InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC releases CRA determinations, distressed and underserved areas
On January 29, the OCC published Bulletin 2021-5, containing lists of bank type determinations and distressed and underserved areas for 2021, and its computation of the banking industry’s median hourly compensation value. The information is applicable to national banks, federal and state savings associations, and federal branches of foreign banks subject to the agency’s 2020 final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act rule (CRA). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the 2020 final rule, among other things (i) updated deposit-based assessment areas; (ii) mandated the inclusion of consumer loans in CRA evaluations; and (iii) included a non-exhaustive illustrative list of activities that qualify for CRA consideration. The 2021 list of bank type determinations identifies banks based on asset size or business model. According to the OCC, a bank’s type will “generally determine[] the performance standards and related examination procedures used to evaluate that bank’s CRA performance.” The agency’s list of distressed or underserved areas identifies tracts where banks participating in qualifying activities may receive CRA consideration under the final rule’s community development definition. Finally, the OCC states that the banking industry median hourly compensation value applicable to qualifying community development service activities will be $39.03. This figure, the agency explains, will be “used to quantify the value of a bank’s community development services” performed from October 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021.
OCC delays fair access rule
On January 28, the OCC announced it has paused publication of a final rule that would ensure covered national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign bank organizations provide all customers fair access to financial services. Delaying publication in the Federal Register “will allow the next confirmed Comptroller of the Currency to review the final rule and the public comments the OCC received, as part of an orderly transition,” the agency explained. Under the final rule (covered by InfoBytes here), banks would be required to grant fair access to financial services, capital, and credit based on the risk assessment of individual customers, rather than broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers. The OCC confirmed, however, that its “long-standing supervisory guidance stating that banks should avoid termination of broad categories of customers without assessing individual customer risk remains in effect.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, on January 20, the Biden administration broadly directed the heads of executive departments and agencies across the federal government (without specifying which departments or agencies are covered) to “immediately withdraw” or delay action on any pending regulations not yet published in the Federal Register.
OCC releases recent enforcement actions
On January 21, 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 is a civil money penalty order against a Texas-based bank, which requires the payment of $382,500 for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act and its regulations.
OCC addresses permissible activities for chartered national banks
On January 11, the OCC published an interpretive letter #1176 addressing the OCC’s authority to charter national banks within the scope of 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) of the National Bank Act. As described by the OCC, the statute “recognizes the authority of the OCC to charter a bank that limits its operations to those of a trust company and activities related thereto.” Trust company activities include those “permissible for a state trust bank or company even if those state authorized activities are not necessarily considered fiduciary in nature under 12 U.S.C. § 92a and 12 CFR Part 9.” Accordingly, the letter explains that a national bank chartered under 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) is not limited to fiduciary activities as defined for purposes of 12 C.F.R. Part 9 and may engage in any permissible activities of a trust company. The letter also discusses (i) standards the OCC considers when assessing whether an activity is conducted in a fiduciary capacity; (ii) implications for chartering de novo institutions that limit activities to those of a trust company; (iii) permissible activities of converting state-chartered institutions and the handling of nonconforming assets; and (iv) permissible activities for national banks that do not have fiduciary powers.
OCC addresses qualifying activities for CRA final rule
On January 4, the OCC issued interpretive letter #1177, which addresses qualifying activities of the affiliates and subsidiaries of national banks and savings associations under the OCC’s 2020 final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert here, the 2020 final rule, among other things (i) updated deposit-based assessment areas; (ii) mandated the inclusion of consumer loans in CRA evaluations; and (iii) included a non-exhaustive illustrative list of activities that qualify for CRA consideration. The interpretive letter states that qualifying activities under the 2020 final rule may include the CRA qualifying activities of the consolidated subsidiaries of a bank, but that a bank’s qualifying activities generally do not include the activities of the bank’s nonbank affiliates. The OCC notes that the “very factors demonstrating the tight link between a bank and its consolidated subsidiary…suggest that activities conducted by a bank’s parent and sister companies should generally not receive CRA credit.” Thus, banks will not be given credit for qualifying activities conducted by such affiliates unless the bank “directly financed or otherwise supported such activities.”
