InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Massachusetts Division of Banks issues guidance to credit unions on annual meetings
On June 12, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, Division of Banks, issued industry guidance regarding annual meetings for Massachusetts chartered credit unions. Massachusetts credit unions that have not yet held their annual membership meeting may postpone the annual meeting until the state of emergency is lifted, the order declaring the state of emergency has expired or is rescinded, or such time as the credit union believes it may safely hold the meeting. Alternatively, a credit union may remotely hold the annual meeting, or may conduct a hybrid meeting consisting of a combination of remote communication in conjunction with a limited in-person meeting. A credit union may also utilize mail voting with either options. Credit unions that exercise a virtual meeting option must comply with certain requirements in the guidance.
Massachusetts Division of Banks issues guidance to mutual institutions on annual meetings
On June 12, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, Division of Banks, issued industry guidance regarding annual meetings for Massachusetts state-chartered mutual banks and subsidiary banks of a Massachusetts mutual holding company. Mutual institutions that have not yet held their annual meeting this year may use remote communications to conduct the annual meeting virtually or as a hybrid meeting that includes limited in-person attendance of depositors or corporators, provided certain requirements are met. Alternatively, such mutual institutions may postpone an in-person annual meeting until after the state of emergency has ended. Mutual institutions that elect to offer remote annual meetings must comply with certain requirements in the guidance.
New York adopts language access requirements for debt collectors
Recently, the New York Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) adopted language access amendments to the state’s debt collection rules. The Department published the proposed rules on March 5, and held a public hearing on April 10. The new rules, among other things, require debt collectors to (i) detail in debt validation notices and on any publically maintained websites, the availability of language access services provided by the collector and a statement that a translation of commonly-used debt collection terms is available in multiple languages on the Department’s website; (ii) request and retain, to the extent reasonably possible, a record of the language preference of each consumer from whom the collector attempts to collect a debt; and (iii) maintain a report that details the number of consumer accounts the collector attempted to collect a debt on in a language other than English. The amendments also prohibit debt collectors from (i) providing false, inaccurate, or incomplete translations to a consumer in the course of collecting a debt; and (ii) misrepresenting or omitting a language preference when returning, selling, or referring for litigation a consumer account, when the debt collector is aware of the preference. The new rules are effective June 27.
Louisiana allows financial institutions to use e-signatures
On June 9, the Louisiana governor signed HB 722, which provides that “[e]lectronic signatures used in transactions by and with financial institutions are enforceable to the full extent of the law.” Specifically, HB 722 states that financial institutions may submit evidence in electronic signature disputes proving that the purported signer’s electronic signature is valid and enforceable, including evidence showing that the purported signer (i) “received a direct or indirect benefit or value from the transaction, such as the deposit of funds into the purported signer’s preexisting account with the financial institution;” (ii) received loan proceeds; or (iii) paid a debt. The act takes effect August 1.
D.C. Circuit says consumer failed to show injury in FDCPA action
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment in favor of a consumer, concluding that the consumer failed to demonstrate a concrete injury-in-fact traceable to the FDCPA violations she alleged. According to the opinion, the consumer brought the putative class action against the debt collector after the collector sued the consumer to collect an outstanding auto loan debt. The collector allegedly used affidavits in its lawsuit against the consumer that were signed by an agent of the collector, not by an employee as attested. As requested by the debt collector, the action was then dismissed with prejudice. Subsequently, the consumer filed the putative class action against the debt collector and its agent alleging various violations of the FDCPA. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, which the district court denied. Subsequently, the district court granted their motion for summary judgment, concluding that any “any falsehoods in the [] affidavits were immaterial—and thus not actionable—because they ‘had no effect on [the consumer]’s ability to respond or to dispute the debt.’”
