InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS settles with bank for compliance failures
On September 29, NYDFS announced a settlement with a South Korean-based bank’s American subsidiary to resolve allegations of repeated violations of AML requirements, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and New York law. According to the consent order, the respondent was repeatedly examined seven times in less than 10 years by DFS and entered into a consent order with the FDIC in 2017 for BSA/AML compliance, among other things. DFS claims that respondents violated (i) New York Banking Law § 44 by conducting their business in an unsafe and unsound manner; (ii) 3 NYCRR § 116.2 by failing to maintain an effective AML compliance program; and (iii) 23 NYCRR § 504.4 by incorrectly certifying compliance with Part 504. To resolve the claims, the respondent agreed to pay a $10 million civil money penalty, and write a written plan detailing improvements to its compliance policies and procedures, among other things.
FDIC makes public August enforcement actions
On September 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in August. During the month, the FDIC made public nine orders consisting of “three consent orders, three orders terminating consent orders, two orders of prohibition, and one order to pay a civil money penalty.” The list includes an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Utah-based bank related to violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. The FDIC claimed that the bank engaged in a pattern practice of violating FDPA by, among other things: (i) issuing loans without adequate flood insurance; (ii) failing to provide notices when increasing or extending loans; and (iii) “failing to provide required force-placed insurance notices when loans were secured by properties and contents located in Special Flood Hazard Areas.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, pay a $4,125 civil money penalty.
DOJ and RI-based bank settlement agreement regarding redlining claims
On September 27, the DOJ announced a $9 million settlement agreement with a Rhode Island-based community bank to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in Rhode Island. The DOJ’s complaint claimed that from 2016 to at least 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island. The DOJ also alleged that all of the bank’s branches were concentrated in majority-white neighborhoods, and that the bank did not take meaningful measures to compensate for not having a physical presence in majority-Black and Hispanic communities.
Under the proposed consent order, the bank will, among other things, (i) invest at least $7 million in a loan subsidy fund for majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island to increase access to credit for home mortgage, improvement, and refinance loans, and home equity loans and lines of credit; (ii) invest $1 million towards outreach, advertising, consumer financial education, and credit counseling initiatives; (iii) invest $1 million in developing community partnerships to expand access to residential mortgage credit for Black and Hispanic consumers; (iv) establish two new branches, ensure at least two mortgage loan officers, and employ a “Director of Community Lending” in majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Rhode Island; (v) conduct a community credit needs assessment; and (vi) produce a fair lending status report and compliance plan and conduct fair lending training. The announcement cited the bank’s cooperation with the DOJ to remedy the identified redlining concerns.
Bank to pay $25 million to settle alleged misleading ESG claims
On September 25, the SEC announced two enforcement actions against a subsidiary (respondent) of a German multinational investment bank and financial services company, in which the respondent agreed to pay a total of $25 million in penalties arising from (i) purportedly misleading statements respondent made regarding its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) program; and (ii) its failure to develop a mutual fund Anti-Money Laundering (AML) program. According to the order, respondent allegedly marketed itself to clients and investors as a leader in ESG that adhered to specific policies for integrating ESG considerations into its investments but failed to implement certain provisions of its global ESG integration policy. The order contains a number of statements that respondent made concerning its ESG program that the SEC found to be materially misleading. For example, respondent allegedly represented through its ESG Policy that its research analysts were required to include financially material and reputation relevant ESG aspects into its valuation models, investment recommendations and research reports and consider material ESG aspects as part of their investment decision, but respondent’s internal analyses allegedly showed that research analysts have inconsistent levels of documented compliance with this requirement. The SEC determined that respondent’s failure to implement certain policies and procedures violated multiple sections of the Advisers Act, including Section 206(2), “which prohibits an investment adviser, directly or indirectly, from engaging ‘in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client.’”
Through the ESG order, respondent has agreed to pay a $19 million civil penalty and to cease and desist from committing any further violations of the violated sections of the Advisors Act. The SEC also charged respondent with a separate Anti-Money Laundering order, for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and FinCen regulations. Respondent did not admit nor deny the SEC’s claims.
FTC fines two companies $6M for inaccurate background reports
The FTC fined two companies that sell consumer background reports through subscriptions for violations of the FTC Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In addition to allegedly claiming, without substantiation, to have the most accurate reports available to the public, the complaint says two companies deceptively claimed individuals had criminal or arrest records when the individual did not; deceptively claimed consumers can remove information or flag it as inaccurate, and deceptively failed to disclose that third-party reviews were incentivized and biased.
The companies also furnished consumer reports to subscribers “without reason to believe those subscribers have permissible purposes to obtain such reports.”
The stipulated order requires the companies to pay a civil penalty of $5.8 million, prohibits them from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale certain reports including arrest records, bankruptcy records, and eviction records until the establish and implement a comprehensive monitoring program, and prohibits them from continuing any of the deceptive practices set forth in the complaint.
CFPB announces consent order against leasing company
On September 11, the CFPB issued a consent order against an Ohio-based nonbank consumer finance company (respondent), for deceptive practices related to consumer leasing agreements. The CFPB, along with 41 states and the District of Columbia, addressed respondent’s conduct in a parallel multi-state settlement. According to the consent order, respondent, operating through major retailers, allegedly concealed contract terms and costs from consumers, leading them to unknowingly enter into costly leasing agreements. The Bureau claims that deceptive practices left consumers unable to return products and burdened with unexpectedly high payments, violating the CFPA and Regulation M, implementing the Consumer Leasing Act.
