InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District court dismisses False Claims Act suit at DOJ’s request
On July 2, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a False Claims Act suit against a British bank accused of allegedly engaging in banking practices that violated U.S. sanctions against Iran. The bank had entered into deferred prosecution agreements in 2012 and 2019 with the DOJ and agreed to pay penalties to federal and New York authorities to resolve allegations that it had facilitated U.S. dollar transactions for Iranian entities in violation of U.S. sanctions and various New York and federal banking regulations. According to the whistleblower’s suit, the bank mislead the DOJ when negotiating the 2012 deferred prosecution agreement, and allegedly continued to engage in sanctions-violating conduct, “notwithstanding their representations to the [DOJ] that they had thereafter ceased doing so.” The DOJ twice declined to intervene in the case and moved to dismiss, arguing that it was “meritless” and that continuing to discovery would waste government resources. The whistleblower countered that the DOJ “failed to properly investigate its contentions,” but the court determined that this argument was “insufficient to transform the Government’s decision into one that is arbitrary and capricious.” In reaching its decision, the court determined that it did not need to adopt a specific standard, stating, “[l]ike other courts in this [d]istrict to have considered this question, the [c]ourt concludes that it need not definitively determine the appropriate standard of review to resolve this case.” According to the court, this “is because the Government has carried its burden even under the more searching. . .standard” outlined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., which requires the DOJ to identify “‘a valid government purpose’ and ‘a rational relation between dismissal and accomplishment of the purpose.’”
Supreme Court keeps TCPA, severs government-debt exception as unconstitutional
On July 6, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc. that the TCPA’s government-debt exception is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction and severed the provision from the remainder of the statute. As previously covered by InfoBytes, several political consultant groups (plaintiffs) argued that the TCPA’s statutory exemption enacted by Congress as a means of allowing automated calls to be placed to individuals’ cell phones “that relate to the collection of debts owed to or guaranteed by the federal government” is “facially unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause” of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that the debt-collection exemption to the automated call ban contravenes their free speech rights. Moreover, the plaintiffs claimed that “the free speech infirmity of the debt-collection exemption is not severable from the automated call ban and renders the entire ban unconstitutional.” The FCC, however, argued that the applicability of the exemption depended on the relationship between the government and the debtor and not on the content. The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of the FCC, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated, concluding the exemption violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.
In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with the 4th Circuit. The Court noted that “a law is content-based if ‘a regulation of speech ‘on its face’ draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys’”; and a law that allows for robocalls asking for payment of government debt but does not allow robocalls for political donations, “is about as content-based as it gets.” The Court agreed with the government that the content-based restriction failed to satisfy strict scrutiny, as the government could not sufficiently justify the difference “between government-debt collection speech and other categories of robocall speech.” As for remedy, the Court applied “traditional severability principles,” with seven Justices concluding that the entire TCPA should not be invalidated but that the government-debt exception should be severed from the statute. The Court noted that its cases have “developed a strong presumption of severability,” and its “power and preference to partially invalidate a statute in that fashion has been firmly established since Marbury v. Madison.” Moreover, because the government-debt exception is “relatively narrow exception” to the TCPA’s broad robocall restriction, the Court concluded that severing the exception would “not raise any other constitutional problems.”
4th Circuit holds FDCPA’s limitation period restarts at each new violation
On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of an action alleging violations of the FDCPA, concluding that each violation of the FDCPA is governed by its own limitation period. According to the opinion, in April 2018, homeowners filed a complaint against a law firm retained by their homeowners’ association for allegedly violating various provisions of the FDCPA for collection actions taken between April 2016 and February 2018. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that the entire complaint was time-barred because the “FDCPA’s limitations period runs from the date of the first violation, and that later violations of the same type do not trigger a new limitations period under the Act.”
On appeal, the 4th Circuit disagreed with the lower court. Specifically, the appellate court noted that “nothing in the FDCPA suggests that ‘similar’ violations should be grouped together and treated as a single claim for purposes of the FDCPA’s statute of limitations.” And, similar to holdings of other circuits, the 4th Circuit stated that the “FDCPA’s limitations period runs anew from the date of each violation.” While the homeowners did not dispute that several alleged violations fall outside of the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period, the appellate court agreed that the district court erred in dismissing the entire complaint, because it contained at least two potential violations occurring within one-year of the April 2018 filing date.
CFPB repeals Payday Rule’s ability-to-pay provisions
On July 7, the CFPB issued the final rule revoking certain underwriting provisions of the agency’s 2017 final rule covering “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (Payday Lending Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued the proposed rule in February 2019 and the final rule implements the proposal without revision. Specifically, the final rule revokes, among other things (i) the provision that makes it an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make covered high-interest rate, short-term loans or covered longer-term balloon payment loans without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loans according to their terms; (ii) the prescribed mandatory underwriting requirements for making the ability-to-repay determination; (iii) the “principal step-down exemption” provision for certain covered short-term loans; and (iv) related definitions, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. Additional details regarding the final rule can be found in the Bureau’s unofficial redline and executive summary.
While compliance with the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule is currently stayed by court order (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the Bureau states that it “will seek to have them go into effect with a reasonable period for entities to come into compliance.” Additionally, the CFPB ratified the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seila Law (covered by a Special Alert here) and issued a statement on the supervision and enforcement of certain aspects of the payment provisions with respect to certain large loans. According to the statement, the Bureau does not intend to take supervisory or enforcement action with regard to covered loans that exceed the Regulation Z coverage threshold (currently set at $58,300). The statement notes that the Bureau is monitoring and assessing the “effects of the [p]ayment [p]rovisions, including their scope, and [it] may determine whether further action is needed in light of what it learns.”
