InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
California: Mortgage debt now included under Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
On October 7, California’s governor signed SB 187, which amends the state’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and provides that consumer debt under the act now includes mortgage debt. SB 187 also removes the exception for an attorney or counselor at law from the definition of debt collector, and makes other nonsubstantive changes. The amendments take effect January 1, 2020.
Federal Reserve finalizes capital and liquidity requirement rules for large firms; proposes changes to assessment fees
On October 10, the Federal Reserve Board approved final rules, consistent with changes made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, to establish a framework that revises the criteria for determining the applicability of regulatory capital and liquidity requirement for large U.S. banking organizations and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHC) of certain foreign banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total assets. The framework—jointly developed with the FDIC and the OCC—establishes “four risk-based categories for determining the regulatory capital and liquidity requirements applicable to large U.S. banking organizations and the U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, which apply generally based on indicators of size, cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet exposure.” According to the Fed, while the framework is “generally similar” to proposals released for comment over the past year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here), the final rule further simplifies the proposals by applying liquidity standards to a foreign bank’s U.S. IHC that are based on the IHC’s risk profile instead of the combined U.S. operations of the foreign bank. For larger firms, the framework applies standardized liquidity requirements at the higher end of the range that was originally proposed for both domestic and foreign banks.
The following categories are established under the framework: (i) Category I will be reserved for U.S.-based global systemically important banks; (ii) Category II will apply to U.S. and foreign banking organizations with total U.S. assets exceeding $700 billion or $75 billion in cross-border activity that do not meet Category I criteria; (iii) Category III will apply to U.S. and foreign banking organizations with more than $250 billion in U.S. assets or $75 billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or off balance sheet exposure; and (iv) Category IV will apply to other banking organizations with total U.S. assets of more than $100 billion that do not otherwise meet the criteria of the other three categories.
The framework will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Additionally, the Fed separately issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to raise the minimum threshold for being considered an assessed company and to adjust the amount charged to assessed companies. The notice also announces the Fed’s intention to issue a capital plan proposal that will “align capital planning requirements with the two-year supervisory stress testing cycle and provide greater flexibility for Category IV firms.” Comments on the proposal are due December 9.
FDIC, VA issue disaster relief guidance
On October 10, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-56-2019 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Texas affected by Tropical Storm Imelda. In the letter, the FDIC encourages institutions to consider, among other things, (i) extending repayment terms; (ii) restructuring existing loans; or (iii) easing terms for new loans to borrowers affected by the severe weather. Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.
Separately on October 8, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-27 to encourage mortgagees to provide relief for VA borrowers affected by Hurricane Dorian. Among other forms of assistance, the Circular encourages loan holders and servicers to (i) extend forbearances to borrowers in distress as a result of the disaster; (ii) establish a 90-day moratorium from the disaster date on initiating new foreclosures on affected loans; (iii) waive late charges on affected loans; and (iv) suspend credit reporting. The Circular will be rescinded October 1, 2020. Mortgage servicers and veteran borrowers are also encouraged to review the VA’s Guidance on Natural Disasters.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief guidance here.
Special Alert: California attorney general releases proposed CCPA regulations
Buckley Special Alert
Last week, the California attorney general released the highly anticipated proposed regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA — which was enacted in June 2018 (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), amended several times and with the most recent amendments signed into law on Oct. 11, and is currently set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2020 — directed the California attorney general to issue regulations to further the law’s purpose.
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have any questions about the CCPA or other related issues, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security practice page, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
District Court denies MSJ because of ambiguities in bank’s ATM fee contract language
On October 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a national bank’s motion for partial summary judgment in a class action alleging the bank wrongfully charged ATM fees in violation of the bank’s standardized account agreement. According to the opinion, the plaintiffs filed the action asserting that the bank charges its customers two out-of-network (OON) fees when an account holder conducts a balance inquiry and then obtains a cash withdrawal at an OON ATM. The bank moved for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, arguing that the terms and conditions of the contract provide for the charge of a fee “for each balance inquiry, cash withdrawal, or funds transfer undertaken at a non-[bank] branded ATM.” After conducting a limited discovery on the breach of contract issue, the district court denied the bank’s motion, concluding there are “ambiguities regarding the contract terms.” Specifically, the court noted that contract documents describe a “Foreign ATM Fee” as “initiated at an ATM other than a [bank] ATM” and that it uses the singular term of “fee” while providing “no further explanation as to what ‘initiated’ means.” According to the court, there is “ambiguity in the term ‘initiate’ that is ‘susceptible to at least two reasonable alternative interpretations.’” Moreover, the court also concluded that certain onscreen warnings about the right to cancel caused “uncertainty and ambiguity” regarding the assessment of fees, and because there are ambiguities regarding the fee terms, the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs failed to prove a breach of contract.
