InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit: Each premium payment could violate RESPA’s prohibition on kickbacks
On June 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a RESPA class action against a national bank, concluding the suit was not timely filed. According to the opinion, two consumers took out mortgages with the bank in 2005 and 2006. In 2011, the consumers were part of the putative class in a separate class action, alleging the bank violated RESPA by referring homeowners to mortgage insurers that then obtained reinsurance from a subsidiary of the bank, which the consumers claimed amounted to a kickback. After the class action was dismissed as untimely in 2013 and while it was pending appeal, the consumers filed a new class action as the named plaintiffs, which alleged the same violation of RESPA. The consumers argued that, while RESPA has a one-year statute of limitations, (i) RESPA makes each kickback a separately accruing wrong and that the insurers paid a kickback for each insurance premium payment, therefore, the suit is timely up to one year after the last premium payment and kickback; and (ii) the filing of the first class action tolled the limitation period for their claims and because the class action continued until November 2013, tolling extended their limitations period until then.
The appeals court upheld the district court’s dismissal of the action, agreeing with the consumers’ separate-accrual theory, but noting that the consumers paid no premiums in the year before they filed their complaint, so the limitations period had expired before the consumers filed the new action. Specifically, the appellate court rejected the bank’s argument that RESPA’s statute of limitations runs only from the mortgage closing, not from each later premium payment, holding that under RESPA the limitations period accrues separately for each kickback, stating “[s]o a party violates the Act anew each time it takes the discrete act of giving or receiving a kickback under an agreement to make referrals.”
As for whether the 2011 class action tolled the consumers’ claims, the appellate court cited the Supreme Court’s 2018 opinion in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, noting that the Court in that case held that such tolling is only available for individual claims, not class claims. The appellate court rejected the consumers’ arguments that China Agritech does not apply to new class claims filed before the first action has officially ended, stating, “[t]olling new class actions filed while the first one was pending would encourage more plaintiffs to seek second bites at the apple.” Because the consumers’ action was not timely filed, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal.
OFAC amends the Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations
On June 20, the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued a final interim rule amending its Reporting, Procedures and Penalties Regulations, which set forth the standard reporting and recordkeeping requirements, license application, and other procedures relevant to the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC. Among other things, the final interim rule: (i) expands the information that must be included in reports on blocked property and rejected transactions; (ii) includes details on the information that must be included when OFAC requires a report that property has been unblocked; (iii) revises procedures for (a) reporting on rejected transactions; (b) licensing of otherwise prohibited transactions; and (c) releasing blocked funds; and (iv) clarifies rules governing the availability of information under the Freedom of Information Act. Importantly, the revisions clarify that all U.S. persons must report transactions that have been rejected for sanctions compliance reasons. Previously, the requirement was thought to apply only to U.S. financial institutions. The final interim rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for June 21.
OCC issues new guidance for higher-LTV mortgage loans
On June 19, the OCC issued Bulletin 2019-28, which highlights “core lending principles” for banks offering higher loan-to-value (LTV) loans. The Bulletin rescinds 2017 guidance from the OCC—Bulletin 2017-28, “Mortgage Lending: Risk Management Guidance for Higher-Loan-to-Value Lending Programs in Communities Targeted for Revitalization”— noting that “banks have engaged in responsible, innovative lending strategies that are different from [the previous bulletin’s] specific program parameters while being consistent with its goals.” The new guidance instead covers core lending principles that banks should consider when offering higher-LTV loans in an effort revitalize communities. Among other things, the OCC states that higher-LTV loans (i) should be consistent with safe and sound banking and comply with applicable laws and regulations; (ii) performance is effectively monitored, tracked, and managed; (iii) should be underwritten consistent with the Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending and the bank’s standards for review and approval of exception loans. The Bulletin notes examples of sound policies and processes for higher-LTV loans, including underwriting standards and portfolio limits for the aggregate amount of higher-LTV loans. Lastly, the Bulletin emphasizes that marketing and consumer disclosures should describe the potential financial impacts and marketability of a higher-LTV loan where the value of the property is and could remain less than the loan amount.
Agencies release 2019 list of distressed, underserved communities
On June 17, the OCC, together with the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, released the 2019 list of distressed or underserved communities where revitalization or stabilization efforts by financial institutions are eligible for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration. According to the joint release from the agencies, the list of distressed nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies and underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies are designated by the agencies pursuant to their CRA regulations and reflect local economic conditions, including changes in unemployment, poverty, and population. For any geographies that were designated by the agencies in 2018 but not in 2019, the agencies apply a one-year lag period, so such geographies remain eligible for CRA consideration for another 12 months.
Similar announcements from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC are available here and here.
VA encourages loan holders to extend relief to Louisiana and Oklahoma borrowers
On June 18, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-14 and Circular 26-19-15, encouraging relief for VA borrowers impacted by severe storms in Louisiana and Oklahoma. Among other things, the Circulars encourage loan holders to (i) extend forbearance 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 Circulars are 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.
