InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
State AGs challenge FDIC’s “valid-when-made” rule
On August 20, eight state attorneys general—from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia—filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the FDIC’s valid-when-made rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC’s final rule clarifies that, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan (details on the effect of the rule can be found in Buckley’s Special Alert on the issuance of the OCC’s similar rule).
In the complaint—which follows a similar action filed in July by three of the same attorneys general against the OCC for issuing a final rule designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision (previously covered here)—the attorneys general argue, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the FDIA,” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. Moreover, the attorneys general assert that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling “rent-a-bank” schemes.” Finally, the complaint states that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans, and thus that Madden is likely to have been beneficial rather than harmful.” The complaint requests the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act in issuing the rule and hold the rule unlawful.
District court lifts litigation stay in challenge to CFPB’s Payday Rule
On August 20, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a joint motion to lift a stay of litigation in a lawsuit filed by two payday loan trade groups (plaintiffs) challenging the CFPB’s 2017 final rule covering payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other installment loans (Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018 the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asking the court to set aside the Rule, claiming the Bureau’s rulemaking failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the Bureau’s structure was unconstitutional. The parties filed their joint motion to lift the stay last month following several recent developments, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which held that the clause that required cause to remove the director of the CFPB was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). In light of the Court’s decision, the Bureau ratified the Rule’s payments provisions and issued a final rule revoking the Rule’s underwriting provisions (covered by InfoBytes here). The litigation will focus on the Rule’s payments provisions, with the Bureau noting in the joint motion that it intends to “promptly fil[e] a motion to lift the stay of the compliance date for the payments provisions of the 2017 Rule.” The order outlines the briefing schedule for the parties, with summary judgment briefing due to be completed by December 18.
CFPB releases 2021 HMDA filing instructions
On August 21, the CFPB released the Filing Instructions Guide for HMDA data collected in 2021 that must be reported in 2022. The guide states that there are no significant changes to the submission process and that the required data fields to be collected and reported have not changed. Instructions for quarterly reporting can be found in the Supplemental Quarterly Reporting Guide, which was issued the same day. As outlined in a statement issued in March (covered by InfoBytes here), institutions are reminded that as of March 26, 2020, and until further notice, the Bureau does not intend to cite in an examination or initiate an enforcement action against any institution for failure to report its HMDA data quarterly. However, entities should continue collecting and recording HMDA data in anticipation of making annual submissions.
FDIC proposes revisions to MDI statement of policy
On August 21, the FDIC approved a proposed statement of policy, which updates and clarifies the agency’s policies and procedures related to Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs). Among other things, the proposed statement of policy outlines the efforts the agency has undertaken and will continue to take to “preserve and promote” MDIs. Additionally, the proposal defines the program terms for technical assistance, training, educations, and outreach. Finally, the proposal includes a description of the FDIC’s examination rating system for MDIs. Comments on the proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
OCC approves bank to use host state interest rate for credit cards
Recently, the OCC released Interpretive Letter 1171, which concludes that an interstate national bank may charge interest on credit cards consistent with the law of the state where the non-ministerial function of loan approval for credit cards occurs. According to the letter, after merging with an affiliate bank in another state, the core of the bank’s credit card business is now conducted from a branch in a state different than the state where the bank is headquartered. The credit card business operations include: (i) development of the bank’s credit risk policy; (ii) decision-making about credit approval communication content; and (iii) establishment of individual transaction credit risk rules.
In the letter, the OCC notes that under an adopted framework interpreting 12 U.S.C. § 85 (known as “Section 85”), “an interstate national bank must or may elect to charge [interest] based on where a loan is ‘made.’” The letter states that “a loan is made where the three non-ministerial functions associated with making a loan occur”: (i) approving the loan; (ii) extending the credit; and (iii) disbursing the loan proceeds. Citing to Interpretive Letter 822, which was issued in March 1998, the OCC concluded that the bank may charge interest based on the law of the state where the affiliate bank is located if (i) “all three non-ministerial functions occur” in that state; or (ii) “at least one non-ministerial function occurs in [that state] and the bank’s credit card lending has a clear nexus to [that state].”
Upon review, the OCC determined that the bank’s non-ministerial function of loan approval occurs in the state where its affiliate bank was located, because all of the credit decisions are based on the bank’s credit risk policy which was established in that state. Additionally, the OCC reasoned that there is a “clear nexus” between the bank’s credit card operations and that state because the bank established several credit card lending activities that occur in that state. Thus, the OCC concluded the bank is authorized to charge interest on credit cards consistent with that state’s law.
