InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC issues guidance on CRA designations
On July 31, the OCC issued Bulletin 2019-40, which provides guidelines for requesting designation as a wholesale or limited purposes bank for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) purposes, or requesting confirmation of exemption as a special purposes bank under the CRA. The guidelines summarize the process for requesting or confirming designation, including (i) information that a bank should provide to substantiate its request; (ii) instructions on how to submit requests; and (iii) the review and approval process. Among other things, the OCC encourages banks seeking confirmation or designation to request an informal consultation with the bank’s supervisory office. As for such a request, the OCC notes that it is customary to include a description on how the bank satisfies the definition for a wholesale bank, limited purposes bank, or special purposes bank, including facts and data sufficient to describe the nature of the bank's current and prospective business, the credit products offered, and the market area served. Within 60 days of receiving a complete designation or confirmation request, the OCC will notify the bank of its decision to approve or deny the request. For designations as wholesale or limited purpose, the designation will remain in effect until the bank requests revocation or one year after the OCC notifies the bank it has revoked the designation. For special purpose confirmations, the exemption remains in effect until the OCC is informed the exemption no longer applies. Designation and confirmation requests may be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but a bank may request confidential treatment for information that would normally be exempt from FOIA disclosure requirements.
OCC consolidates supervision support
On July 31, the OCC announced two new units, which consolidates bank supervision support, risk analysis, and oversight of national trust banks and significant service providers. One hundred and fifty staff members were realigned to create the news units, the OCC reported, with the intention of eliminating redundancies and “presenting a single voice to supervised institutions.” The OCC additionally noted that the agency’s Committee on Bank Supervision “will provide strategic direction and oversight to both units, and will review and approve strategic plans and initiatives, annual business plans or operating plans, and major projects and initiatives.”
The first unit, Supervision System and Analytical Support, consists of OCC supervisory and policy unit teams that oversee supervisory information systems, data management, business intelligence, risk analysis, and supervision risk management. The second unit, Systemic Risk Identification Support and Specialty Supervision, includes lead experts from Large Bank Supervision and Midsize Bank Supervision, in addition to teams responsible for supervising trust companies from the Northeastern District National Trust Banks team and significant service providers from Bank Supervision Policy.
The OCC further noted that Midsize and Community Bank Supervision and Large Bank Supervision will retain primary responsibility for overseeing the banks, savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks that compose the federal banking system.
Maximum LTV lowered for FHA cash-out refinances
On August 1, HUD issued Mortgagee Letter 2019-11, which lowers the maximum loan-to-value (LTV) and combined maximum loan-to-value (CLTV) from 85 percent to 80 percent on cash-out refinances for FHA-insured mortgage loans. The letter notes that the total number of cash-out refinance mortgages of FHA-insured mortgage loans has increased 250.47 percent from FY 2013 to FY 2018, and that the FHA therefore has concluded that the reduction in LTV is prudent “in order to strengthen the equity position of cash-out refinances and reduce loss severities in the event of default, [and] stay ahead of any potential future shift in the housing market.” The new LTV is effective for any mortgage loans insured by FHA on or after September 1.
DOJ announces $3 million SCRA settlement with auto finance company
On August 1, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $3 million settlement with a captive auto finance company, resolving allegations that it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by repossessing 113 vehicles owned by SCRA-protected servicemembers without first obtaining court orders and failing to refund upfront capitalized cost reduction (CCR) amounts to servicemembers who lawfully terminated vehicle leases early under the SCRA. According to the DOJ’s complaint, when a servicemember terminated their lease early pursuant to the SCRA, the finance company retained the entire CCR amount even though the SCRA requires that it refund all lease amounts paid in advance for a period after the effective date of the termination. The settlement agreement covers all repossessions of servicemembers vehicles and leases terminated by servicemembers since January 2008, and requires the finance company to create an almost $3 million settlement fund to compensate affected servicemembers and pay the U.S. Treasury $62,000. Moreover, the agreement requires the finance company to review and update its SCRA policies and procedures to prevent future violations and to provide SCRA compliance training to specified employees.
VA encourages relief for Hurricane Barry-affected borrowers
On July 30, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-21, encouraging mortgagees to provide relief for VA borrowers affected by Hurricane Barry on the Gulf Coast. Among other forms of assistance, the Circular encourages loan holders and servicers to (i) extend forbearances to borrowers in distress because of the severe storms and flooding; (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 is effective until July 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.
Senators ask DOJ to clarify website accessibility under ADA
On July 30, seven Republican Senators sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr requesting updates on the DOJ’s efforts to clarify website accessibility requirements for businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This request follows a letter previously sent to the DOJ in September 2018, requesting the Department’s help in resolving uncertainties regarding website accessibility regulations and requesting guidance to address conflicting court opinions. According to the Senators, the DOJ withdrew two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking concerning website accessibility standards in 2017 under claims that it is “evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate. Such an evaluation will be informed by additional review of data and further analysis. The Department will continue to assess whether specific technical standards are necessary and appropriate to assist covered entities with complying with the ADA.” The DOJ responded a month later, stating that “absent the adoption of specific technical requirements for websites through rulemaking, public accommodations have flexibility in how to comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication. Accordingly, noncompliance with a specific voluntary technical standard for website accessibility does not necessarily indicate noncompliance with the ADA.”
In their 2019 letter, the Senators stressed that, because the DOJ did not specify further concrete plans to address website accessibility guidance, businesses are subject to litigation risk and inconsistent outcomes. Moreover, the Senators urged the DOJ to provide further clarity, particularly because the issue of whether private websites must comply with the ADA “continues to be subject to conflicting judicial opinions.” Additionally, they pointed to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 standard, which governs website accessibility for federal government websites, and noted that if the government gets the benefit of clear guidance, then the public should as well.