The consent order states that respondent concealed lease agreement terms, often providing consumers with copies of the agreements after transactions or relying on verbal descriptions from store employees. Consumers were also allegedly trapped by unreasonable return practices, as respondent did not accept returns for many items, forcing consumers to pay excessively high prices. Additionally, the CFPB claimed respondent failed to provide legally required disclosures, leading to revenues of approximately $192 million from around 325,000 consumers.
As a result of the consent order, respondent is permanently prohibited from offering consumer leases and is required to close all outstanding consumer accounts. Consumers will be allowed to keep leased merchandise without further payment, amounting to approximately $33.6 million in released payments. Respondent must also pay a $2 million penalty, with $1 million going to the CFPB's victims’ relief fund and the remaining $1 million allocated to the participating states.
The CFPB's director, Rohit Chopra, emphasized the significance of the order, stating that it permanently bans respondent from engaging in such agreements. The alleged deceptive practices, which occurred from January 1, 2015 to the present, and allegedly affected over 1.8 million consumers who entered into financial agreements with the company covering a wide range of items, from auto parts to furniture and jewelry. Respondent neither admitted nor denied the CFPB’s claims.
Fed announces enforcement action against Kansas bank for operational deficiencies
On September 5, the Fed announced a cease and desist order (the “order”) against a Kansas bank holding company and its subsidiary bank (collectively, the “bank”) for having significant operational deficiencies, including deficiencies related to staffing, internal controls, credit risk management, lending and credit administration, capital, information technology and information security, books and records, regulatory reporting, liquidity and funds management, earnings, interest rate risk management, third-party risk management, and other deficiencies such as compliance with federal laws related to AML/BSA requirements.
The order directs the bank to, among other things, (i) strengthen board oversight; (ii) engage a third party to conduct an assessment of the bank’s corporate governance and staffing; (iii) improve lending and credit administration policies and procedures; (iv) correct the identified information technology and information security deficiencies; (v) revise its allowance for credit losses methodology to comply with supervisory guidance; (vi) enhance interest rate risk management practices; (vii) improve internal controls; (viii) submit a written plan to maintain sufficient capital; (ix) enhance liquidity risk management; and (x) improve the bank’s earnings and overall condition. The order also directs the Bank to improve its BSA/AML compliance program and internal audit program, and to take all necessary steps to correct all violations of law or regulation and to ensure future compliance.
CFPB reaches $2.6 billion settlement with credit repair telemarketers
On August 28, the CFPB announced a proposed settlement with Utah-based credit repair telemarketers and various affiliates (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) by collecting illegal advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in its initial lawsuit the CFPB alleged the defendants requested and received payment of “prohibited” upfront fees for telemarketed credit repair services when they signed up. In June, a district court ruling put a hold on the Bureau’s initial attempt to impose the settlement because of “outstanding issues of fact” which precluded it from entering the agency’s requested relief at that time (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau and defendants have now agreed to a new settlement which will, among other things, (i) impose over $2.7 billion in redress (understanding that the principal corporate defendant is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings); (ii) impose over $64 million in civil money penalties; (iii) ban defendants from telemarketing and from doing business with certain marketing affiliates for ten years; and (iv) require defendants to send a notice of the settlement to “any remaining enrolled customers who were previously signed up through telemarketing.”
The proposed settlement is subject to final approval by the court.
Bank enters into settlement agreement with SEC for charging advisory fees
On August 25, the SEC entered into a settlement agreement with a national bank that requires the bank to pay a $35 million civil penalty for overcharging more than 10,900 investment advisory accounts over $26.8 million in advisory fees. According to the order, the bank and its predecessors agreed to reduce standard advisory fee rates for certain clients when clients agreed to open accounts at the bank via handwritten or typed notes and changes on the clients’ standard investment advisory agreements; however, these reduced rates were not entered into the bank’s billing systems when setting up client accounts. As a result, the clients were overcharged advisory fees for years, because the bank also failed to adopt policies and procedures to prevent overbilling.
The agreement “underscores the need for firms growing their businesses through acquisition to ensure that their growth does not come at the expense of client protection,” said the Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, Gurbir S. Grewel. He further noted that “[i]nvestment advisers must adopt and implement policies and procedures to ensure that they honor their agreements with all of their clients, including legacy clients of predecessor firms.”
In addition to the $35 million civil penalty, the bank also paid affected accountholders approximately $40 million to reimburse clients for the overcharging. The bank did not admit or deny the SEC’s charges set forth in the agreement.
SEC files brief in its Supreme Court appeal to reverse 5th Circuit ruling against use of adjudication powers and ALJs
On August 28, the SEC filed a brief in its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s 2022 ruling that the commission’s in-house adjudication is unconstitutional. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 5th Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of a petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and relied on unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. The brief argues that securities laws are “distinct from common law because they authorize the government to seek civil penalties even if no private person has yet suffered harm from the defendant’s violation (and therefore no person could obtain damages).” Moreover, the SEC argues that the Court has continually upheld the right of an agency to decide whether to enter an enforcement action through the civil or criminal process. The SEC referenced the 1985 Heckler v. Chaney case, which set the precedent that there is no constitutional difference between the power to decide whether to pursue an enforcement action and where to pursue an enforcement action, as they are both executive powers, supporting the claim that there is “a long and unbroken line of decisions that have relied on the public-rights doctrine in upholding such statutory schemes against Article III and Seventh Amendment challenges.” The SEC also reminded the Court that when it enforces securities laws through an administrative enforcement proceeding with a result that is not in favor of the respondent, the respondent may obtain a judicial review through the court of appeals. Finally, the commission contends that the 5th Circuit erred when it held that statutory removal restrictions for ALJs are unconstitutional, and that Congress has “acted permissibly in requiring agencies to establish cause for their removal of ALJs.”