InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC takes action against debt collection schemes
On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina lifted the temporary seal of two FTC complaints (available here and here) filed against two groups of debt collection companies and their owners (collectively, “defendants”), alleging that the defendants’ debt collection practices violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA. According to both complaints, which were filed on July 13, the FTC alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to collect payments from consumers for debts that they did not actually owe or that the defendants had no authority to collect. Specifically, the defendants used a “two-step collection process,” in which they used robocalls with prerecorded messages to tell consumers they were subject to “an audit or other proceeding.” After the consumers contacted the defendants about the information in the robocalls, the defendants “falsely represent[ed] that they are representatives of a law firm or a mediation company” and falsely alleged that the consumers would be subject to legal action, including arrest, on a delinquent debt if it was not paid. The FTC asserts that the defendants collected over $17 million from the alleged scheme and is seeking, among other things, restitution, injunctions, and asset freezes.
CFPB moves to enforce subpoena against telemarketer in alleged credit repair operation
On August 25, the CFPB filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Florida to compel a telemarketing company (defendant) allegedly associated with a credit repair operation to comply with a subpoena and produce documents requested by the Bureau. According to the Bureau, the defendant has refused to comply with a subpoena in the ongoing litigation of a 2019 CFPB action against the credit repair operation (covered by InfoBytes here). The operation allegedly violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by using “Hotswap Partners,” such as the defendant, who allegedly engaged in deceptive acts and practices when selling and marketing financial products and “live-transferr[ing]” consumers to the credit repair operation’s telemarketing call centers. The Bureau contends that the defendant transferred “thousands of consumers” to the operation each year for at least a decade, yet has only provided a minimal number of documents in response to the subpoena, which seeks records related to the defendant’s business activities and marketing relationship with the credit repair operation. According to the Bureau, the defendant has refused to produce additional materials based on “boilerplate and unsubstantiated objections.” The Bureau also argues that the defendant has failed to provide a basis for its objections, which include a “general privilege objection and a general objection that the requested format of certain unspecified documents would ‘impose an unreasonable burden on the Company,’” and has “rebuffed” every attempt made by the Bureau to discuss compliance with the subpoena.
CFPB says it is on track to meet data collection deadlines
On August 24, the CFPB filed another status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. Details on the Bureau’s first status update can be found here.
Among other things, the Bureau noted in the status report that (i) on July 22, it released a “survey of lenders to obtain estimates of the onetime costs that lenders would incur to prepare to collect data required by Section 1071”; and (ii) on August 11, it provided the SBA and the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a draft Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) outline regarding proposals under consideration and alternatives considered. The status report emphasizes that the Bureau is “on track” to release a SBREFA outline by September 15 and convene a SBREFA panel by October 15, as required by the settlement.
Senate investigation finds that oligarchs use art industry to avoid sanctions
Last month, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a bipartisan report titled “The Art Industry and U.S. Policies that Undermine Sanctions,” which details findings from a two-year investigation related to how Russian oligarchs appear to have used the art industry to evade U.S. sanctions. According to the Subcommittee, the investigation—which focused on major auction houses, private New York art dealers, and seven financial institutions—revealed that the “secretive nature” of the art industry “allowed art intermediaries to purchase more than $18 million in high-value art in the United States through shell companies linked to Russian oligarchs after they were sanctioned by the United States in March 2014,” and that, moreover, “the shell companies linked to the Russian oligarchs were not limited to just art and engaged in a total of $91 million in post-sanctions transactions.” The report claims that the art industry is largely unregulated, and, unlike financial institutions, is not subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and is not required to maintain anti-money laundering (AML) and anti-terrorism financing controls. However, the report notes that sanctions imposed by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) do apply to the industry, emphasizing that U.S. persons are not allowed to conduct business with sanctioned individuals or entities.
The Subcommittee’s key findings include that while four of the major auction houses have established voluntary AML controls, they treat an art agent or advisor as the principal purchaser of the art, which allows the auction house to perform due diligence on the art agent or advisor instead of identifying and evaluating a potentially undisclosed client. The auction houses also reportedly rely on financial institutions to identify the source of funds used to purchase the art. Because of these practices, the report concludes that these shell companies continue to have access to the U.S. financial system despite the imposition of sanctions.
The report makes several recommendations including: (i) the BSA should be amended to include businesses that handle transactions involving high-value art; (ii) Treasury should be required to collect beneficial ownership information for companies formed or registered to do business in the U.S., making the information available to law enforcement; (iii) Treasury should consider imposing sanctions on a sanctioned individual’s immediate family members; (iv) Treasury should announce and implement sanctions concurrently “to avoid creating a window of opportunity for individuals to avoid sanctions”; (v) the ownership threshold for blocking companies owned by sanctioned individuals should be lowered or removed; (vi) Treasury should maximize its use of suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions to, among other things, alert other financial institutions of the risks of transacting with sanctioned entities; (vii) OFAC should issue comprehensive guidance for auction houses and art dealers on steps for determining “whether a person is the principal seller or purchaser of art or is acting on behalf of an undisclosed client, and which person should be subject to a due diligence review”; and (viii) OFAC should issue guidance on “the informational exception to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act related to ‘artworks.’”