Fifth Circuit affirms dismissal of reverse-false-claims action in benefits payment fraud matter
On October 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a whistleblower’s reverse-false-claims action because it was barred by the False Claims Act’s (FCA) public-disclosure provision and the alleged scheme was not plead with sufficient detail. The relator, a former fraud investigator for the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General, alleged that the 15 financial institution defendants “avoided their regulatory obligation to return government-benefit payments they received for beneficiaries they knew to be deceased.” According to the relator, the defendants must have known of the beneficiary deaths because the Social Security Administration sends death notification entries to all receiving depository financial institutions. However, the district court determined that defendants provided documents showing the information had already been publicly disclosed and the relator was not the original source of the information (which would have been required to maintain a claim with respect to information that has already been publicly disclosed) because he obtained the information through his employment as a fraud investigator. As such, the court permanently dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the relator relied on public disclosures, and that the complaint failed to plead the allegations with sufficient detail.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit agreed that the complaint could not survive the FCA’s public disclosure bar, explaining that the public-disclosure bar is met if the following elements apply: (i) the disclosure is public; (ii) the disclosure contains “‘substantially the same allegations’” as in the complaint; and (ii) the relator is not the “‘original source’” of the information. In addition, the appellate court agreed that the complaint lacked sufficient factual matter to satisfy federal rules of civil procedure, and concluded that further amendments would be futile because there are no claims left to amend.
OFAC sanctions four individuals for corruption in South Africa
On October 10, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13818 against four members of a corruption network in South Africa for alleged corruption violations of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. According to OFAC, the four individuals “leveraged [their] political connections to engage in widespread corruption and bribery, capture government contracts, and misappropriate state assets.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons within U.S. jurisdiction must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC notes that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with these individuals and entities.
NYDFS creates Student Debt Advisory Board as student loan legislation takes effect
On October 9, NYDFS announced the creation of the Student Debt Advisory Board, which will advise on consumer protection, student financial products and services, as well as issues facing communities significantly impacted by student debt. The new advisory board is a part of NYDFS’s “Step Up for Students” initiative intended to “safeguard student loan borrowers from discriminatory or predatory practices by student loan servicers.” The announcement comes the same day legislation to protect student borrowers takes effect in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the law requires student loan servicers to comply with requirements set forth in amendments to the state’s banking law and be licensed by NYDFS in order to service student loans owned by residents of New York. Additionally, servicers must adhere to standards similar to regulations that govern mortgages and other lending products.
District Court rules debt collection attorney can invoke arbitration provision
On October 8, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action suit alleging that he threatened to charge unauthorized late fees on defaulted consumer debt. The suit claimed that the defendant, who was an attorney hired to collect the debt, violated the FDCPA when he sent a letter attempting to collect on a delinquent account containing the language: “Because of interest, late charges, attorneys fees, if any, and other charges that my vary from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay may be greater.” According to the borrower, the statement was false and misleading because late fees could not accrue on her debt anymore since the debt had already been “fully accelerated” under the provisions of consumer loan agreement signed with the company that owned her consumer loan account. The attorney moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the borrower’s loan agreement. While the borrower did not dispute that the arbitration provision was valid, she argued that the attorney does not fall within the provision’s scope. Among other things, the borrower asserted that (i) the attorney was not a party to the loan agreement and, thus, could not invoke its arbitration provision; and (ii) FDCPA claims can only be brought against a debt collector and not against the creditor, and that, because the company (not the attorney) was her creditor, the arbitration provision would not cover her FDCPA claims.
The court disagreed. “The fact that an FDCPA claim against [the company] would be a clear loser does not mean that the arbitration provision does not cover FDCPA claims—which have been brought, and will continue to be brought, against creditors,” the court stated. “Arbitration provisions cover weak and strong claims alike, so long as the claim falls within the provision’s defined scope.” According to the court, the claims fell comfortably within the provision’s broad agreement to arbitrate “any dispute, claim or controversy” related to a borrower’s account, loan agreement or relationship with the company. Concerning the borrower’s argument that the attorney cannot invoke the arbitration provision because he is not a party to the loan agreement, the court agreed that, “as a general rule, ‘[o]nly signatories to an arbitration agreement can file a motion to compel arbitration.’” However, it ruled that Illinois law allows an exception to the general rule where the signatory’s agent seeks to compel arbitration. Moreover, the court further ruled that the attorney has not waived his right to arbitration by litigating the case for nine months before moving to compel arbitration.
House tells Supreme Court CFPB structure is constitutional
On October 4, the U.S. House of Representatives filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the CFPB’s structure is constitutional. The brief was filed in response to a petition for writ of certiorari by a law firm, contesting a May decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that, among other things, the Bureau’s single-director structure is constitutional (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The House filed its brief after the amicus deadline, but requested its motion to file be granted because it only received notice that the Bureau changed its position on the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure the day before the filing deadline. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on September 17, the DOJ and the CFPB filed a brief with the Court arguing that the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove the Bureau’s single Director violates the Constitution’s separation of powers; and on the same day, Director Kraninger sent letters (see here and here) to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supporting the same argument.
The brief, which was submitted by the Office of General Counsel for the House, argues that the case “presents an issue of significant important to the House” and, because the Solicitor General “has decided not to defend” Congress’ enactment of the for-cause removal protection through the Dodd-Frank Act, the “House should be allowed to do so.” The brief asserts that the 9th Circuit correctly held that the Bureau’s structure is constitutional based on the D.C. Circuit’s majority in the 2018 en banc decision in PHH v. CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert). Moreover, the brief argues that when an agency is “headed by a single individual, the lines of Executive accountability—and Presidential control—are even more direct than in a multi-member agency,” as the President has the authority to remove the individual should they be failing in their duty. Such a removal will “‘transform the entire CFPB and the execution of the consumer protection laws it enforces.’”