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit disagreed with the district court, concluding that the consumer lacked standing to sue the defendants altogether. Specifically, the appellate court held that the consumer failed to identify a traceable injury to the “false representations” made in the affidavits, citing to the fact that the consumer “testified unequivocally that she neither took nor failed to take any action because of these statements.” Moreover, citing to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the appellate court emphasized that “[n]othing in the FDCPA suggests that every violation of the provisions implicated here…create[] a cognizable injury.” The appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
7th Circuit upholds summary judgment in favor of debt collector
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a third-party debt collector in a class action asserting violations of the FDCPA. According to the opinion, a consumer filed a putative class action alleging the debt collector sent a misleading letter in violation of the FDCPA because the letter stated that her debt “may be reported to the national credit bureaus.” The consumer argued that the use of the word “may” was deceptive, as it implied “future reporting” even though the debt had already been reported at the time she received the letter. The debt collector moved to dismiss the action, which the district court denied, concluding that whether a communication is misleading is a question of fact and therefore, “dismissal would be premature.” After class certification, the consumer and the debt collector submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district affirmed in favor of the debt collector.
On cross-appeals, the 7th Circuit agreed with the district court’s denial of the debt collector’s motion to dismiss, stating that “[w]hether a significant fraction of debtors would be misled as [the consumer] describes is questionable, but it is not so implausible….” As for summary judgment, the appellate court also agreed with the district court, concluding that the consumer “failed to present any evidence beyond her own opinion” that the collection letter was misleading. The appellate court rejected the consumer’s assertion that her own opinion was evidence enough and noted that the consumer cited to cases using the “least sophisticated consumer standard,” which the 7th Circuit has rejected. Moreover, the appellate court emphasized that the consumer failed “to provide any outside evidence as to the likelihood that a hypothetical unsophisticated debtor (or even the least sophisticated debtor) would in fact be confused by the language in [the debt collector]’s letter.”
3rd Circuit: Credit card customers’ claims against retailer and national bank fail
On June 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a retailer and a national bank (collectively, “defendants”), holding that the proposed class failed to assert their claims for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment. The class, comprised of customers who applied for private-label credit cards offered and serviced by the retailer, argued they were prompted to purchase a debt-cancellation product, which would “cancel the balance on the customer’s account up to $10,000 when a covered person experienced a qualifying involuntary unemployment, disability, hospitalization, or loss of life.” The class’s first claim—that the debt cancellation product provided “‘little or no value,” and that they did not voluntarily enroll in the product because the retailer allegedly unilaterally enrolled card holders in the product—was no longer viable after discovery showed that customers voluntarily enrolled. The class posed a second claim asserting breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, arguing, among other things, that any legal authorization they gave was to the retailer and to the original issuing bank who sold the cards to the defendant bank. However, the district court rejected this second theory and granted summary judgement in favor of the defendants, ruling that the debt cancellation product was assigned to the defendant bank and stating the class failed to show that the retailer did not honor the terms of the debt cancellation product because they received exactly what was described in their contracts. Nor were the defendants unjustly enriched “because their collection of [] fees was ‘legally justified.’”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit, among other things, reviewed and rejected a third theory presented by the class, which blamed the district court for fundamentally misinterpreting their claims and asserted that the retailer failed to notify customers that it had stopped enforcing certain terms of the debt cancellation product and implemented a new refund policy, holding that this theory was not grounds for reversal because it was not argued in court. Moreover, the appellate court agreed with the district court that the retailer stopped enforcing its rights under amendments made to the debt cancellation product, but did not change the formal terms.
FTC settlement requires retailer to provide transaction records to identity theft victims
On June 10, the FTC announced a settlement to resolve Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allegations against a Wisconsin-based retailer for failing to provide the proper transaction records to identify theft victims. According to the FTC, this is the first time the Commission has used its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to provide identity theft victims with “‘application and business transaction records’ evidencing any transactions that the victim alleges to be the ‘result of identity theft’” within 30 days of being requested. The FTC’s complaint alleged that from February 2017 through March 2019, the retailer implemented several changes to its policy, which limited the information that identity theft victims could obtain. The retailer also allegedly refused to directly provide victims with detailed order information, stating it would only share information if the request came directly from law enforcement. Moreover, the FTC claimed that the retailer did not provide the information it was supplying within the 30-day window required by the FCRA, and on several occasions, failed to issue a denial of a victim’s request within 30 days. These unlawful actions, the FTC alleged, violated the FTC Act and the FCRA, and only ended six months after the retailer received a civil investigative demand from the FTC. Under the terms of the settlement, the retailer has agreed to pay a $220,000 civil penalty to settle the claims and must provide identify theft victims, within 30 days, valid verification of their identity and the identity theft, including business transaction records related to the theft. The retailer must also provide a notice on its website to provide identity theft victims information on how to obtain application and business records, and certify that it has provided all such records to victims who were previously denied access.