HUD proposes burden-shifting framework for Disparate Impact Regulation
On August 16, HUD announced a proposed rule amending the agency’s interpretation of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact standard (also known as the “2013 Disparate Impact Regulation”) to bring the rule “into closer alignment with the analysis and guidance” provided in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and to codify HUD’s position that its rule is not intended to infringe on the states’ regulation of insurance.
The proposal codifies the burden shifting framework outlined in Inclusive Communities, adding five elements that a plaintiff must plead to support allegations that a specific, identifiable, policy or practice has a discriminatory effect. The five elements would require a plaintiff to adequately allege (i) the challenged policy or practice is “arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary” to achieve a valid interest or legitimate objective; (ii) a “robust causal link” between the challenged policy or practice and a disparate impact on members of a protected class; (iii) the challenged policy or practice has an adverse effect on members of a protected class; (iv) the disparity caused by the policy or practice is significant (the disparity must be material); and (v) the complaining party’s alleged injury is directly caused by the challenged policy or practice. HUD emphasizes that plaintiffs alleging a single event, “will likely not meet the standard” of the proposal unless “the plaintiff can establish that the one-time decision is in fact a policy or practice.”
The proposed rule also provides methods for defendants to rebut a disparate impact claim, including (i) showing its discretion is materially limited by a third party, such as through a controlling law or binding court order; and (ii) showing the algorithmic model relied on does not use inputs that are substitutes for protected characteristics and is predictive of risk or other valid objective, was created or maintained by a recognized third party, or that a neutral third party has analyzed the model and determined it is a demonstrably and statistically sound algorithm.
The proposal, which has yet to be released by HUD, is reportedly under review by Congress and is set to be published in the Federal Register afterward. Comments will be due 60 days after publication.
CFPB reopens comment period for certain aspects of HMDA rulemaking
On July 31, the CFPB announced that it is reopening the comment period for certain aspects of its May Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here), which would permanently raise coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the HMDA rules. The comment period originally closed on June 12, but to allow for the submission of comments that reflect the national loan level dataset for 2018 (which will be released “later this summer”), the Bureau is reopening the comment period for certain aspects of the May proposal. Specifically, the Bureau is reopening comments on (i) the proposed changes to the permanent coverage threshold for closed-end mortgage loans, which would permanently raise the reporting threshold from 25 loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to either 50 or 100 closed-end loans in each of the preceding two calendar years; (ii) the proposed changes to the permanent coverage threshold for open-end lines of credit, which would extend the temporary threshold of 500 loans for calendar years 2018 and 2019 to January 1, 2022, and then permanently lower the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit after that date; and (iii) the appropriate effective date for any change to the closed-end coverage threshold. Comments are due by October 15.
CFPB adjusts annual dollar amount thresholds under TILA regulations
On August 1, the CFPB published in the Federal Register the final rule amending Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), including as amended by the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA), and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage (ATR/QM) provisions. The CFPB is required to make annual adjustments to dollar amounts in certain provisions in Regulation Z, and has based the adjustments on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1, 2019. The following thresholds will be effective on January 1, 2020:
- For open-end consumer credit plans under TILA, the threshold for disclosing an interest charge will remain unchanged at $1.00;
- For open-end consumer credit plans under the CARD Act amendments, the adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a first violation penalty fee will increase from $28 to $29, and the adjusted dollar amount for the safe harbor for a subsequent violation penalty fee will increase from $39 to $40;
- For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages will be $21,980, and the adjusted points and fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages will be $1,099; and
- The maximum thresholds for total points and fees for qualified mortgages under the ATR/QM rule will be: (i) 3 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $109,898; (ii) $3,297 for loan amounts greater than or equal to $65,939 but less than $109,898; (iii) 5 percent of the total loan amount for loans greater than or equal to $21,980 but less than $65,939; (iv) $1,099 for loan amounts greater than or equal to $13,737 but less than $21,980; and (v) 8 percent of the total loan amount for loan amounts less than $13,737.
5th Circuit says Congress, not courts, is responsible for changing rules for discharging student loans in bankruptcy
On July 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed decisions by a bankruptcy court and a district court to dismiss a borrower’s student loan discharge request under the Bankruptcy Code, holding that Congress, not the courts, is responsible for changing the rules for discharging student loan debt in bankruptcy.
The borrower, who became unable to make payments on her student loans and other debts, initiated an adversarial action against the Department of Education in bankruptcy court after receiving a general discharge of her debts, in an attempt to have two student loans discharged as well. While the borrower was able to prove that her monthly expenses exceed her income, the bankruptcy and district courts found that she failed the three-prong test for evaluating claims of “undue hardship” established by the 2nd Circuit in Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. and adopted in the 5th Circuit in In re Gerhardt. Primarily, the courts stated that the borrower failed to (i) show that she was “completely incapable of employment now or in the future”; or (ii) prove that her present state of affairs was likely to persist through the bulk of the loan repayment period. The borrower appealed, arguing that the three-prong test “is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term ‘undue hardship’” and urged the appellate court to adopt instead “a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test.”
On appeal, the 5th Circuit agreed with the lower courts, stating that when Congress amended the bankruptcy law regarding the discharge of federal student loans, the intent was to limit it to cases of “undue hardship” in order to prevent the use of bankruptcy except in the most compelling circumstances. According to the appellate court, until an en banc panel or the Supreme Court reviews the standard, the panel finds no error in the lower courts’ decision. “Policy-based arguments do not change this interpretation; the role of this court is to interpret the laws passed by Congress, not to set bankruptcy policy,” the appellate court wrote. Moreover, reducing the test to a “totality of the circumstances” standard would create an “intolerable inconsistency” in decisions on loan discharges, and expand an area of bankruptcy law that Congress has sought to constrict.