InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
9th Circuit affirms $20.8 million disgorgement award
On August 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a $20.8 million disgorgement award and agreed with a district court’s decision to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable. The defendants appealed the district court’s 2021 final judgment of disgorgement, which ordered them to disgorge more than $20.8 million in an action concerning money that was collected from investors for a cancer treatment center that was never built. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court’s order followed a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (covered by InfoBytes here), in which the high court examined whether the SEC’s statutory authority to seek “equitable relief” permits it to seek and obtain disgorgement orders in federal court. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the SEC may continue to collect disgorgement in civil proceedings in federal court as long as the award does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits, and that such awards for victims of the wrongdoing are equitable relief permissible under § 78u(d)(5). The Supreme Court vacated the original $26.7 million judgment and remanded to the lower court to examine the disgorgement amount in light of its opinion. Of the nearly $27 million raised, the SEC alleged the defendants misappropriated approximately $20 million of the funds through payments to overseas marketing companies and to salaries. To calculate the final disgorgement award, the court subtracted what it determined were “legitimate expenses,” including $2.2 million in administrative expenses and $3.1 million in business development expenses, from the nearly $27 million raised.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit reviewed the proper method of calculating disgorgement as an equitable remedy in an SEC enforcement action and found “no error with the district court’s factual findings as to the illegitimate expenses or with the district court’s disgorgement award.” In so finding, the 9th Circuit explicitly rejected appellants argument that disgorgement was improper because the venture resulted in “no revenues and no profit,” finding that such a result “would not produce an equitable remedy.” The appellate court also determined that because the common law “permit[s] liability for partners engaged in concerted wrongdoing,” the district court did not err in holding both defendants jointly and severally liable where there was evidence the appellant in question “played an integral role” in the fraudulent scheme.
FDIC releases July enforcement actions
On August 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in July. During the month, the FDIC issued seven orders consisting of “two orders of prohibition, two orders to pay civil money penalty, two section 19 orders, and one order terminating consent order.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against an Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “made, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral”; and (iii) “failed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $2,500 civil money penalty. The actions also include a civil money penalty imposed against a Texas-based bank related to six alleged violations of the FDPA for “failure to obtain flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone, including multiple structures,” among other alleged violations. The order requires the payment of a $6,000 civil money penalty.
California fines cosmetics chain for privacy violations
On August 24, the California attorney general announced that following an investigative sweep into online retailers, it entered into a $1.2 million settlement with a cosmetics chain for its alleged failure to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information, failure to process user requests to opt-out of such sale via user-enabled global privacy controls, and failure to cure such violations within the 30-day period allowed by the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The action reaffirms the state’s commitment to enforcing the law and protecting consumers’ rights to fight commercial surveillance, AG Bonata said, emphasizing that “today’s settlement sends a strong message to businesses that are still failing to comply with California’s consumer privacy law. My office is watching, and we will hold you accountable. It’s been more than two years since the CCPA went into effect, and businesses’ right to avoid liability by curing their CCPA violations after they are caught is expiring. There are no more excuses. Follow the law, do right by consumers, and process opt-out requests made via user-enabled global privacy controls.”
According to a complaint filed in California Superior Court, third parties monitored consumers’ purchases and created profiles to more effectively target potential customers. The company’s arrangement with these third parties constituted a sale of consumer personal information under the CCPA, therefore triggering certain basic obligations, including telling consumers that it is selling their information and allowing consumers to easily opt-out of the sale of their information. According to the complaint, the company failed to take any of these measures.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to pay a $1.2 million penalty and must disclose to California customers that it sells their personal data and provide a mechanism for consumers to opt out of a sale of their information, including through user-enabled global privacy controls like the Global Privacy Control (GPC). Additionally, the company must ensure its service provider agreements meet CCPA requirements and provide reports to the AG related to its sale of personal information, the status of its service provider relationships, and its efforts to honor the GPC.
The press release also announced that notices were sent to several businesses alleging non-compliance concerning their failure to process consumer opt-out requests made via user-enabled global privacy controls. The AG reiterated that under the CCPA, “businesses must treat opt-out requests made by user-enabled global privacy controls the same as requests made by users who have clicked the “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” link. Businesses that received letters today have 30 days to cure the alleged violations or face enforcement action from the Attorney General.”
Maryland orders debt-consolidation operation to pay more than $2 million in penalties and restitution
On August 22, the Maryland attorney general issued a final order against a debt-consolidation operation, resolving allegations that the respondents collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from consumers to help them consolidate and pay off outstanding debt but failed to provide the promised services. According to the AG, the respondents deceptively promised that their services would save consumers money, allow consumers to pay off outstanding debts in a shorter timeframe than the original loan terms, and improve consumers’ credit scores. Consumers were charged upfront fees ranging from $11,000 to $118,000 for services plus additional amounts that were supposed to go toward paying off their outstanding debts. However, instead of providing the promised services, the respondents allegedly used most of the funds for their own personal use while consumers were threatened with foreclosure and had their cars repossessed. The final order permanently enjoins the respondents from violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the Maryland Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Act, the Maryland Credit Services Business Act, and the Maryland Debt Management Services Act. The respondents are also required to pay a $1.2 million penalty and must refund all monies collected from consumers who did not receive the promised services. The AG estimates that total payments will exceed $2 million.
