InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC appeals judgment in NYDFS fintech charter challenge
On April 23, the OCC filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal a district court’s final judgment in an NYDFS lawsuit that challenged the agency’s decision to allow non-depository fintech companies to apply for Special Purpose National Bank charters (SPNB charter). As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October the district court entered final judgment in favor of NYDFS, ruling that the SPNB regulation should be “set aside with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” rather than only those that have a nexus to New York State. The judgment followed the court’s denial of the OCC’s motion to dismiss last May (covered by InfoBytes here), in which the court concluded, among other things, that the OCC failed to rebut NYDFS’s claims that the proposed national fintech charter posed a threat to the state’s ability to establish its own laws and regulations, and that engaging in the “business of banking” under the National Bank Act (NBA) “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business.” Highlights of the OCC’s appeal include:
- The OCC claims that NYDFS lacks standing and that its claims are unripe because its alleged injuries are premised on a non-depository fintech company receiving a SPNB charter and commencing business in the state. However, the OCC has yet to receive even an application. The OCC also argues that NYDFS “would not be prejudiced by waiting to resolve these claims until OCC takes affirmative steps to approve an application” because the period between preliminary conditional approval and final approval would provide “ample opportunity to challenge such an application.”
- The OCC argues that the district court erred in holding that the agency’s decision to accept SPNB charter applications from non-depository fintechs was not entitled to Chevron deference. Specifically, the term “business of banking” under the NBA is “ambiguous” on whether it requires deposit-taking, and the OCC’s resolution of that ambiguity is reasonable as it is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court case law.
- The OCC argues that even if NYDFS’s claims were justiciable (and even if the OCC’s interpretation was not entitled to Chevron deference), any relief NYDFS is entitled to receive must be limited to the state. The OCC contends that the district court’s decision to grant nationwide relief was improper because it is inconsistent with Article III, which establishes that “remedies should not extend beyond what is necessary to redress the plaintiff’s alleged injuries,” as well as equitable principles and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Korean bank settles investigation into Iran transfers; resolves BSA/AML violations allegations
On April 20, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the New York attorney general announced that a Korean bank will pay $51 million in penalties to resolve a six-year investigation into the bank’s transfer of more than $1 billion to Iranian entities in violation of U.S. economic sanctions. According to the U.S. Attorney’s press release and deferred prosecution agreement and statement of facts (as well as a press release from the state attorney general), the bank violated the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) by “willfully failing to establish, implement, and maintain an adequate anti-money laundering (‘AML’) program” at its New York branch—even though its compliance officer repeatedly asked it to do so—which led to the illegal transfer of approximately $1 billion in transactions to Iran in violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. According to the government, the bank’s lack of an effective AML program resulted in its failure to detect and report $10 million in payments through the bank and other U.S. financial institutions from Korean entities to Iranian entities, as well as its failure to “report the balance of the $1 billion of such sanctioned transactions” between the parties. Furthermore, the bank also failed to self-report to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control its wrongdoing in a timely manner or its willful violations of the BSA prior to the investigation. Under the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the bank will pay $51 million through a civil forfeiture action, half of which will go to the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, and will undergo regular reviews of its AML and sanctions compliance programs.
The bank also reached a separate agreement with NYDFS for violating state regulations, under which it will pay an additional $35 million penalty for violations of BSA/AML laws. Among other things, NYDFS found that the compliance program of the bank’s New York branch failed to achieve satisfactory levels until its 2019 examination. “While the department applauds the bank for its ultimate efforts after eight examination cycles of noncompliance, one positive examination report does not equate to a sustainable, safe and sound financial institution,” NYDFS said in its consent order. Under the terms of the order, the bank is required to revise its BSA/AML compliance program and enhance its customer due diligence program to ensure compliance with relevant state laws and regulations. NYDFS acknowledged the bank’s substantial cooperation in the matter, including remediating identified shortcomings.
New York Department of Financial Services announces temporary guidelines on annual meeting requirements
On April 16, New York Department of Financial Services announced temporary regulatory relief for state-chartered financial services entities regarding annual meeting requirements. The announcement specifically allowed for annual meetings to be conducted virtually via teleconference, and extended the deadline to hold stockholder meetings, allowing affected entities to fulfill the requirement within the first seven months, as opposed to the first four months, of its fiscal year.
NYDFS permits depository institutions to hold remote meetings
On April 16, the New York State Department of Financial Services announced that it issued an order permitting state-chartered banks, credit unions, mutual savings and loan associations, and mutual savings banks to hold meetings virtually. These include stockholder, shareholder and accountholder meetings. The order also extends the timing requirement for annual stockholder meetings so that meetings may be held within seven months of the institution’s fiscal year end, instead of four months.
