Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Georgia Department of Banking and Finance issues bulletin regarding lending, liquidity, business continuity, and regulatory reporting

    State Issues

    The Georgia Department of Banking and Finance has issued its monthly bulletin for financial institutions in which it provides guidance on lending, liquidity, business continuity planning, and regulatory reporting. Among other things, the department reiterates the importance of liquidity risk management during Covid-19 and urges financial institutions to consider the impact of certain scenarios on their liquidity. The department also provides questions that financial institutions should consider as part of their pandemic planning. The bulletin also notes that, for banks and credit unions, the department is implementing electronic document and payment submission for correspondence, applications, and requests, including any applicable fees.

    State Issues Covid-19 Georgia Lending Bank Regulatory Risk Management Bank Compliance Credit Union

  • FHFA: Servicers obligated to advance only four months of payments on loans in forbearance

    Federal Issues

    On April 21, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced it has aligned Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s (GSEs) “policies regarding servicer obligations to advance scheduled monthly principal and interest payments for single-family mortgage loans.” The plan, which is applicable to all GSE servicers regardless of type or size, limits servicers’ obligations to advance scheduled principal and interest payments to mortgage-backed securities (MBS) investors after a servicer has advanced four months of missed borrower payments on a loan. FHFA further clarifies that loans in forbearance due to Covid-19 will not be purchased out of MBS pools by the GSEs, but will instead “be treated like a natural disaster event and will remain in the MBS pool,” reducing potential liquidity demands on the GSEs. FHFA notes that both the agency and the GSEs will continue to monitor Covid-19’s impact on the housing finance market and will make policy updates as necessary.

    Federal Issues Mortgage Servicing Forbearance FHFA Fannie Mae Freddie Mac GSE Covid-19 CARES Act

  • 11th Circuit: Borrowers’ state-law claims not preempted by Higher Education Act

    Courts

    On April 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s dismissal of borrowers’ state law claims against a student loan servicer, holding that the claims were not preempted by the federal Higher Education Act (HEA). The decision results from a lawsuit filed by two federal student loan borrowers who alleged the servicer violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and other state laws by making “affirmative misrepresentations to them and to other borrowers that they were on track to have their student loans forgiven based on their public-service employment when, in fact, their loans were ineligible for the forgiveness program.” The borrowers claimed that, after making years of payments, they discovered they were not eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program because most of their loans were not federal direct loans. Both borrowers contended that had they not been misinformed, they would have taken the necessary steps to ensure eligibility. The district court dismissed the borrowers’ claims on the grounds that they were expressly preempted under section 1098g of the HEA, which prohibits the application of state-law disclosure requirements to federal student loans.

    On appeal, the 11th Circuit determined that the borrowers’ claims were not expressly preempted by the HEA, concluding that the precise language in section 1098g “preempts only state law that imposes disclosure requirements; state law causes of action arising out of affirmative misrepresentations a servicer voluntarily made that did not concern the subject matter of required disclosures imposes no ‘disclosure requirements.’” Among other things, the appellate court noted that the borrowers did not allege that the servicer failed to provide information it was legally obligated to disclose, but rather that the information provided to the borrowers concerning their eligibility for the PSLF program was false. “Holding [the servicer] liable for offering false information would therefore neither impose nor equate to imposing on servicers a duty to disclose information,” the appellate court wrote. In addition to dismissing the servicer’s field preemption argument, the appellate court reasoned that its decision “does no harm to standardization of disclosures for federal student loan programs.” The court vacated the district court’s dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

    Courts Appellate Eleventh Circuit Debt Collection State Issues Student Lending

  • CFTC charges commodity trading group with fraudulent digital token scheme

    Courts

    On April 16, the CFTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against a commodity trading adviser and the companies he controlled (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly soliciting customers and prospective customers to buy now-delisted and worthless digital tokens. The CFTC alleged that the defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act by making untrue and materially misleading representations about their digital tokens’ function and the performance of a proprietary foreign exchange trading algorithm that the defendants claimed would deliver high rates of return. According to the CFTC, while the defendants knew that none of the customers could lawfully use the algorithm until the defendants’ risk disclosures were approved by the National Futures Association, they still sold the tokens and raised more than $1.6 million based on the premise that the algorithm was ready to be released on the open market. The CFTC claimed, however, that the disclosures were never approved, customers never gained access to the algorithm, and the tokens were eventually delisted by all the digital asset exchanges. The CFTC seeks to enjoin the defendants’ allegedly unlawful acts and practices and to compel compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and regulations. In addition, the CFTC seeks restitution, civil money penalties, trading and registration bans, and other statutory, injunctive, or equitable relief as deemed necessary and appropriate.

    Courts CFTC Commodity Exchange Act Fraud Fintech

  • FCRA class action dispute stayed for Supreme Court appeal

    Courts

    On April 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a joint motion to stay a mandate pending a credit reporting agency’s (CRA) filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. If a petition is filed, the stay will continue until final disposition by the Court. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February the 9th Circuit reduced punitive damages in a class action against the CRA for allegedly violating the FCRA by erroneously linking class members to criminals and terrorists with similar names in a database maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The appellate court found that all class members had standing due to, among other things, the CRA’s alleged “reckless handling of information from OFAC,” which subjected class members to “a real risk of harm,” and rejected the CRA’s request for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on the basis that the class had failed to provide sufficient evidence of injuries or to support the damages award. The appellate court concluded, however, that the $52 million punitive damages award was “unconstitutionally excessive,” explaining that, although the CRA’s “conduct was reprehensible, it was not so egregious as to justify a punitive award of more than six times an already substantial compensatory award.” 

    The CRA subsequently filed a petition for rehearing (which the appellate court denied), challenging, among other things, the 9th Circuit’s conclusion that the CRA’s decision to make the credit reports available to numerous potential creditors and employers was “sufficient to show a material risk of harm to the concrete interest of all class members.” The CRA argued that this was “exactly the sort of hypothetical risk of injury the Supreme Court has made clear does not cut it” to establish concrete injury, and that the decision was inconsistent with the 9th Circuit’s own precedent, in which the appellate court determined that “the risk of injury becomes material only when the document gets into third-party hands.” The CRA also argued that the 4 to 1 benchmark ratio between punitive damages and statutory damages was still too high, because it “conflicts not just with the Supreme Court’s commands, but with decisions from other circuits finding much lower compensatory-damages awards sufficiently ‘substantial’ to demand a 1:1 ceiling.”

    Courts Appellate Ninth Circuit U.S. Supreme Court Class Action FCRA OFAC

  • FFIEC releases APR, APY computational tools

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On April 16, the FFIEC, on behalf of its member agencies, announced the release of two computational tools for annual percentage rates (APR) and annual percentage yields (APY). These web-based tools are intended to assist financial institutions when complying with consumer protection laws and regulations.

    The APR Computational Tool is intended to help examiners and financial institutions verify finance charges and APRs included on consumer loan disclosures subject to TILA and Regulation Z, including calculations “related to unsecured and secured installment and construction loans, including real estate-secured loans.” The tool can also be used to verify military annual percentage rates for loans subject to the Military Lending Act. The APY Computational Tool is designed to support the verification of APYs on consumer deposit account disclosures, including advertisements and periodic statements, subject to the Truth in Savings Act and Regulation DD. See FDIC FIL-45-2020 and OCC Bulletin 2020-40 regarding the release of these tools.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FFIEC APR APY Military Lending Act TILA Regulation Z Truth in Savings Act Regulation DD FDIC OCC

  • Fed issues enforcement actions for flood insurance violations

    Federal Issues

    On April 16, the Federal Reserve Board announced enforcement actions against a New Jersey-based bank and a Virginia-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order issued against the New Jersey-based bank assesses a $28,000 penalty 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. A separate consent order issued against the Virginia-based bank assesses a $5,500 penalty and similarly does not describe the specific alleged allegations. The banks neither admitted nor denied the allegations. The maximum civil money penalty for a pattern or practice of violations of the NFIA is $2,000 per violation.

    Federal Issues Federal Reserve Enforcement Flood Insurance National Flood Insurance Act

  • Data breach exposes SBA Emergency Injury Disaster Loan program applicants

    Federal Issues

    On April 21, according to reports, the Small Business Association (SBA) acknowledged that it notified almost 8,000 applicants of the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program that their information may have been exposed as part of a data breach. Specifically, the agency stated that on March 25, the personal information of business owners applying for the EIDL program was potentially exposed to other applicants on the SBA’s website. The information exposed included names, social security numbers, birth dates, certain financial information, email addresses, and phone numbers. According to the SBA, there is no evidence that the exposed information has been misused. Notably, the breach only effected the applicants of the EIDL program, not the Paycheck Protection Program, which did not begin accepting applications until April 3.

    Federal Issues Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Covid-19 SBA Data Breach

  • CFPB video instructs non-tax filers how to receive stimulus payments

    Federal Issues

    On April 21, the CFPB announced the release of a video—aimed at consumers who do not file taxes—that describes the steps those consumers should take in order to receive their economic impact payments. The video explains that most Americans will automatically receive their economic stimulus payments from the IRS, but those who do not may need to submit their information and specify how they would like to receive their payments. Consumers are informed that if they do not submit their information, they will be mailed paper checks, which will take longer to receive than a direct deposit. In the announcement, Bureau Director Kathleen Kraninger states that the video “is intended to help consumers navigate the economic impact payments as well as helping them avoid scams related to the payments.” The announcement also provides eligibility guidelines for the stimulus payments, a link to frequently asked questions about the payments, and a link to additional Bureau information related to Covid-19. 

    Federal Issues Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Consumer Education Consumer Protection CARES Act Covid-19

  • Pennsylvania enacts law allowing for remote/virtual notarization

    State Issues

    On April 20, Pennsylvania enacted legislation allowing for remote or virtual notarization for the duration of the Covid-19 emergency and for 60 days thereafter. The statute details the requirements for such notarizations, including that the notary must create and retain an audio-visual recording of the notarial act. 

    State Issues Covid-19 Pennsylvania Notary Fintech

Pages

Upcoming Events