InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Virginia outlines private student loan provider disclosure requirements
On March 23, the Virginia governor signed HB 743, which outlines disclosure requirements for private student loan providers to follow before issuance of a qualified education loan. The disclosure must contain contact information for the state’s Office of the Qualified Education Loan Ombudsman, as well as “a summary of the student loan information applicable to private education loans.” HB 743 further states that this disclosure may be “made in in conjunction with or incorporated into another disclosure” provided it is sent to a borrower prior to the issuance of a loan. The act takes effect July 1, 2021.
Federal agencies extend Volcker Rule comment period
On April 2, the Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, OCC, and SEC (agencies) jointly announced that they would extend the comment period to May 1 on their proposal to modify and streamline the “covered funds” requirements under Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, commonly known as the Volcker Rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposed amendments would, among other things, clarify the regulations concerning covered funds and address certain related issues, including permitting the activities of qualifying foreign excluded funds. The comment period originally was scheduled to end April 1. However, due to potential disruptions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the agencies agreed to extend the comment deadline to May 1.
OCC, FDIC outline SBA relief programs pursuant to the CARES Act
On April 2, the OCC issued Bulletin 2020-31 and the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 33-2020 to highlight for banks the SBA-relief programs available pursuant to the CARES Act. The bulletin urges banks to utilize the programs to help small businesses that have been financially impacted by Covid-19, adding that the SBA “is streamlining its eligibility criteria and processes to enable more financial institutions to use these programs for eligible small business borrowers.” The guidance highlights three relief programs, including (i) the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is “an expansion of the SBA’s 7(a) loan program” and provides SBA-guaranteed loans to eligible borrowers; (ii) the Economic Injury Disaster Loan and Loan Advance Program, which is also an expansion of a current SBA program—the disaster assistance loan program—where borrowers may receive a loan of up to $2 million for working capital, and up to $10,000 as an advance that the borrower is not required to repay; and (iii) the Debt Relief Program, which provides 6 months of principal, interest and fees on 7(a) loans already in existence or originated prior to September 27.
Additional information on PPP loans can be found on the SBA website here and on the Treasury Department website here. Information about other SBA resources can be found here, and on the FDIC’s Coronavirus Information page here.
District court dismisses class action overdraft fee claims
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed proposed class action overdraft fee claims brought against a national bank and the national bank’s parent company. The plaintiff argued that the bank unfairly charged him overdraft fees for debit transactions he made using two separate merchant debit cards (known as “decoupled debit cards”) that linked to his bank account. The plaintiff contended that because the bank’s contract language stated it would not charge overdraft fees on “non-recurring” debit transactions, this language should control despite the fact that the decoupled debit cards were not issued by the bank. The plaintiff brought multiple claims against the bank, including “breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.” The bank moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The court first dismissed all claims brought against the national bank’s parent company, saying that the plaintiff combined and conflated the two entities. The court then dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s claims against the national bank for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The court also dismissed, but without prejudice, the claims against the national bank for breach of contract and unconscionability, although the court noted that the bank’s contract language “only applies to debit cards or access devices that were issued by [the bank], unlike the decoupled debit cards at issue here.”
CFPB issues 2019 Consumer Response Annual Report
On March 31, the CFPB published its Consumer Response Annual Report, providing a review of the Bureau’s complaint process and a description of complaints received from consumers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia between January 1 and December 31, 2019.
According to the report, the Bureau handled approximately 352,400 consumer complaints. Of these complaints, roughly 81 percent were submitted to companies for review and response, 14 percent were referred to other regulatory agencies, and five percent were determined to be incomplete. Report data showed that more than 3,200 companies responded to complaints received by the Bureau, with roughly 7,800 complaints receiving administrative responses. In addition, at the end of 2019, approximately 15,700 complaints were still being reviewed by companies, the report stated. The top products and services—representing approximately 89 percent of all complaints—were credit or consumer reporting, debt collection, credit cards, mortgages, and checking or savings accounts. The Bureau also received complaints related to: (i) student, personal, and payday loans; (ii) money transfers and virtual currency; (iii) vehicle finance; (iv) prepaid cards; (v) credit repair; and (vi) title loans. As reported by the CFPB, the majority of consumers who submitted complaints indicated that they first tried to resolve their issues with the companies.