Massachusetts reaches settlement with mortgage servicer over foreclosure practices
On August 17, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a national mortgage servicer must pay $3.2 million to resolve allegations that its mortgage servicing, debt collection, and foreclosure practices were unfair and deceptive. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the servicer allegedly violated Massachusetts’ Act Preventing Unlawful and Unnecessary Foreclosures by not providing notice and opportunity for borrowers to apply and be reviewed for loan modifications. Among other things, the servicer also allegedly placed debt collection calls exceeding the number of calls permitted by state law, did not inform borrowers of their right to request verification of the amount of their debt, unfairly charged foreclosure-related fees prior to obtaining authority to foreclose, and failed to send required debt validation notices. While the servicer denied the allegations, it agreed to pay borrowers $2.7 million in the form of principal forgiveness on eligible loans as well as a $500,000 fine. The servicer also agreed to “make significant changes” to its business practices.
DFPI orders crypto lender to cease offering unqualified securities
On August 8, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a desist and refrain order to a now-bankrupt cryptocurrency lender and its CEO after determining that the company allegedly made material misrepresentations and omissions in the offering of crypto interest accounts, particularly with respect to understating the risks of depositing digital assets with the company. According to DFPI, since June 2018, the company funded part of its lending operations and proprietary trading through the sale of unqualified securities in the form of digital asset interest-earning accounts known as “Earn Rewards” accounts. DFPI found that the company allegedly offered these accounts to consumers without first qualifying them as securities in compliance with California’s Corporate Securities Law. Additionally, DFPI contended that the company failed to fully disclose material aspects of its business and Earn Rewards accounts, and claimed that the CEO failed to disclose material aspects of the company’s business, made materially misleading statements, or omitted material facts necessary to ensure the statements were not misleading. In June, the company suspended the fulfillment of customer withdrawals from its crypto interest accounts and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization on July 13.
DFPI ordered the company and CEO to desist and refrain from further offers and sale of securities in California, including but not limited to the Earn Rewards accounts, unless such sale has been qualified under California law or unless the security or transaction is exempt from qualification. The company and CEO were also both ordered to desist and refrain from offering securities in California by means of untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact.
SEC files charges against investment scheme targeting seniors
On August 17, the SEC filed a complaint against an consulting company and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding a fraudulent investment scheme. According to the SEC, between February 2017 to May 2022, the owner offered and sold securities in the form of promissory notes issued by the company to at least eleven investors, ages 64 to 82, raising at least $1.2 million while promising interest rates ranging from 50 percent to 175 percent. The owner allegedly “falsely represented to at least certain of the investors that, among other things, the money they invested in the [company] would be used to make loans to other businesses, which would generate the profits used to repay the [company].” As part of the scheme, the owner is alleged to have provided conflicting explanations of the company’s business and convinced investors “to roll-over their notes into new notes combining unpaid amounts with new investments.” The SEC further alleged that instead the owner withdrew over $486,000 from the company’s bank account and used it to fund his lifestyle and pay for personal expenses. The SEC’s complaint alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, plus interest, penalties, bars, and other equitable relief.
States sue installment lender for hidden add-on products
On August 16, a multistate lawsuit led by the Pennsylvania attorney general was filed against a subprime installment lender for allegedly charging consumers for hidden add-on products without their consent. According to the Pennsylvania AG’s press release, consumers believed they had entered into agreements to borrow and repay, over time, a fixed loan amount when allegedly the lender “added hundreds to thousands of dollars to the total amount a consumer owed.” Among other things, the complaint claimed the lender’s alleged “aggressive, high-pressure sales tactics” were “dictated by a profit-driven model,” and that its loans and aggressive sales tactics targeted the most vulnerable borrowers (often subprime and deep subprime borrowers that already carry significant credit card, installment loan, and/or student loan debt) by offering them “small dollar personal loans with high interest costs.” Additionally, the complaint contended that the lender’s corporate policies and practices resulted in employees charging consumers for add-on products they did not know about and did not consent to buy, and that employees were encouraged to perpetrate the unlawful conduct by being rewarded for maximizing add-on charges. The complaint seeks restitution, repayment of unlawfully obtained profits, civil penalties, rescission or reformation of all contracts or loan agreements between the lender and affected consumers, and injunctive relief.
OCC releases enforcement actions data
On August 18, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included in the release is a formal agreement between the OCC and a New York-based bank from July 13 in connection with alleged unsafe or unsound practices relating to information technology security and controls and information technology risk governance. The agreement requires the bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board on a quarterly basis; and (iii) develop, implement, and adhere to a written risk-based IT assurance and testing program.
DFPI enters into settlement with unlicensed point-of-sale lender
On August 3, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced a settlement with a Florida-based point-of-sale lender for allegedly engaging in the business of finance lending in California without obtaining a license. According to the settlement, after conducting an inquiry, DFPI determined that the company violated California Financial Code section 22100(a) “by making loans through the operation of buy now, pay later’ point-of-sale products” without obtaining a proper license. The company voluntarily agreed to the consent order, and, among other things: (i) agreed to desist and refrain from engaging in the business of a finance lender or broker in California unless/until it obtains a California Financing Law (CFL) license authorizing the company to conduct business as a finance lender or broker; (ii) must pay an administrative penalty of $2,500; and (iii) refund fees totaling $13,065. The company also agreed that it will only make loans, deferred payment products, and extensions of credit to California residents under the authority of a CFL license and in compliance with the statute.