CFPB settles with two mortgage companies over misleading VA loan advertisements
On August 26, the CFPB announced a settlement with a mortgage company to resolve allegations that the company, which is licensed as a mortgage broker or lender in approximately 11 states, sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements to servicemembers and veterans for its VA-guaranteed loans in violation of the CFPA, Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. According to the Bureau, among other things, the mortgage company (i) advertised credit terms that the lenders were not actually prepared to offer; (ii) failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose payment terms; (iii) made numerous “misrepresentations about the existence, nature, or amount of cash available to the consumer in connection with the mortgage credit product”; and (iv) misrepresented the consumer’s repayment obligations by failing to state the amount of each payment that would apply over the term of the loan or failing to clearly and conspicuously state that actual payment obligations would be greater. In addition to a $260,000 civil money penalty, the consent order requires the company to enhance its compliance functions, designate a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws, and comply with certain enhanced disclosure requirements. Additionally, the company is prohibited from making similar misrepresentations in the future.
Earlier on August 21, the CFPB also announced a settlement with a mortgage company to resolve allegations that the company sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements to servicemembers and veterans for its VA-guaranteed loans in violation of the CFPA, Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. According to the Bureau, among other things, the mortgage company (i) advertised credit terms that the lenders were not actually prepared to offer; (ii) described variable-rate loans as “fixed,” when in fact the rates were adjustable; (iii) falsely stated or implied that consumers with “FICO scores as low as 500” would qualify for advertised rates; and (iv) gave the false impression the lenders were affiliated with the government. In addition to a $150,000 civil money penalty, the consent order prohibits the company from making similar misrepresentations and requires the company to designate a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws.
The latest enforcement actions are part of the Bureau’s “sweep of investigations” related to deceptive VA-mortgage advertisements. In July, the Bureau issued consent orders with two other mortgage lenders for similar violations, covered by InfoBytes here.
VA extends foreclosure and eviction moratorium for borrowers affected by Covid-19
On August 24, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued Circulars 26-20-30 and 26-20-29, which extend foreclosure and eviction relief for borrowers affected by Covid-19, respectively. Specifically, properties secured by VA-guaranteed loans are subject to a moratorium on foreclosure through December 31, 2020. The moratorium applies to the initiation of foreclosures and to the completion of foreclosures in process. The foreclosure circular is rescinded January 1, 2021. Similarly, properties secured by VA-guaranteed loans, including those loans currently in VA’s Real Estate Owned portfolio, are subject to a moratorium on evictions through December 31, 2020. The eviction moratorium circular is rescinded April 1, 2021.
Connecticut extends eviction moratorium
On August 21, the Connecticut governor issued Executive Order No. 7000, which, among other things, extends the eviction moratorium set forth in previous executive orders, subject to certain modifications (previously discussed here). Pursuant to the modifications, a landlord of a dwelling unit is prohibited from delivering a notice to quit or serve or return a summary process action until October 1, 2020, subject to certain exceptions.
OFAC sanctions Syrian government officials
On August 20, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13573 against two senior members of the Syrian government. OFAC noted that, among other things, the designated individuals allegedly contributed to “the oppression of the Assad regime” in Syria. As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the designated individuals and subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. OFAC further noted that its regulations “generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons,” and warned that non-U.S. persons that engage in transactions with the designated persons may expose themselves to designation.
OFAC sanctions persons for providing support to Iranian airline, DOJ files concurrent criminal charges
On August 19, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated two companies, as well as the owner of one of the companies, pursuant to Executive Order 13224 for allegedly providing material support to an Iranian airline previously “designated under counterterrorism authorities for support to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), as well as under a counter proliferation authority that targets weapons of mass destruction proliferators and their supporters.” According to OFAC, the designated persons allegedly provided services to assist the airline sustain its fleet of aircraft and allow it to support the IRGC-QF, as well as transport Iranian technicians and technical equipment to Venezuela to support the Maduro regime. The designations follow a recent OFAC action that targeted a China-based company for allegedly acting as a general sales agent for or on behalf of the Iranian airline (covered by InfoBytes here), and serves as “another warning to the international aviation community of the sanctions risk for individuals and entities that choose to maintain commercial relationships with [the Iranian airline] and other designated airlines.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC further noted that its regulations “generally prohibit all dealings by U.S. persons or within (or transiting) the United States that involve any property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless licensed or exempt,” and warned foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitating significant transactions or providing significant financial services to the designated persons may subject them to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.
On the same day, the DOJ announced criminal charges against the designated individual and one of the companies for allegedly conspiring to violate U.S. export laws, defraud the U.S., and violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSRs).