InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases video to explain mortgage forbearance
On April 3, the CFPB announced the release of a video, which seeks to explain mortgage forbearance provided pursuant to the CARES Act. The announcement provides links to additional resources for consumers experiencing financial hardship due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to the video, the resources include (i) mortgage relief, covered by InfoBytes here; (ii) student loans, covered by InfoBytes here; (iii) warning about scams; and (iv) “[o]nline and mobile banking tips for beginners.” Also on April 3, the Bureau updated guidance entitled Protect yourself financially from the impact of the coronavirus.
California Department of Business Oversight issues guidance to finance lenders, PACE administrators, deferred deposit originators, and premium finance companies
On April 3, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) issued guidance to finance lenders, Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) administrators, deferred deposit originators, and premium finance companies requesting such licensees work with their customers by offering payment plans and extensions at no additional cost to the customer. The DBO also requests that premium finance companies grant a grace period similar to the grace periods being granted by many insurance companies in order to prevent insureds from experiencing an interruption in insurance coverage.
FTC and FCC warn VoIP service providers about illegal Covid-19 robocalls
On April 3, the FTC and the FCC sent letters to three Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers, warning the companies to stop sending spam robocall campaigns promoting Covid-19 related scams. According to the agencies, “routing and transmitting illegal robocalls, including Coronavirus-related scam calls, is illegal and may lead to federal law enforcement.” The agencies sent a separate letter to a telecommunications trade association thanking the group for its assistance in identifying the campaigns and relaying a warning that the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to begin blocking calls from the three companies if they do not comply with the agencies’ request within 48 hours after the release of the letter.
District court denies request to lift OFAC sanctions despite EU decision
On March 31, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s (OFAC) motion to dismiss and denied two Iranian corporations’ (plaintiffs) cross-motion for summary judgment. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs requested to be delisted from OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in 2013 to lift its own sanctions, which were, according to the plaintiffs, “the basis for OFAC including [the plaintiffs] in its SDN list in the first place.” The plaintiffs were added to the SDN List in 2011 after OFAC allegedly determined that they had assisted certain U.S. and United Nations-sanctioned Iranian companies in procuring goods for uranium enrichment activities. OFAC denied the plaintiffs’ request to be delisted in 2018, causing the plaintiffs to file a complaint seeking to remove the sanctions or “cause OFAC to request the information needed to remove [the plaintiffs] from the SDN List,” citing violations of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Among other things, the plaintiffs argued that OFAC’s decision to reject the request for delisting was based on “undisclosed/secret information,” and further, OFAC “never provided any evidence to substantiate the[] allegations” that the plaintiffs had worked with other OFAC-sanctioned Iranian firms. Moreover, the plaintiffs contended that OFAC violated their “procedural and substantive due process rights because it failed to provide [the plaintiffs] notice and opportunity to be heard before designating [them] as an SDN.”
The court, however, found among other things that OFAC’s actions were not “arbitrary or capricious,” stating that while OFAC considered classified evidence of the plaintiffs’ involvement, it also provided unclassified summaries to the plaintiffs. “In denying [the plaintiffs’] request for removal, OFAC requested and reviewed information provided by [the plaintiffs], and it responded to [the plaintiffs’] arguments for reconsideration,” the court stated, noting that OFAC ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs failed to submit credible arguments or evidence “establishing that an insufficient basis exists for the company’s designation.” In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment argument, stating that the constitutional claims fail because the “Supreme Court has long held that non-resident aliens without substantial connections to the United States are not entitled to Fifth Amendment protections.”
