InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed announces enforcement action against Illinois bank
On February 10, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against an Illinois-based bank. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly violated the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The order assesses a $253,500 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
DOJ announces $31,000 FCA settlement for duplicative PPP loans
On February 11, the DOJ announced a $31,000 settlement with an IT services company to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by obtaining more than one Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan in 2020. According to the settlement agreement, in April 2020 the company received two SBA-guaranteed PPP loans through two different banks. The company agreed to repay the duplicative PPP loan in full to its lender, relieving the SBA of liability. The settlement press release also noted that the settlement with the company resolved a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the FCA, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the U.S. for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery.
States settle with company on fraudulent MLO certifications
On February 10, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, Maryland’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, and the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation have reached a settlement agreement with the owner of a California-based company for providing false certificates claiming that mortgage loan originators (MLOs) took mandatory eight-hour continuing education courses as required for licensure under state and federal law. The three state financial regulators brought separate enforcement actions alleging violations of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act) against the individual and his family (collectively, “respondents”) for their role in the “multi-state fraud scheme that involved hundreds of mortgage loan originators.” According to the announcement, the respondents have “agreed to fully cooperate and provide testimony against implicated mortgage loan originators,” and have “agreed to a lifetime restriction from direct and indirect involvement in businesses that provide mortgage lending-related education.” In addition to a $75,000 monetary penalty (which will be divided between the three states), the respondents have agreed to a non-compliance penalty of $15 million should they fail to fully comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The action follows a multistate $1.2 million settlement reached last month with 441 MLOs. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the enforcement action included the participation of 44 state agencies from 42 states, and required the settling MLOs to surrender their licenses for three months, pay a $1,000 fine to each state that is a signatory to the consent order in which the MLO holds a license, and take pre-licensing and continuing-education courses before petitioning or reapplying for an MLO endorsement or license.
FTC seeks permanent injunction against auto warranties operation
On February 9, the FTC announced it was charging a Florida-based group of operators (defendants) with violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling automobile warranties. The complaint alleged the defendants, among other things, (i) misrepresented that they are affiliated with consumers’ car dealers or manufacturers; (ii) misrepresented that their warranties provide “bumper-to-bumper” coverage; (iii) falsely promised that consumers can obtain a full refund if they cancel within 30 days; (iv) used remotely created checks which are illegal in telemarketing transactions; and (v) called numbers on the do not call registry. According to the FTC, the defendants allegedly collected more than $6 million from consumers since 2018. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent future violations, as well as redress for injured consumers through “rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money, the return of property, or other relief necessary to redress.”
District Court denies FTC’s stay bid in $550 million suit
On February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the FTC’s motion to stay, or in the alternative, voluntarily dismiss its $550 million consumer deception case against a technology company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”). The FTC filed the motion to stay (or voluntarily dismiss) after a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision altered the agency’s ability to obtain equitable monetary relief.
The FTC filed a suit in 2019 alleging the defendants made deceptive representations to customers and charged hidden, unauthorized fees in connection with the company’s “fuel card” products, which was in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In 2019, when the agency filed its lawsuit, legal precedent held that the FTC could obtain restitution for consumers directly through such civil proceedings in federal court. However, in April of 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, that the FTC does not have statutory authority to obtain equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
As a result, the FTC filed its motion to stay or voluntarily dismiss in an attempt to preserve the possibility of obtaining monetary relief for injured consumers in federal court, while it pursues claims against the defendants through the agency’s administrative process. The defendants argued they would be harmed by a dismissal of the FTC’s suit in federal court since the defendants have spent money and resources on their case to date. The defendants also claimed that the FTC’s request was done to seek a more favorable forum, and that the FTC’s four-month delay in pursuing this new course after the Supreme Court’s AMG decision demonstrates bad faith. The court noted that “[i]n filing this lawsuit in federal court in December of 2019, the FTC was acting in reliance on the state of the law as it existed at that time in this circuit and all others except the Seventh Circuit,” and “[t]here is no fault, and nothing unreasonable, in the FTC’s decision.” Nevertheless, in denying the FTC’s motion, the court concluded that the “balance of equities does not weigh in favor of a stay or dismissal without prejudice.”
D.C. reaches nearly $4 million settlement with online lender to resolve usury allegations
On February 8, the District of Columbia attorney general announced a nearly $4 million settlement with an online lender to resolve allegations that lender marketed high-costs loans carrying interest rates exceeding D.C.’s interest rate cap. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the AG filed a complaint in 2020, claiming the lender violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by offering two loan products to D.C. residents carrying annual percentage rates (APR) ranging between 99-149 percent and 129-251 percent. Interest rates in D.C., however, are capped at 24 percent for loans with the rate expressed in the contract (loans that do not state an express interest rate in the contract are capped at six percent), and licensed money lenders that exceed these limits are in violation of the CPPA. According to the AG, the lender—who allegedly never possessed a money lending license in D.C.—violated the CPPA by (i) unlawfully misrepresenting it was allowed to offer loans in D.C. and failing to disclose or adequately disclose that its loans contain APRs in excess of D.C. usury limits; (ii) engaging in unfair and unconscionable practices through misleading marketing efforts; and (iii) violating D.C. usury laws.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company is required to (i) pay at least $3.3 million in restitution to refund alleged interest overcharges to D.C. borrowers; (ii) provide more than $300,000 in debt forgiveness to D.C. borrowers who would have paid future interest amounts in connection with an outstanding loan balance; and (iii) pay $450,000 to the District. According to the announcement, the company has also agreed that it “will not on its own, or working with third parties such as out of state banks, engage in any act or practice that violates the CPPA in its offer, servicing, advertisement, or provision of loans or lines of credit to District consumers.” The company is also prohibited from charging usurious interest rates, must delete negative credit information associated with its loans and lines of credit, and may not represent that it can offer loans or lines of credit in D.C. without first obtaining a D.C. money lender license.