DOJ reaches $2.47 million settlement to resolve alleged lending violations regarding FHA-insured reverse mortgages
On March 31, the DOJ announced a $2.47 million settlement with an Oklahoma-based mortgage lender in connection with alleged violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) related to an acquired predecessor entity’s origination and underwriting of home equity conversion mortgages (HECM). According to the DOJ, these HECM loans were insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) but failed to meet HUD requirements. The DOJ alleged that, prior to May 2, 2010, the predecessor entity ordered appraisals for HECM loans on forms that provided loan amounts and “otherwise improperly communicated certain information to [appraisers] in an attempt to influence the appraised value, in violation of FHA requirements.” The mortgage lender agreed to pay the DOJ $1.97 million to resolve the FCA claims, as well as $500,000 to HUD to resolve administrative liability allegations. The DOJ’s press release noted that the claims “are allegations only, and [that] there has been no determination of liability.”
SEC chair discusses resources allocations, oversight, and rulemaking
On April 2, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton issued a statement outlining the SEC’s approach to its allocation of resources, oversight, and rulemaking agenda. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the SEC issued guidance last month providing temporary relief and assistance to market participants impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, including relief from certain notarization requirements and filing deadline extensions. Clayton noted, however, that despite these challenges, the SEC recognized that it is imperative that issuers keep investors equipped with material information, and accordingly has urged public companies to “continue to evaluate their obligations to make materially accurate and complete disclosures in accordance with the federal securities laws.” Among other things, Clayton also reiterated that, while public comments closed recently on several proposed rulemaking actions, the SEC will “not take final action on these items in the coming weeks to allow potential commenters more time to submit comments for consideration if needed.” The SEC does not expect to move forward on any of these proposed actions prior to May 1.
Relatedly, Clayton discussed Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) and Form CRS, which establish new standards of conduct for broker-dealers and related persons when recommending securities transactions or investment strategies to retail customers. Clayton highlighted the extensive engagement efforts related to the implementation of Reg BI and Form CRS, and encouraged continued engagement with investors and other market participants on these regulatory enhancements. Clayton noted that, in light of these engagement efforts, the June 30 compliance date remains appropriate, and provided a number of resources to assist firms in understanding the new requirements and implementation process.
SEC issues temporary guidance on signature and notary requirements
On April 2, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets (Division) issued a statement regarding temporary requirements—as a result of Covid-19—for certain documents ordinarily submitted to the Division in paper form, including documents that require signatures or notarization. The Division states that it will not recommend enforcement actions for noncompliance with paper document and manual signature submission requirements against persons experiencing Covid-19-related logistical compliance difficulties, provided that certain conditions are met, including: (i) paper submission alternatives are coordinated with Division staff; (ii) electronic signatures are used in place of manual signatures; (iii) manually signed signature pages for all electronically signed submissions are retained and presented to the Division upon request; (iv) an indication of the date and time a signature page was signed is furnished; and (v) “policies and procedures governing this process” are created and implemented.
The Division states that it will not recommend an enforcement action for failure to obtain notarization services, including those required for electronically filed broker-dealer annual reports due prior to June 30, if the filer: (i) provides a note on the document to indicate that it was not notarized “based upon relief from Commission staff and difficulties arising from COVID-19”; and (ii) provides written notification that the document was not notarized due to Covid-19 related issues to the Division at tradingandmarkets@sec.gov, or, in the case of a broker-dealer annual report, to “designated examining authority.”
The statement’s guidance is effective for papers submitted from March 16 through June 30.
Montana Secretary of State provides definitions and conditions for technology-based notarizations
The Montana Secretary of State’s website enumerates four ways to perform notary services in the state. They include traditional notarization, In-Person Electronic Notarization (IPEN or eNotarization), Remote Online Notarization (RON), and remote notarization. The webpage also describes the conditions unique to each type of notary service. This guidance follows the enactment of full RON, remote notarization on tangible records, as well as IPEN last fall.
West Virginia Secretary of State announces temporary remote notarization
On April 1, West Virginia’s secretary of state released an emergency rule authorizing electronic notarization as a result of Covid-19. The switch enables the use of audio and visual technology to witness and record notarizations, but requires the notary to create a recording of the performance of the individual signing, and retain a copy of that recording. Warner’s announcement specified that the electronic notary authorization would only be valid during the state of emergency, and will expire when the emergency measures are lifted.