Moreover, the Bureau released FAQs pertaining to compliance with the payment provisions of the Payday Lending Rule. The FAQs discuss the details of the covered loans and “payment transfers”—defined as a “a debit or withdrawal of funds from a consumer’s account that the lender initiates for the purpose of collecting any amount due or purported to be due in connection with a covered loan”—under the rule.
CFPB ratifies prior regulatory actions in wake of Seila Law
On July 7, the CFPB, “out of an abundance of caution,” ratified several previous actions, including the large majority of the Bureau’s existing regulations, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Seila v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Court held that, while the clause in the Consumer Financial Protection Act that requires cause to remove the director of the CFPB violates the constitutional separation of powers, the removal provision could—and should—be severed from the statute establishing the CFPB, rather than invalidating the entire statute. According to the Bureau’s announcement, the action ratifies most regulatory actions taken by the Bureau from January 4, 2012 through June 30, 2020, and “provides the financial marketplace with certainty that the rules are valid in light of the Supreme Court decision in Seila Law.” The Bureau noted, however, that the ratification does not include two actions: (i) the July 2017 “Arbitration Agreements” rule, which was disapproved following the approval by President Trump of a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act that provides “the ‘rule shall have no force or effect’”; and (ii) the November 2017 “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” rule (Payday Rule), for which the Bureau previously revoked the rule’s mandatory underwriting provisions. Both of these actions are not within the scope of the ratification, the Bureau stated, noting, however, that it has separately ratified the Payday Lending Rule’s payment provisions.
The Bureau is also considering whether to ratify other legally significant actions, such as certain pending enforcement actions, and stated it will make separate ratifications, if appropriate. However, the Bureau stressed it “does not believe that it is necessary for this ratification to include various previous Bureau actions that have no legal consequences for the public, or enforcement actions that have finally been resolved.” Additionally, because the ratification is not a “rule” or “rule making” as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), since it is “not an ‘agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect’” and is “not ‘formulating, amending, or repealing a rule,’” the Bureau contended it is not subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures.
CFPB sues company for marketing of high-yield CDs
On July 6, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against a Delaware financial-services company operating in Florida and New York along with its owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices by making misleading marketing representations when advertising its high yield CD accounts. The Bureau's complaint alleges that since August 2019, the company took more than $15 million from at least 400 consumers. According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in four separate deceptive acts or practices by: (i) falsely representing that consumers’ deposits into the high yield CD accounts would be used to originate loans for healthcare professionals, when in fact, the company never used the deposits to originate loans for healthcare professionals, never sold a loan to a bank or secondary-market investor, and never entered into a contract with a buyer or investor to purchase a loan; (ii) concealing the company’s true business model by falsely representing that the consumers’ deposits, when not being used to originate healthcare loans, would be held in an FDIC- or Lloyd’s of London-insured account or a “cash alternative” or “cash equivalent” account, when in reality, consumers’ deposits were, among other things, invested in securities; (iii) falsely describing the company as a commercial bank and claiming their high yield CD accounts were comparable to a traditional savings accounts with a guaranteed return, when in fact, the company was not a commercial bank, and consumers’ deposits were actively traded in the stock market or used in securities-backed investments; and (iv) falsely representing that past high yield CD accounts allegedly paid interest at rates between 5 percent and 6.25 percent prior to 2019; however, the company did not offer CDs until August 2019, and “consumers’ principals was neither guaranteed nor insured.” Among other things, the Bureau seeks monetary relief, consumer redress, injunctive relief, and a civil money penalty.
Fed enforcement action targets flood insurance
On July 2, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a West Virginia-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order assesses a $24,500 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H, but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
SBA releases PPP borrower information
On July 6, the Small Business Administration (SBA), in conjunction with the Treasury Department, released the business information of certain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan recipients. For any loan over $150,000, the SBA data release includes business names, addresses, NAICS codes, zip codes, business type, demographic data, non-profit information, name of lender, jobs supported, and a loan amount range. For loans under $150,000, the SBA withheld the business names and addresses in the release. The data release also includes overall statistics regarding dollars lent per state, loan amounts, top lenders, and distribution by industry. According to data, the PPP has approved over $4.8 million loans, with the average loan size of approximately $106,000. Currently, there are 5,460 participating lenders.
CFPB announces Consumer Financial Protection Week
On July 6, the CFPB announced the launch of Consumer Financial Protection Week from July 14 through July 17. Over the course of four days, the Bureau is hosting or participating in multiple virtual events, including (i) a tutorial and overview of the HMDA data browser; (ii) a discussion on the Bureau’s supervisory and enforcement prioritized assessment approach; and (iii) a discussion on the Bureau’s Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law.
FHFA extends Covid-19 origination flexibilities to August 31
On July 9, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced the extension of several loan origination flexibilities put in place to assist borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, FHFA has extended until August 31, the following provisions: “(i) alternative appraisals on purchase and rate term refinance loans; (ii) alternative methods for documenting income and verifying employment before loan closing; and (iii) expanding the use of power of attorney and remote online notarizations to assist with loan closings.” The extensions are reflected in updates to Fannie Mae Lender Letters LL-2020-03 and LL 2020-04 and Freddie Mac Guide Bulletin 2020-27.