFPA, the TSR, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. The CFPB also claimed that the defendants automatically put loans in forbearance and submitted false information to loan servicers to qualify customers for lower monthly payments.
NYDFS's Harris to serve as the state banking representative on the FSOC
On December 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris will serve as the state banking representative on the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). According to the announcement, in 2013, Superintendent Harris joined the Obama Administration as a Senior Advisor in the U.S. Department of Treasury prior to being appointed as the Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In this role, she managed the financial services portfolio, focusing on the implementation of Dodd-Frank, and developed strategies for financial reform, consumer protections, cybersecurity and housing finance reform. According to James M. Cooper, president and CEO of CSBS, Harris’s “background and experience at both the federal and state level will be an asset for the council as it manages emerging risk during a time of economic uncertainty.”
Collection firm to pay $100,000 for operating without a license
On December 1, the Connecticut Department of Banking (Department) fined a collection law firm $100,000 and ordered it to cease and desist from collection activity for operating without a valid license. According to the order, in August, the Department issued a temporary order to cease and desist, a notice of intent to issue order to cease and desist, a notice of intent to impose a civil penalty, and a notice of a right to a hearing, which provided the firm 14 days to respond to request a hearing. Furthermore, the firm was warned that if a request for hearing was not made, a cease and desist order would likely be forthcoming. During its investigation, the state discovered that in 2019, the firm was conducting unlicensed collection agency activity for about 10,000 Connecticut accounts with a total balance of about $1.4 million. The firm allegedly collected approximately $81,000 of that amount. In late 2019, the state sent the firm a certified letter regarding its collection activity and asked for a response, which was never provided. In the August order, the firm was asked to supply the state with a list of all the creditors with whom the firm has entered into agreements for consumer collection services since July 2018, including copies of all the agreements with those creditors, and an itemized list of each Connecticut debtor account that the firm had attempted collections on for the same time period.