Iowa Banking Law Blog

Is Your Institution Red Flag Compliant?

The FTC announced in late October that the enforcement deadline for the Identity Theft “Red Flags” Rule would be extended to June 1, 2010.  This extension should be viewed as an indication of the time required for financial institutions and creditors to implement identity theft programs in compliance with the Red Flags Rule, rather than a license to procrastinate.  The announcement of the deadline extension came amid discoveries by federal regulators and examiners that a handful of institutions still had not implemented or formalized their identity theft programs, just days before the previous deadline of November 1, 2009.  The Identify Theft Red Flags Rule was adopted two years ago by the OCC, the Board of Governors, the FDIC, the OTS, NCUA and the FTC.  The original mandatory compliance deadline was November 1, 2008.

 

The Red Flags guidelines require that financial institutions and creditors offering or maintaining “covered accounts” must develop an identity theft prevention program designed to:  1) identify red flags for covered accounts and incorporate those red flags into the program; 2) detect those red flags; 3) respond to the red flags; and 4) ensure the program is updated periodically to reflect any changes in the risks to the customer or to the institution.

 

To administer the program, steps must be taken to address misidentified covered accounts, a lack of security training for employees, and insufficient oversight of third-party service providers’ compliance with the rules.

 

The OTS, which has incorporated this program into its safety and soundness exam process, is reporting that some institutions have not performed a risk assessment, established a written program, or updated their program and materials.  OTS safety and soundness examinations typically occur once every 12-18 months, so it is anticipated that by the middle of next year all OTS institutions will have been examined for their compliance with the Red Flags Rule.

 

NUCA has identified 55 credit unions that have had violations, with a majority of those violations having to do with the failure to establish and implement an identity theft prevention program.

 

If you have questions regarding the Red Flags Rule, please contact Mary Zambreno at 515-246-4512 or mzambreno@dickinsonlaw.com.

Turf Battles May Impede Financial Regulatory Reform

The global credit crisis, the global recession, the decline in real estate values and the negative effects of these events on the banking industry have stimulated interest in regulatory reform of the financial sector.  The existence of complex interactions among participants and products in the global financial markets has become more apparent.  Unprecedented measures have been taken to address frozen credit markets, the collapse of massive financial firms and the spreading contagion associated with “toxic” assets.   Questions have been raised about the adequacy and effectiveness of many existing regulatory structures and about whether regulation should be extended to activities that currently are unregulated.  There are perceived advantages and risks associated with concentrating regulatory authority in a single regulator.  There has been discussion of the possibility of having a panel of regulators deal with systemic risk issues. Such an approach would be similar to the proposed European Systemic Risk Council, which would include the president of the European Central Bank and central bank governors from the European Union’s 27 member countries. 

 

Although there is general recognition that disruptions in financial markets cannot be eliminated, the need for more effective safeguards against systemic risk is clear.  Despite statements that something must be done, there is considerable disagreement about the exact nature of the changes that should be made.  Reform will be politically difficult because of the interests of market participants, regulators and Congressional committees in preserving existing regulatory jurisdictions and objectives. Any financial industry regulatory reform raises questions about who should be performing particular kinds of regulation and how that regulation should be performed. Set forth below are some of the more contentious issues:

• Should there be one or more than one systemic risk regulators?

• Should hedge funds be regulated?

• Should currently unregulated derivatives be regulated?

• Should there be increased regulation of the mortgage industry?

• Should there be regulation of the sale of securitized assets?

• Should there be federal regulation of the insurance industry?

• Should some or all federal bank regulatory agencies be consolidated?

• Should failing non-bank financial companies be placed into receivership?

• Should there be a reallocation of jurisdiction between the SEC and the CFTC?

• Should there be a clearinghouse for over-the-counter derivatives?

• Should credit default swaps be regulated?

• Should short selling be more tightly regulated?

• Should there be more countercyclical capital requirements?

• Should the use of leverage be more tightly regulated?

• Should there be more regulation of money market funds?

• Should the role of state banking regulation be diminished?

• Should there be more robust enforcement of consumer protection laws?

• Should there be more disclosure of positions of larger market participants?

• Should regulatory changes extend to compensation and corporate governance?

Whether or not all of these issues are resolved in the near future, it seems clear that substantial changes in the operation of financial market regulation lie ahead. What is also clear is that the outcome of turf battles will have a major role in determining the future of the financial regulatory structure.

 

Recent news reports highlight some of the problems that can arise in the context of turf disputes.  According to a recent article in The Economist, “The stiffest resistance to change is coming not from Wall Street but from Washington, DC, where government officials, regulators and congressional leaders are locked in turf wars and ideological battles.”  Bloomberg reports that because of “resistance on Capitol Hill” and “pushback from entrenched interests,” a merger of the SEC and the CFTC may not be pursued.   An article in The Wall Street Journal comments on the FDIC’s “increasingly tough position” toward the management of Citigroup Inc. leading to “a bitter clash between regulators” about the speed and adequacy of efforts to improve the firm’s capital position.  In an earlier article The Wall Street Journal reported on Congressional committee disputes over jurisdiction of the regulation of over-the counter derivatives.  As the most traumatic aspects of the financial crisis pass into memory, it seems increasingly likely that bureaucratic infighting will play a major role in limiting the scope of any reform of the financial sector.  

