InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB issues fact sheet on TRID disclosures with assumption transactions
On May 1, the CFPB released a factsheet addressing when loan estimates and closing disclosures are required for assumption transactions under the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule). The factsheet includes a flowchart and a narrative summary to demonstrate when the disclosures would be required. According to the factsheet, as a threshold matter, the new transaction must be within the TRID Rule’s scope of coverage (e.g., the transaction is a closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by real property or a cooperative unit and is not a reverse mortgage subject to § 1026.33). The creditor must then determine if the transaction is an “assumption” as defined in Regulation Z (under § 1026.20(b) an assumption “occurs when a creditor expressly agrees in writing to accept a new consumer as a primary obligor on an existing residential mortgage transaction.”) The factsheet includes three elements the transaction must meet in order to qualify as an assumption under Regulation Z: (i) the creditor must expressly accept the new consumer as a primary obligor; (ii) a written agreement must be executed, which includes the creditor’s express acceptance of the new customer; and (iii) it must be a “residential mortgage transaction” as to the new customer—specifically, the new customer must be financing the acquisition or initial construction of his or her principal dwelling. If the creditor determines the transaction is an assumption, based on the outlined factors, it must provide a loan estimate and closing disclosure required by the TRID Rule, unless the transaction is otherwise exempt from the requirements.
CFPB proposes permanent HMDA thresholds
On May 2, the CFPB issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 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. Specifically, the proposal would permanently raise the reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans 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. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB temporarily increased the threshold for open-end lines of credit from 100 loans to 500 loans for calendar years 2018 and 2019. The current proposal would extend that temporary threshold to January 1, 2022, and then permanently lower the threshold to 200 open-end lines of credit after that date. Lastly, the proposal incorporates, with minor adjustments, the interpretive and procedural rule issued in August 2018 (2018 Rule), which implemented and clarified the HMDA amendments included in Section 104(a) of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposal includes additional interpretive information related to the partial exemptions in the 2018 Rule, including how the partial exemption rules apply after a merger or acquisition. The Bureau is proposing that these changes take effect January 1, 2020. Comments on the NPRM must be received within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
The Bureau also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking information on the costs and benefits of reporting certain data points under HMDA. Additionally, the ANPR also seeks information about the requirement that institutions report certain commercial-purpose loans made to a non-natural person and secured by a multifamily dwelling. Comments on the ANPR must be received within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Buckley Special Alert: DOJ issues updated guidance for corporate compliance programs
On April 30, 2019, the Department of Justice Criminal Division released updated guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (the “Guidance”). The Guidance sets forth the non-binding factors that DOJ prosecutors utilize to evaluate a company’s compliance program and consequently determine the “(1) form of any resolution or prosecution; (2) monetary penalty, if any; and (3) compliance obligations contained in any corporate criminal resolution (e.g., monitorship or reporting obligation.” The Guidance is, therefore, significant to companies seeking to understand what the DOJ considers to be best practices for compliance programs, as well as to mitigate against criminal penalties resulting from potential wrongdoing.
The Guidance builds upon a prior version released in February 2017 and does not indicate any major policy changes. Instead, this update provides further explanation of the factors DOJ uses to evaluate companies’ compliance programs and contextualize those factors within the enforcement framework of the Justice Manual and Sentencing Guidelines.* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.
If you have questions about the DOJ’s new guidance or other related issues, please visit our White Collar practice page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.Washington state amends debt collection laws
On April 30, the Washington state governor signed HB 1531 and HB 1066, which amend certain state debt collection laws. HB 1531 covers medical debt and among other things, outlines certain requirements for medical debt collection notices, including providing information regarding the medical creditor, the date(s) of service, and the health care services provided. The notice must also include the principal amount of the debt incurred, interests and fees, and the amount of any payments already received. HB 1531 also prohibits a collector from reporting any adverse information regarding the medical debt to credit reporting agencies until at least 180 days after the obligation with [was?] received by the collector and limits prejudgment interest to nine percent. Additionally, HB 1066 prevents a debt collector from serving a debtor with a court summons unless the summons and complaint are first filed with the appropriate court and bear a case number assigned by the court. The amendments both take effect July 28.
7th Circuit: Bona fide error defense applies for collection of time-barred debt
On April 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a debt collector, concluding the collector’s FDCPA violations were unintentional and the debt collector was entitled to the bona fide error defense. According to the opinion, a consumer made his last credit card payment in August 2010, but attempted to make an additional payment in June 2011, which never cleared. In December 2015, the debt collector sent a collection letter to the consumer and subsequently filed a collection action in state court, both assuming a last payment date of June 2011 (the date of the payment that did not clear). The state court dismissed the suit because the last payment that actually cleared was outside of the state’s five-year statute of limitations, meaning the debt was time-barred. The consumer filed suit against the debt collector for violating the FDCPA’s prohibition on collecting time-barred debt. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector, holding that the debt collector’s violations were “unintentional and occurred despite reasonable procedures aimed at avoiding untimely collection attempts,” under the statute’s bona fide error defense.
On appeal, the appellate court rejected the consumer’s arguments that the debt collector was unreasonable by not engaging in a meaningful review of the account to learn the true last payment date and that the debt collector had “‘thinly specified policies’” to weed out time-barred debts. The appellate court determined that the FDCPA violations were unintentional, as the debt collector was unaware that the June 2011 payment had failed. Additionally, the appellate court held that the debt collector was not required under the FDCPA to independently verify the validity of the debt to satisfy the requirements of the bona fide error defense. Moreover, while the debt collector’s policies and procedures were “simple,” they were “reasonably adapted to avoid late collection efforts,” and even though they did not prevent the mistake, the FDCPA “‘does not require debt collectors to take every conceivable precaution to avoid errors; rather, it only requires reasonable precaution.’” Because the bona fide error defense applied, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the debt collector.