New York Department of Financial Services issues FAQs for emergency insurance regulations
New York’s Department of Financial Services has published FAQs for the property/casualty emergency regulation adopted on March 30. The FAQs address which policyholders are eligible for the 60-day moratorium on policy cancellation or non-renewal and other concerns pertaining to implementation of the moratorium.
New York Department of Financial Services issues Covid-19 cybersecurity guidance
On April 13, the New York Department of Financial Services issued guidance on cybersecurity awareness during the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance identifies three areas of heightened risk: (i) remote working, including the risks associated with less secure internet connections, expanded use of less secure personal devices, increased use of video and audio-conferencing applications, and use of unauthorized personal accounts and applications to transmit non-public information; (ii) increased online phishing and fraud attempts; and (iii) increased risk to third party vendors. In accordance with the DFS’s cybersecurity regulation, all regulated entities are instructed to assess these risks and address them appropriately.
NYDFS strongly opposes OCC’s proposed CRA rulemaking
On April 8, NYDFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell sent a letter to OCC Comptroller Joseph Otting expressing her “strong opposition” to the OCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) issued last December to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). (See Buckley Special Alert discussing the NPR). Lacewell urged the OCC to revise substantially or abandon the NPR, referring to the Department’s “extensive experience with the CRA” through its oversight of state-chartered banks’ compliance with the New York Community Reinvestment Act, which, according to Lacewell “largely mirrors the current federal CRA.”
Lacewell addressed several concerns, including that the NPR’s proposed evaluation framework would “reduce CRA evaluations to a single, dollar value comparison of banks’ CRA-qualifying activities to deposits.” This single-metric CRA ratio, Lacewell, stated, would eliminate important qualitative aspects of CRA evaluations and “incentivize banks to focus on large-dollar CRA activities to the detriment of complex and innovative small-dollar projects.” Lacewell also expressed concerns with deposit data limitations, and cited the OCC’s separate request for bank-specific data (covered by InfoBytes here) as an indicator that the data to be relied upon for the CRA ratio may be questionable. Lacewell also asserted that the NPR detrimentally redefines CRA-qualifying activities that may not positively impact low- and moderate-income communities, and fails to evaluate properly assessment area changes. Furthermore, Lacewell argued that the NPR reduces the importance of bank branches in CRA evaluations, and imposes new burdens that disproportionately impact intermediate-small banks.
Lacewell expressed support for an alternative approach suggested by Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard in January (covered by InfoBytes here), whose proposal would include, among other things, a set of thresholds calibrated for local conditions and two tests—a retail test and a community development test—that would tailor performance metrics for banks of different sizes and business models.
New York regulator urges student loan servicers to support troubled borrowers
On April 7, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued guidance to state-regulated student loan servicers urging them to “do their part” to alleviate hardships caused by Covid-19. The department stated that student loan servicers “should,” for a period of 90 days, waive late fees, provide forbearance, refrain from sending defaulted loans to debt collectors, and report any missed payments subject to forbearance as “current” to credit reporting agencies.
New York Department of Financial Services shares guidance on insurance notice obligations
The New York Department of Financial Services published guidelines for insurance producers, such as agents and brokers, on providing electronic notices during the Covid-19 emergency. The guidance reduced the burden of standard notice obligations for producers that must comply with new 11 NYCRR § 229.5(b) and 3 NYCRR § 405.6(b)(4) requirements. Specifically, the issuance enabled notices to be communicated by email, regardless of consumer consent, and encouraged producers to share information regarding notice obligations on their websites and via social media.
New York adopts emergency regulations for insurance customers
On March 30, the New York Department of Financial Services announced emergency regulations requiring New York State regulated issuers of life insurance and annuity contracts, property and casualty insurers and premium finance agencies to provide relief to consumers and businesses experiencing financial hardship due to the Covid-19 outbreak. Among other things, the emergency regulations: (i) extend grace periods for making life insurance payments for 90 days, and for making property and casualty insurance payments for 60 days; (ii) establishing a special enrollment period from April 1 to April 15 to obtain health insurance under the New York State’s Health Plan Marketplace; (iii) prohibit life insurers and property and casualty insurers from imposing late fees, reporting the policyholder to a credit bureau, or referring the policyholder to a debt collection agency with respect to such delayed payments; (iv) permit premiums due but not paid during the grace period to be repaid over 12 equal monthly installments; and (v) require premium finance companies to grant the same relief to consumers and businesses that have financed the payments of their premiums, subject to safety and soundness considerations.