Additionally, in June, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA) as an amendment (S.Amdt 2198 to S.4049) to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would, among many other things, require federal agencies to study “the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade of works of art or antiquities” and, if appropriate, propose rulemaking to implement the study’s findings within 180 days of the AMLA’s enactment.
Agencies finalize three pandemic-related rules
On August 26, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC finalized three rules that were temporarily issued in March and April to assist financial institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic. Highlights of the three rules include:
- Community Bank Leverage Ratio (CBLR). The agencies adopted, without change, two interim final rules issued in April (covered by InfoBytes here) that temporarily lower the CBLR threshold and provide a gradual transition back to the prior level in order to enable qualifying community banking organizations to support lending during the Covid-19 pandemic. Effective October 1, the final rule, among other things, lowers the leverage ratio to eight percent through 2020 and increases the ratio to 8.5 percent in 2021 and nine percent in 2022.
- Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL). The agencies adopted, without substantial change, an interim final rule issued in March (covered by InfoBytes here), which provides an additional two years to the three-year transition period that is already available to “mitigate the estimated cumulative regulatory capital effects” of CECL. The final rule expands the pool of eligible institutions to include any institution adopting CECL in 2020 and is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
- Capital distributions. The agencies adopted, without change, an interim final rule issued in March revising the definition of “eligible retained income” to allow for a more gradual application of any automatic limitations on capital distributions if an institution’s capital levels decline below certain levels. Additionally, the final rule includes the adoption of a Federal Reserve-only interim final rule (covered by InfoBytes here), similarly revising the definition of “eligible retained income” for purposes of the total loss-absorbing capacity rule. The final rule is effective January 1, 2021.
Agencies clarify BSA/AML due diligence requirements for “politically exposed persons”
On August 21, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, FinCEN, NCUA, and OCC issued a joint statement clarifying that banks should ensure customers who may be considered “politically exposed persons” (PEPs) be subject to customer due diligence matching the risk levels posed by the relationships. In general, while PEPs are not defined within the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) regulations, they commonly refer to “foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as their immediate family members and close associates.” U.S. public officials are not included. Specifically, the agencies emphasized that not all individuals who might qualify as PEPs “are high risk solely by virtue of their status.” While FinCEN’s customer due diligence rule (CDD rule), requires banks to identify and verify the identities of new account holders, assess the riskiness of these customer relationships, and conduct ongoing monitoring (see InfoBytes coverage of the CDD Rule here), the agencies note that “the CDD rule does not create a regulatory requirement, and there is no supervisory expectation, for banks to have unique, additional due diligence steps for customers who are considered PEPs. Instead, the level and type of CDD should be appropriate for the customer risk.”
The joint statement also outlines a number of considerations for banks to take into account when evaluating a PEP’s risk level, including the type of products and services used, the volume and nature of transactions, the nature of the customer’s authority or influence over government activities or officials, and the customer’s access to significant government assets or funds. Among other impacts, the agencies note that the customer risk profile may effect “how the bank complies with other regulatory requirements, such as suspicious activity monitoring, since the bank structures its BSA/AML compliance program to address its risk profile, based on the bank’s assessment of risks.” The joint statement also rescinds the 2001 Guidance on Enhanced Scrutiny for Transactions that May Involve the Proceeds of Foreign Corruption related to foreign PEPs.
The agencies emphasized, however, that the joint statement does not change existing BSA/AML legal or regulatory requirements, nor does it “require banks to cease existing risk management practices if the bank considers them necessary to effectively manage risk.”
District court preliminarily approves $650 million biometric privacy class action settlement
On August 19, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of a $650 million biometric privacy settlement between a global social media company and a class of Illinois users. If granted final approval, the settlement would resolve consolidated class action claims that the social media company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by allegedly developing a face template that used facial-recognition technology without users’ consent. A lesser $550 million settlement deal filed in May (covered by InfoBytes here), was rejected by the court due to “concerns about an unduly steep discount on statutory damages under the BIPA, a conduct remedy that did not appear to require any meaningful changes by [the social media company], over-broad releases by the class, and the sufficiency of notice to class members.” The preliminarily approved settlement would also require the social medial company to provide nonmonetary injunctive relief by setting all default face recognition user settings to “off” and by deleting all existing and stored face templates for class members unless class members provide their express consent after receiving a separate disclosure on how the face template will be used.
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.