OFAC regulations address foreign interference in U.S. elections
On April 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced regulations effective April 29 implementing Executive Order (E.O.) 13848. As previously covered by InfoBytes, E.O. 13848 was issued last September to authorize sanctions against foreign persons found to have engaged in, assisted, or otherwise supported foreign interference in U.S. elections. OFAC stated it intends to supplement the final rule with further regulations, “which may include additional interpretive and definitional guidance, general licenses, and statements of licensing policy.”
3rd Circuit: District court erred in voiding all cash advance agreements in NFL concussion settlement litigation
On April 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in a consolidated class action, concluded that a district court went “too far” in voiding all of the cash advance arrangements between NFL concussion class members and third party lenders in their entirety. According to the opinion, in December 2017, the district court “issued an order purporting to void in their entirety all assignment agreements” where class members assigned a portion of their settlements from the 2015 NFL concussion injury litigation, concluding that it was “necessary to protect vulnerable class members from predatory funding companies.”
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit addressed the merits in three of the four timely appeals, noting that the fundamental question was whether the district court had the authority to void the agreements. The appellate court held that the district court retained the authority to enforce and administer the settlement because there was an anti-assignment language in the settlement agreement. The appellate court upheld on the district court’s interpretation of the anti-assignment provision, holding that “any true assignments contained within the cash advance agreements—that is, contractual provisions that allowed the lender to step into the shoes of the player and seek funds directly from the settlement fund were void.” However, the appellate court concluded that the district court “went beyond its authority” by purportedly voiding the agreements in their entirety, because there are portions of some of the cash advance agreements that may still be enforceable after the true assignments are voided, such as ones structured as a non-assignment loan agreement. Since the district court’s authority “does not extend to how class members choose to use their settlement proceeds after they are disbursed,” the appellate court reversed in part the December 2017 order, leaving certain cash advance agreements enforceable to the extent rights are retained after the true assignments are voided.
OFAC sanctions Venezuelan officials connected to Maduro regime
On April 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against the two individuals identified as current or former officials of the Government of Venezuela for providing support to former President Maduro’s regime. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network advisories FIN-2017-A006, FIN-2017-A003, and FIN-2018-A003 provide additional information concerning the efforts of Venezuelan government agencies and individuals to use the U.S. financial system and real estate market to launder corrupt proceeds, as well as human rights abuses connected to foreign political figures and their financial facilitators. As a result, all property and interests in property of the sanctioned individuals, and of any entities owned 50 percent or more by them subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are generally prohibited from entering into transactions with designated persons.
Visit here for continuing InfoBytes coverage of actions related to Venezuela.
New York charges virtual currency operators with fraud
On April 25, the New York Attorney General announced that operators of a virtual currency trading platform and “tether” virtual currency issuer, along with their affiliated entities, are enjoined from engaging in activities that may have defrauded investors trading in cryptocurrency. The AG’s investigation found that the operators allegedly “engaged in a cover-up to hide the apparent loss of $850 million dollars of co-mingled client and corporate funds.” Under the terms of the court order, the operators and companies must, among other things, (i) immediately end the further dissipation of U.S. dollar assets that back “tether” tokens; (ii) are prohibited from making any distributions to executives, employees, or agents, investors, or associates from “funds that that have been loaned, extended, or pledged, or otherwise taken from the U.S. dollar reserves held by the operator”; and (iii) are prohibited from destroying or deleting potentially relevant documents and communications.
District Court: Usury claim not preempted by National Bank Act
On April 24, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied in part and granted in part a national bank’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging violations of, among other things, the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Act (“Act 6”). The allegations stem from the bank’s servicing of the plaintiffs’ mortgage. Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties in a separate 2012 lawsuit over alleged misrepresentations made by the bank concerning whether the plaintiffs were in arrears in their mortgage and escrow payments, the mortgage principal was reset. The plaintiffs asserted that although they made timely monthly payments, a 2014 mortgage statement reflected an escrow shortage, including unpaid late charges and outstanding advance/fees. Arguing that because the loan servicers refused their allegedly timely payments, which increased the principal balance, the plaintiffs claimed that the bank breached the terms of the settlement agreement by adding the unauthorized charges without providing notice. However, the bank argued—and the court concurred—that the breach of contract claim was outside the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiffs further alleged that the bank charged an interest rate that exceed the rate permitted under Act 6, and that the loan servicer charged the plaintiffs “undisclosed, excessive, and retaliatory attorney’s fees ‘from at least one if not two prior lawsuits,’ in violation of the [s]ettlement [a]greement and Act 6,” along with other “unwarranted charges.”
Concerning the bank’s motion to dismiss the Act 6 usurious interest rate claims based upon preemption, the court referred to the loan’s origination and rejected the bank’s argument that the usury claim was preempted by the National Bank Act, explaining that the homeowners’ mortgage was originated by a non-national bank even though a national bank was later assigned the note and mortgage. Additionally, the court rejected the bank’s argument that the Act 6 claim of unlawful attorney fees was barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations. According to the court, “an Act 6 claim for excessive fees accrues upon payment of said fee; it does not accrue upon charge of the fee or upon the obligor’s knowledge of the fee.” However, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that they made “the requisite unlawful payments of usurious interest or unlawful attorney’s fees” required to state valid Act 6 claims. As such, the court dismissed the Act 6 claims without prejudice.