SEC separately settles ADR allegations against international bank subsidiary and securities company
On June 14, the SEC announced a $42 million settlement with a wholly-owned subsidiary of an international bank to resolve allegations that certain associated persons on its securities lending desk allegedly improperly pre-released American Depositary Receipts (ADRs), or “U.S. securities that represent shares in foreign companies.” The SEC announcement explains that “[t]he practice of ‘pre-release’ allows ADRs to be issued without the deposit of foreign shares, provided brokers receiving them have an agreement with a depositary bank and the broker or its customer owns the number of foreign shares that corresponds to the number of shares the ADRs represent.” According to the SEC, the subsidiary “improperly obtained pre-released ADRs from depositary banks when [the subsidiary] should have known that neither the firm nor its customers owned the foreign shares needed to support those ADRs.” The SEC asserts that this resulted in an inflated total number of foreign issuer’s tradeable securities and short selling and dividend arbitrage. The SEC alleged that these practices violated the Securities Act of 1933 and claimed that the subsidiary failed to reasonably supervise its securities personnel. The consent order requires the subsidiary to pay more than $24 million in disgorgement, roughly $4.4 in prejudgment interest, and a civil money penalty of approximately $14.3 million. The order acknowledges the subsidiary’s cooperation in the investigation.
On the same day, the SEC announced an $8.1 million consent order with a securities company to resolve allegations that the company allegedly improperly pre-released American Depositary Receipts (ADRs). According to the SEC, the company, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, “improperly obtained pre-released ADRs from depositary banks when [the company] should have known that neither the firm nor its customers owned the foreign shares needed to support those ADRs.” The SEC announcement asserts that the lack of shares to support the ADRs resulted in an inflated total number of foreign issuer’s tradeable securities and short selling and dividend arbitrage. Additionally, the SEC alleges the company failed to establish and implement effective policies and procedures to address whether the company was in compliance with its obligations in connection with pre-release transactions. The consent order requires the company to pay more than $4.8 million in disgorgement, approximately $800,000 in prejudgment interest, and a civil money penalty of more than $2.4 million. The order acknowledges the company’s cooperation in the investigation.CFTC charges U.K. company with fraudulent bitcoin scheme
On June 18, the CFTC announced it filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against a United Kingdom-based bitcoin trading and investment company and its principal (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly fraudulently obtaining and misappropriating almost 23,000 bitcoin from more than 1,000 customers. The CFTC alleges the defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act by fraudulently soliciting customers to purchase bitcoin with cash and then deposit the bitcoin in accounts controlled by the defendants. The CFTC alleges that the defendants misrepresented that they “employed expert virtual currency traders who earned guaranteed daily trading profits on customers’ Bitcoin deposits.” Additionally, the CFTC alleges the defendants also fabricated weekly trade reports and “manufactured an aura of profitability” by depositing new customer bitcoin purchases to other customer accounts. The scheme, according to the CFTC, obtained almost 23,000 bitcoins “from more than 1,000 members of the public,” “which reached valuation of at least $147 million.” The CFTC is seeking civil monetary penalties, restitution, rescission, disgorgement, trading and registration bans, and injunctive relief against further violations of the federal commodity laws.
Nevada authorizes a regulatory sandbox program
On June 13, the Nevada governor approved SB 161, which requires the Director of the Department of Business and Industry to establish and administer the “Regulatory Experimentation Program for Product Innovation.” If the Director approves an applicant to participate in the Program, the participant’s product or service will be generally exempt from certain statutory and regulatory requirements related to financial products or services. Under the legislation, any consumer of the product or service must be a resident of Nevada and not more than 5,000 consumers may be provided the product or service during the period of testing, unless the Director approves up to 7,500 consumers. Participants must make certain disclosures to consumers, including, if applicable, that the participant does not hold a license to provide a product or service outside of the program and method of submitting a complaint to the Director. The Director may also require additional disclosures. The legislation also authorizes the Director to establish participant-reporting requirements by regulation and generally limits participation in the program to 2 years, although a participant may seek an extension of this period to apply for any license or other authorization otherwise required for the product or service. The legislation is effective on June 13 for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any other preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the bill, and on January 1, 2020, for all other purposes.
Hawaii extends relief to full-time National Guard; adds vehicle lease terminations
On June 7, the Hawaii governor signed HB 991, which extends the state’s military civil relief protections to persons serving on full time National Guard duty under Section 101(19) of Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Additionally, the bill amends other provisions of the state’s military civil relief law to align with the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, including (i) extending the duration of a stay of any action from 60 days to 90 days after a period of military service ends, and (ii) extending the termination of lease provisions to cover motor vehicle leases, in addition to residential leases. The bill became effective on June 7.
9th Circuit: FTC does not need to show irreparable harm to get injunctive relief
On June 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that no showing of irreparable harm is required for the FTC to obtain injunctive relief when the relief is sought in conjunction with a statutory enforcement action where the applicable statute authorizes such relief. According to the opinion, the FTC brought an action against an entity and related individuals (collectively, “defendants”) operating a mortgage loan modification scheme for allegedly violating the FTC Act and Regulation O by making false promises to consumers for services designed to prevent foreclosures or reduce interest rates or monthly mortgage payments. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) The FTC brought the action under the second proviso of Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency to pursue injunctive relief without initiating administrative action. The district court granted the motion for preliminary injunction without requiring the FTC to make a showing of irreparable harm.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit rejected the defendants’ argument that the FTC was still required to demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm in a Section 13(b) action. The appellate court noted that the FTC’s position is supported by the court’s precedent, quoting “‘[w]here an injunction is authorized by statute, and the statutory conditions are satisfied . . ., the agency to whom the enforcement of the right has been entrusted is not required to show irreparable injury.’” The appellate court concluded that its precedent is not irreconcilable with the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc, noting that Winter did not address injunctive relief in the context of statutory enforcement. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that although irreparable harm is required to obtain injunctive relief in an ordinary case, the district court did not error in granting injunctive relief, without the showing of irreparable harm, in conjunction with a statutory enforcement action.