InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Adopts Interim Final Lending Limit Rule
On June 20, the OCC adopted an Interim Final Rule that applies the OCCs existing lending limit rule to certain credit exposures arising from derivative transactions and securities financing transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act added credit exposures arising from a derivative transaction, repurchase agreement, reverse repurchase agreement, securities lending transaction, or securities borrowing transaction to the definition of loans and extensions of credit for purposes of the lending limit. The interim final rule implements the new definition, effective July 21, 2012, but gives national banks and savings association until January 1, 2013 to comply. The interim final rule permits use in certain circumstances of look-up tables for measuring the exposures for each transaction type, a change that is expected to reduce the burden on smaller institutions. The OCC is accepting comments on the interim final rule through August 6, 2012.
CFPB Announces Senior Staff Changes
On June 19, the CFPB announced a series of senior leadership changes and additions. Meredith Fuchs will now serve as General Counsel. She replaces Leonard Kennedy, who will now serve as Senior Advisor and Counselor to Director Richard Cordray. Ms. Fuchs had been serving as CFPB Chief of Staff and, prior to that, served as Principal Deputy General Counsel. Garry Reeder, who had been Senior Advisor to the Deputy Director, will now serve as Acting Chief of Staff. Steven Antonakes has been promoted to Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending. The Assistant Director of Large Bank Supervision position that he leaves behind will be filled on an “acting” basis by Paul Sanford, who has been serving as Chief of Staff for Large Bank Supervision. In addition, Wendy Kamenshine has transitioned from Acting Ombudsman to Ombudsman, Clifford Rosenthal joined the CFPB as Assistant Director of Financial Empowerment, and Camille Busette was hired as Assistant Director of the Office of Financial Education.
FDIC Supplements Proposed Orderly Liquidation Authority Rule
On June 18, the FDIC published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the definition of “financial activities” included in a March 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA). The March 2011 proposal sought to establish a comprehensive framework for the priority payment of creditors and procedures for filing and pursuing claims under the OLA created by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, the proposal defined “financial companies” that may be subject to resolution under the OLA as those that are "predominantly engaged" in financial activities. To be "predominately engaged" in financial activities, the company must have derived at least 85 percent of its total consolidated revenue from financial activities over the two most recent fiscal years. In this supplemental notice, the FDIC delineates the categories of “financial activities” for purposes of the March 2011 proposal.
CFPB Seeks Information on Compliance Costs
On June 14, the CFPB published a Notice and Request for Comment on its proposal to collect qualitative information from industry participants regarding the compliance costs and other effects of CFPB rules on providers and consumers. The CFPB plans to use structured interviews, focus groups, conference calls, and written questionnaires to obtain supplemental information about industry compliance burdens. The CFPB frames the proposal as part of its ongoing effort to streamline inherited regulations, and has asked that comments on the proposed information collection be submitted by August 13, 2012.
CFPB Seeks Additional Private Student Loan Complaints
On June 13, the CFPB issued a Notice of Request for Information seeking information on existing private student loan complaints collected by state agencies, institutions of higher education, consumer and legal advocates, and lenders. In addition to its general solicitation, the CFPB specifically invited the participation of state attorneys general, schools, and advocacy groups. The responses received by the CFPB will be incorporated into the student loan ombudsman’s report it provides to Congress pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. In conjunction with its general solicitation, the CFPB also published the nearly 2,000 comments it received in response to a Notice and Request for Information on private student loans that it issued on November 17, 2011. The CFPB identified the following common themes from the data collected to date in connection with its earlier solicitation: (i) many borrowers report relying on school financial aid offices for information and guidance on which loan products to use, (ii) many borrowers struggling in today’s economy are finding their private student loan debt to be unmanageable, and (iii) many borrowers report finding it difficult to navigate the repayment process.
Federal Bank Regulators Seek Comment on Three Proposed Regulatory Capital Rules, Finalize Market Risk Rule
On June 12, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC jointly issued three proposed rules, which would implement the risk-based and leverage capital requirements in the Basel III framework and relevant provisions mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The first proposed rule would, among other things, (i) raise the minimum regulatory capital levels; (ii) introduce an additional common equity capital buffer; and (iii) adopt a stricter definition of capital. Taken together, these requirements would require banking organizations to increase the quality and quantity of their regulatory capital. The second proposed rule incorporates aspects of Basel II’s Standardized Approach to enhance the risk-sensitivity of a banking organization’s risk-weighted assets calculations. In addition, the second proposed rule sets forth alternatives that would replace the use of external credit ratings, a change required by Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act. The third proposed rule would apply to banking organizations that are currently subject to the advanced approaches rule or to the market risk rule, and for the first time, to savings and loan holding companies that meet the relevant size, foreign exposure, and trading activity thresholds. This rule seeks to enhance the risk-based capital rules’ sensitivity to trading risks and also would eliminate the use of external ratings as required by Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act. Comments on each of the proposed rules can be submitted through September 7, 2012.
Concurrent with the proposed rules, the federal regulators released a final rule regarding market risk. By amending the calculation of market risk, the final rule seeks to better characterize the risks facing a particular institution and to help ensure the adequacy of capital related to the institution’s market risk-related positions. The final rule incorporates comments received in response to a January 2011 proposed rule, as well as a December 2011 amended proposed rule, and applies to a banking organization with aggregate trading assets and liabilities equal to 10 percent of total assets, or $1 billion or more. According to the regulators, the most significant change from the proposals relates to the methods for determining the capital requirements for securitization positions. The final rule will impose greater capital requirements on the more subordinate tranches in a securitization because the final rule mechanism to calculate the capital charges on securitization exposures when the underlying pool of assets demonstrates credit weakness was altered to focus on delinquent exposures rather than on cumulative losses. This rule takes effect January 1, 2013.
OCC Finalizes Rule to Replace Certain Credit Rating References with Alternative Creditworthiness Standards.
On June 13, pursuant to Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, the OCC published a final rule with regard to regulations applicable to investment securities, securities offerings, and foreign bank capital equivalency deposits. The final rule is identical to the rule proposed by the OCC in November 2011 and will require national banks to assess whether a security issuer has an "adequate capacity to meet financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the asset or exposure," a standard which may be met if the risk of default by the issuer is low and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected. For federal savings associations, the definition of "investment grade" would cross-reference the requirement established by the FDIC. Simultaneously, the OCC finalized guidance to outline measures (i) banks should put in place to demonstrate they have properly verified their investments, and (ii) institutions should put in place to demonstrate their compliance with due diligence requirements when making investments and reviewing investment portfolios. Specific due diligence factors will depend on the type of security, and firms will need to adjust the depth of due diligence to match the credit quality of the security, its complexity, and the size of the investment.
Ninth Circuit Holds Debt Validation Notice That Implicitly Requires Debtor to Dispute Debt in Writing Does Not Violate FDCPA
On June 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a debt validation notice does not violate the FDCPA if it only implicitly, rather than expressly, requires a debtor to dispute his or her debt in writing. Riggs v. Prober & Raphael, No. 10-17220, 2012 WL 2054640 (9th Cir. June 8, 2012). In Riggs, a debt collection law firm, in seeking to collect a debt owed to one of its clients, sent a debt validation notice to a debtor which implied that if the debtor wanted to dispute the debt, she would need to do so in writing. The debtor failed to contact the firm and made no payment towards her debt. Instead, after settling an action brought against her by the firm in state court, the debtor filed suit against the firm in federal court, alleging that the firm violated the FDCPA and its California equivalent because it required her to dispute her debt in writing and therefore misrepresented her right to dispute the debt. In affirming the ruling of the district court, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the least sophisticated consumer could interpret the firms debt validation notice to imply that any dispute of the debt must be in writing. Nevertheless, recognizing that the FDCPA itself can be read to imply that a debtor must dispute a debt in writing, the Ninth Circuit held that there is a violation of the FDCPA only where the debt validation notice expressly requires the dispute be in writing.
Federal Court Holds Offset Against Delinquent Card Account May Violate TILA
On June 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in a pending class action denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and ruled that the plaintiffs properly alleged that a federal credit union violated the TILA and Regulation Z prohibition on offsets when it withdrew funds from members’ deposit accounts to satisfy amounts due on the members’ credit card accounts without clearly establishing a security interest in such deposit accounts. Gardner v. Montgomery County Teachers Federal Credit Union, No. 10-02781, 2012 WL 1994602 (D. Md. Jun 4, 2012). The court rejected the credit union’s argument that it had a consensual security interest in the members’ deposit funds. In doing so, the court closely analyzed the Federal Reserve Board’s Official Staff Commentary on § 226.12(d) of Regulation Z, and determined that the credit union did not meet any of the conditions necessary to claim a security interest in the deposit funds.
Lawmakers Ask CFPB to Examine Student Debit Cards
On June 7, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Representative George Miller (D-CA) sent letters to the CFPB and the Department of Education requesting that those agencies examine the practices associated with bank-affiliated student debit cards. The letters cite a recent U.S. PIRG report that identified troubling practices with these products, including alleged use of improper fees and misleading marketing. The lawmakers pose a series of questions to define the scope of the examination, including, for example (i) whether campus-based debit cards provide adequate consumer protections, (ii) whether the fees and penalties associated wit such cards violate federal law, and (iii) whether the contractual agreements between schools and financial institutions violate student privacy rights.