11th Circuit interprets FDCPA statute of limitations
On March 31, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit partially affirmed a district court’s dismissal of federal and state law claims against a loan servicer, concluding that while a 1099-A form sent to the plaintiff was not an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA, the district court erred in determining that the claim was time-barred. The plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Laws (MBBL). After the district court dismissed her initial and amended complaints, the plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it (i) determined that the defendant’s mailing of IRS form 1099-A was not an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA; (ii) dismissed her FDCPA claim as time-barred because the statute of limitations had expired; (iii) found that the defendant was not involved in the original loan transaction and therefore could not be liable for damages under the MBLL; and (iv) declined “to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” over the other state law claims after dismissing the FDCPA claims with prejudice.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed that the form 1099-A “was not a communication in connection with debt collection” because it did “not demand payment, state that it was an attempt to collect a debt, or state to whom or how to make a payment of the debt.” The appellate court also agreed that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s MBLL claim because she failed to plead that the defendant made her mortgage loan as required under the MBLL. The district court’s decision to dismiss the remainder of the state-law claims was also affirmed. However, the 11th Circuit disagreed with whether the plaintiff’s FDCPA claim was time-barred, concluding that while the one-year statute of limitations under the FDCPA begins to run on the date the communication is mailed, the appellate court has “never held that, when the date of mailing is in dispute and a plaintiff alleges receipt of a letter on a certain date, a court could presume a mailing date based on the date of receipt and the parties’ addresses.” (Emphasis in the original.) According to the 11th Circuit, “the district court erred in dismissing [the plaintiff’s] FDCPA claims as untimely when her complaint did not allege a date of mailing of the February mortgage statement, and it was not apparent from the face of her complaint whether her claim was time-barred.”
CFTC approves final interpretative guidance on “actual delivery” in virtual currency transactions
On March 24, the CFTC approved final interpretive guidance concerning the term “actual delivery” in the context of retail virtual currency transactions. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFTC reaffirmed its belief that virtual currencies are commodities, and thus certain transactions involving these types of currencies are subject to CFTC oversight. In order to demonstrate the “actual delivery” of virtual currency in connection with retail commodity transactions, the final interpretive guidance sets forth two primary factors that market participants must demonstrate:
- A customer has (i) the ability to secure “possession and control of the entire quantity of the commodity, whether it was purchased on margin, by using leverage, or any other financing arrangement”; and (ii) “the ability to use the entire quantity of the commodity freely in commerce (away from any particular execution venue) no later than 28 days from the date of the transaction and at all times thereafter”; and
- “The offeror and counterparty seller (including any of their respective affiliates or other persons acting in concert with the offeror or counterparty seller on a similar basis) do not retain any interest in, legal right, or control over any of the commodity purchased on margin, leverage, or other financing arrangement at the expiration of 28 days from the date of the transaction.”
CFTC Chairman Heath P. Tarbert stated that he anticipates a 90-day period before the CFTC begins initiating enforcement actions related to the final interpretive guidance that may not have been plainly evident in prior guidance, enforcement actions, and case law.
Fed changes supplementary leverage ratio rule to increase credit flow
On April 1, the Federal Reserve (Fed) released an interim final rule, which provides a short-term change to the calculation of the supplementary leverage ratio for holding companies (banks). This change temporarily allows banks to exclude their Treasury securities and Federal Reserve Bank deposits from the computation of the banks’ total assets, thus reducing the amount of capital the banks must maintain. The Fed suggested that the move will reduce the banks’ tier 1 capital requirements by around two percent, allowing them to take on more debt, resulting in an increase in available credit to households and businesses. The Fed stressed that it made this change to allow the banks to increase the flow of credit, and not to increase the banks’ capital distributions. The temporary change is effective immediately and will automatically revert on March 31, 2021. Comments on the rule must be submitted within 45 days of the announcement.