Fed proposes SAR filing exemptions
On January 22, the Federal Reserve Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking, which would modify the requirements to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, U.S. offices of foreign banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve, and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries. The proposal would amend the Board’s SAR regulations to allow for the issuance of exemptions from the requirements of those regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December, the FDIC and the OCC issued similar proposals. As with the OCC and the FDIC proposals, the Board’s proposal is intended “to facilitate supervised institutions in meeting Bank Secrecy Act requirements more efficiently and effectively, including through development of innovative solutions.” Comments on the proposed rule are due February 22.
Agencies release SARs/AML consideration FAQs
On January 19, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the OCC, in consultation with staff at certain other federal functional regulators, published answers to frequently asked questions concerning suspicious activity reporting (SAR) and other anti-money laundering (AML) considerations. The answers clarify financial institutions’ commonly asked questions about SARs/AML regulatory requirements and are provided to assist financial institutions with their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/AML compliance obligations in order to enable them “to focus resources on activities that produce the greatest value to law enforcement agencies and other government users of [BSA] reporting.” Topics discussed include (i) law enforcement requests for financial institutions to maintain accounts; (ii) receipt of grand jury subpoenas and law enforcement inquiries and SAR filings; (iii) maintaining customer relationships following the filing of SARs; (iv) filing SARs based on negative news identified in media searches; (v) information provided in SAR data and narrative fields; and (vi) SAR character limits. The agencies note that the FAQs do not alter existing BSA/AML requirements or establish new supervisory expectations, but have been developed in response to recent recommendations as described more thoroughly in FinCEN’s Advance Notice or Proposed Rulemaking issued last September on AML program effectiveness (covered by InfoBytes here).
OCC settles with bank’s former GC on account openings
On January 15, the OCC announced a $3.5 million penalty against a national bank’s former general counsel for his role in the bank’s incentive compensation sales practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in January 2020, the OCC announced charges against the former general counsel and other executives, seeking a lifetime prohibition from participating in the banking industry, a personal cease and desist order, and/or civil money penalties. The January announcement included settlements with three of the executives, and the OCC settled with three others in September 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here).
In addition to the $3.5 million penalty, the consent order against the former general counsel includes a personal cease and desist, and a requirement to cooperate with the OCC in any investigation or proceeding related to the sales practices of the bank. The consent order does not prohibit the former general counsel from holding future executive positions within the industry.
OCC urges court to uphold valid-when-made rule
On January 14, the OCC moved for summary judgment in an action filed by the California, Illinois, and New York attorneys general (collectively, “states”) challenging the OCC’s valid-when-made rule, arguing that the challenge is without merit and that the agency “reasonably interprets the ‘gap’ in [12 U.S.C. § 85] concerning what happens when a national bank sells, assigns, or transfers a loan.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC’s final rule was designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision and provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. § 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” The states challenged the rule, arguing that it is “contrary to the plain language” of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)) and “contravenes the judgment of Congress,” which declined to extend preemption to non-banks. Moreover, the states contend that the OCC “failed to give meaningful consideration” to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.”
In response, the OCC argued that not only does the final rule reasonably interpret the “gap” in section 85, it is consistent with section 85’s “purpose of facilitating national banks’ ability to operate their nationwide lending programs.” Moreover, the agency asserts that 12 U.S.C. § 25b’s preemption standards do not apply to the final rule, because, among other things, the OCC “has not concluded that a state consumer financial law is being preempted.” The final rule “addresses only the ‘substantive [ ] meaning’ of § 85” and Congress “expressly exempted OCC’s interpretations of § 85 from § 25b’s requirements.” Lastly, the OCC argued that it made an “informed and reasoned decision,” including addressing issues raised during the public comment period. Thus, the court should uphold the final rule and affirm summary judgment for the agency.
CFPB finalizes rule stating supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On January 19, the CFPB issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and the NCUA on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] MRAs and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.”
The Bureau notes that it chose to issue a final rule that is specific to the Bureau and Bureau-supervised institutions, rather than a joint version including the five agencies as it did with the proposal. However, the final rule adopts the proposed rule without substantive change. The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Similar announcements were issued by the OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.