Georgia reaches settlement with rent-to-own company over deceptive business practices
On February 8, the Georgia attorney general announced a settlement with a rent-to-own company accused of allegedly engaging in deceptive sales and marketing practices and violating the FDCPA. While the company did not admit to the allegations, it agreed to pay $145,590 in civil money penalties, with an additional $170,910 due if the company violates any of the settlement terms. The company is also required to (i) ensure its advertising, sales, and marketing practices comply with the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act and the Georgia Lease-purchase Agreement Act; (ii) refrain from engaging in harassing and unlawful debt collection practices; and (iii) verify debts are accurate before placing them with a third-party collection agency. “Our office takes seriously allegations of deceptive business practices, and companies that take advantage of our citizens will be held accountable,” the AG stated.
District Court orders debt-relief company to pay $41.1 million CMP
On February 7, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered a default judgment and order against a debt-relief company (default defendant) accused of allegedly violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau filed the complaint in 2020 alleging that the company and its two owners (collectively, “defendants”) misrepresented material aspects of their student loan debt-relief services, and violated the TSR by requesting and receiving payment of disproportionate fees for their services before they altered or resolved the terms of the debts. The judgment against the default defendant imposes both permanent injunctive relief and monetary remedies including a $41.1 million civil monetary penalty. The default defendant must also pay $2.1 million in consumer restitution and is permanently enjoined from participating in the financial-advisory, debt-relief, or credit-repair service markets in any way, including through marketing or ownership of such services.
Fannie Mae to pay $53 million to settle fair housing violations
On February 7, the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, along with the National Fair Housing Alliance and 19 local fair housing organizations from across the country announced a $53 million settlement with Fannie Mae to resolve allegations that Fannie Mae allowed foreclosed homes in predominantly White neighborhoods to be better maintained and marketed than similar homes in communities of color, a claim corroborated by a four year-long investigation of over 2,300 Fannie Mae real estate owned (REO) properties in 39 metropolitan areas. The plaintiffs alleged that they attempted to get Fannie Mae to voluntarily comply with the Fair Housing Act and change its discriminatory policies and practices, but claimed that Fannie Mae “continued to maintain its REO properties differently based on the predominant race and national origin of neighborhoods” and caused “particularized and concrete injury to those homeowners and residents.”
Under the terms of the settlement, Fannie Mae is required to pay $53 million to cover claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, and cost. Nearly $35.4 million of the settlement amount will be used to address community needs, including “addressing home ownership, neighborhood and/or community stabilization, access to credit, property rehabilitation, residential development in African American and Latino communities, fair housing education and outreach, counseling, and other fair housing activities” in the allegedly harmed areas.
The announcement further noted that the plaintiffs—who will manage and disburse the settlement funds—intend to provide grants that will go towards down-payment assistance for first-generation homebuyers and renovations for homes that languished in foreclosure, as well as innovative programs and partnerships to promote fair housing. The announcement also noted that Fannie Mae has implemented several measures to avoid similar occurrences in the future, such as increasing its oversight of maintenance of its REO properties, prioritizing owner-occupants instead of investors as purchasers of REOs, ensuring compliance with fair housing laws, and providing fair housing training to its employees and vendors. According to the announcement, this case marks the first time a federal court confirmed that the Fair Housing Act has covered the maintenance and marketing of REO properties.
Following the announcement, HUD released a statement applauding the settlement. “It is our hope that settlement of these cases will bring about much needed positive outcomes for these undeserved communities,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Demetria L. McCain said. “We also hope mortgage lenders across the country will take steps to avoid fair housing violations in their own REO portfolios.”
Judgments reached in SEC’s first crowdfunding regulation enforcement action
On January 28, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued judgments (see here and here) against a real estate company and its CEO in the SEC’s first crowdfunding regulation enforcement action. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SEC filed a complaint last September alleging that several entities and related individuals participated in a fraudulent scheme to sell nearly $2 million of unregistered securities through two crowdfunding offerings. The complaint alleged that two of the entities issued securities without registering with the SEC, while their principals diverted investor funds for personal use rather than using the funds for the disclosed purposes. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, the real estate company and the CEO consented to be permanently enjoined from violating certain securities laws. The CEO also agreed to a prohibition on “acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78l] or that is required to file reports pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(d)].” The judgments decreed that, upon motion of the SEC, the court will decide whether disgorgement and/or civil money penalties are appropriate.