HUD issues mortgage relief for FHA single-family homeowners
On April 1, HUD issued guidance detailing mortgage relief options for single-family homeowners with FHA mortgages impacted by Covid-19. HUD explains that the CARES Act requires mortgage servicers to provide mortgage relief to borrowers with options for payment deferral or payment forbearance “for up to six months, and must provide an additional six months of forbearance if requested by the borrower.” In addition, Mortgagee Letter 2020-06 states that borrowers with forbearance plans will have all late charges, fees, and penalties waived as long as the plans are in effect. Although servicers are required to comply with the FCRA, the Mortgagee Letter instructs servicers not to report a borrower as delinquent if the borrower is in a Covid-19 forbearance plan and “performing as agreed,” and further suggests that servicers should “consider the impacts” of Covid-19 “on Borrowers’ financial situations and any flexibilities a Servicer may have under the FCRA.” The Mortgagee Letter also provides a mortgage relief option for “seniors with Home Equity Conversion Mortgages” who can request an extension of up to six months initially, which may be extended up to an additional six months. This mortgage relief option also requires that all late fees, charges, and penalties be waived during the extension period. Borrowers with owner-occupied properties who are granted forbearance plans must also be evaluated for a “C[ovid]-19 National Emergency Standalone Partial Claim” prior to the end of the plan. This option will allow borrowers to reinstate their loans after the plan ends.
CFPB fines short-term lender $1.3 million for unfair and deceptive acts and practices
On April 1, the CFPB announced a $1.3 million settlement with a Texas-based short-term lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, FCRA, and TILA. The Bureau alleged that while “marketing, servicing, and collecting on high-interest payday, auto-title, and unsecured consumer-installment loans,” the lender made deceptive representations through advertisements and telemarketing calls when promoting purported loan discounts. The Bureau also alleged that the lender engaged in unfair collection call practices by allegedly calling consumers who failed to make payments numerous times—some more than 15 or 20 times a day—even after being asked to stop. In addition, the lender allegedly repeatedly called consumers’ workplaces and references as a tactic to obtain payments and disclosed, or risked disclosing, to third parties the existence of the delinquent debts. According to the Bureau, the lender also violated FCRA by failing to maintain adequate consumer reporting policies and procedures to ensure the “accuracy and integrity” of the information furnished to consumer reporting agencies, and violated TILA by failing to provide telemarketers guidance on how to lawfully disclose a loan’s annual percentage rate as required by federal law when responding to consumers’ questions about interest and other loan costs.
Under the terms of the consent order, the lender is required to pay a $1.1 million civil money penalty, $286,675 in consumer redress, and is, among other things, (i) permanently restrained from certain collection practices; (ii) required to ensure employees do not misrepresent discount offers when marketing or selling consumer financial products or services; and (iii) tasked with ensuring employees correctly disclose the APR of loan products.
VA, FHA issue valuation and appraisal guidance
On March 27, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued guidance on valuation and appraisal practices during the Covid-19 crisis. Effective on March 27 and until modified or rescinded, VA home loan appraisers may utilize exterior-only appraisals and, in certain limited situations, desktop appraisals, for purchase and refinance transactions. When the appraiser does not inspect the interior of the property, additional sources may be used to inform the appraisal, including public records, MLS listing information, and other reliable third-party sources. The VA also issued Exhibit A to the valuation and appraisal practices circular. This document provides a statement of assumptions and limiting conditions and certifications for Desktop-only appraisals, in addition to instructions and a scope of work to be used by the appraiser.
On the same day, the FHA issued similar guidance in Mortgagee Letter 2020-05 regarding appraisals and employment reverifications. Modifications to FHA single-family employment reverifications requirements include allowing verbal employment reverifications. The modifications also remove employment reverification requirements in certain situations, such as when certain criteria are met in forward purchase transactions, including, among other things: (i) where the mortgagee is not aware of loss of employment by the borrower; (ii) the mortgagee has year-to-date paystubs or electronic income verification for the borrower; (iii) the mortgagee has the borrower’s bank statement from immediately prior to the note date showing a direct deposit from an employer; and (iv) the mortgagee has evidence that the borrower has the equivalent of at least two months of the new payment amount, inclusive of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. Modifications to appraisal protocols allow for exterior or desktop-only appraisals, and appraisers may utilize additional reliable information. Also, the FHA will require appraisals to include a signed certification that no interior appraisal was performed. FHA model certification forms can be found here and here.