FTC charges small-business financing operation with deceptive and unfair practices
On June 10, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances (MCAs), using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC’s complaint alleges that the defendants purported “to provide immediate funds in a specific amount in exchange for consumers’ agreement to repay a higher amount from future business revenues” to be “remitted over time through daily debits from consumers’ bank accounts.” However, the defendants allegedly, among other things, (i) made false claims on their websites that their MCAs require “no personal guaranty of collateral from business owners,” when in fact, the contracts included such provisions; (ii) withheld various upfront fees ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars prior to disbursing funds to consumers (according to the complaint, these fees were either poorly disclosed in the contracts or not disclosed at all); (iii) directed agents to charge higher fees to consumers than permitted by the contracts; (iv) required businesses and their owners to sign confessions of judgment (COJs) as part of their contracts, and unlawfully and unfairly used the COJs to seize consumers’ personal and business assets, including in circumstances where consumers could not make payments due to technical issues outside their control, or in instances not permitted by the defendants’ financing contracts; (v) made threatening calls to borrowers, including threats of physical violence or reputational harm, to compel consumers to make payments; and (vi) made unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants, along with monetary relief including “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief.”
The same day, the FTC published a blog post highlighting the Commission’s ongoing efforts to combat questionable financing practices targeting small businesses. The FTC also held a forum in 2019 on marketplace lending to small businesses, which analyzed the potential for unfair and deceptive marketing, sales, and collection practices in the industry, and released a follow-up staff perspective paper earlier this year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here). In addition, over the past few years, several states have introduced legislation and advisories on MCAs and small business financing (see prior InfoBytes coverage here).
SBA codifies PPP flexibility guidance
Recently, the Small Business Administration (SBA) released an interim final rule (IFR) to incorporate key revisions made to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) by the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act, as previously covered by InfoBytes, took effect June 5. Many of the Flexibility Act’s provisions, such as those related to loan forgiveness and deferral periods for PPP loans, are retroactive to March 27, 2020. The provision related to the maturity date of PPP loans took effect June 5, 2020, and the remaining provisions will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
The IFR codifies several changes made to the PPP, including the following:
- Reiterates that the last day a lender can obtain an SBA loan number for a PPP loan is June 30, 2020.
- Amends the end date of the “covered period” for a PPP loan from June 30, 2020 to December 31, 2020.
- Provides a minimum maturity of five years for all PPP loans made on or after the enactment of the Flexibility Act, and provides an option for borrowers and lenders to mutually agree to extend maturity from two years to five years for loans made before June 5.
- Clarifies that if a borrower submits its loan forgiveness application within 10 months of the end of the loan forgiveness period, the borrower will not be required to make any payments on the loan before the date SBA remits the forgiven amount to the lender or notifies the lender that loan forgiveness is not allowed.
- Extends the deferral period on PPP loans by extending the loan forgiveness period from eight weeks to 24 weeks beginning on the date the loan is disbursed. However, borrowers may opt to keep the forgiveness period at eight weeks for loans made prior to June 5, 2020.
- Sets the minimum amount that businesses must spend on payroll at 60 percent in order to receive forgiveness, but provides that—consistent with a safe harbor in the Flexibility Act—the SBA, in consultation with Treasury, will “interpret[] this requirement as a proportional limit on nonpayroll costs as a share of the borrower’s loan forgiveness amount, rather than as a threshold for receiving any loan forgiveness.” Revisions to the SBA’s IFRs on loan forgiveness and loan review procedures addressing these amendments are forthcoming.
The SBA also released an updated borrower application form, as well as a revised lender application.