 

If you have questions, please contact Arthur Owens at 515-246-4515 or aowens@dickinsonlaw.com.

Feeling Overwhelmed By Credit Card Debt?

The Office of Thrift Supervision recently approved new rules, which apparently drew the highest number of comments ever received by the Federal Reserve – 65,000, aimed at the credit card industry.

 

Some of the new rules, which will take effect in July 2010, include, among others:

- allowing credit card companies to raise rates only on new credit cards and future purchases or advances, rather than on current balances;

- providing customers with 45 days notice – as opposed to the current 15 days notice - before changes can be made to the terms of the account;

- prohibiting unfair time constraints on payments;

- charging expensive fees for exceeding the card’s credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;

- requiring lenders to apply payments above the minimum amount to balances with the highest interest rate;

- making deceptive offers of credit.

 

Although the thrift agency believes that the new rules will go a long way towards establishing public confidence in the financial industry again, others believe that the new rules could make it more difficult for people with a poor credit history to obtain cards with higher interest rates.  Still others envision that the new rules could cost the banking industry more than $10 billion a year in interest payments, a cost which may ultimately get passed on to those consumers who do pay their credit card bills on time.

 

For more information on this topic, please email Mary A. Zambreno.

Reform of Financial Services Regulation, Long Rumored, Now Questioned

The U.S. Treasury today has begun the long anticipated review of the regulation of financial services in the United States. The U.S. Treasury will be seeking comment and pose a series of questions to determine whether the current system of regulation is working. The agency apparently intends to conduct an in depth inquiry as to whether the federal oversight can be streamlined with the obvious implication that the number of regulatory agencies needs to be reduced. For example, should the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency be combined? What role should the Federal Reserve have in the bank regulation? Should the FDIC serve as both insurer and regulator? No industry is immune from revisiting its regulation. Banking, insurance, securities and commodities are all at issue. These questions should ignite a spirited and vested debate.  A monumental proposal for a changing of the guard may be on the horizon.

The formal notice and request for public comment from the Department of Treasury is available here: Review by the Treasury Department of the Regulatory Structure Associated with Financial Institutions.

Court Holds State Licensing Laws Not Preempted By Federal Law

In State Farm Bank, F.S.B. v. John B. Reardon, a case out of the Southern District of Ohio, a federal judge ruled that a thrift's independent contractors are subject to state licensing laws.  State Farm Bank ("SFB") used independent contractors to sell insurance and commercial retail bank products.  It sought to have these agents market mortgages.  In 2004, State Farm Bank was issued a formal opinion from OTS counsel stating that federal law preempts state laws relating to the banking activities of SFB's independent contractors.  SFB notified the Ohio Superintendent of this opinion, but the Superintendent maintained that state law requiring mortgage broker licenses was not preempted.

The court concluded that "while the OTS may have the authority to extend federal preemption to agents of federal depository institutions, it has failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act in its efforts to do so."  It held that the OTS could only extend preemption to independent third parties through a formal regulation issued after publication and public hearing.  The letter signed by OTS counsel was insufficient.  The court went on to state that the "mortgage foreclosure crisis" underscores the need to follow the Administrative Procedure Act and that the OTS's proposal would create a situation in which certain mortgage brokers are not licensed by state or federal law.  In sum, the court stated that the OTS may have the authority to preempt the state licensing statutes at issue, but did not take the necessary Administrative steps necessary to effect such preemption.   

The court distinguished Watters v. Wachovia on the basis that Watters dealt with operating subsidiaries of national banks.  While these subsidiaries are supervised and regulated by the OCC to the same extent as the parent bank, wholly independent contractors are not. 

This case is contrary to a 2006 case out of Connecticut with very similar facts.  In State Farm Bank, F.S.B. v. Burke, the court held that OTS regulations preempted state licensing laws.  That court declined to address the argument that the Opinion Letter had not followed the Administrative Procedure Act.  State Farm Bank appealed the decision. 

The facts in these two cases exemplify the delicate nature of many Opinion Letters -- is it an interpretation of existing laws and regulations or is it an improper change in the law?  Also, the Ohio case shows that the preemption tug-of-war is far from over.   

For more information on this case contact Jeffrey Andersen.

When Federal and State Law Collide in Garnishment Procedures

The Agencies have issued a proposed guidance concerning garnishment orders received by financial institutions.

Generally, federal law protects certain federal benefits – such as Social Security, Supplemental Security income, Veterans’ benefits, Federal Civil Service retirement benefits, and Federal Railroad retirement benefits – from inclusion in garnishment orders.  Unfortunately, however, when garnishment orders are sought in state court by creditors and debt collectors, either some orders may not provide that certain funds are exempt from garnishment due to federal law or the customer’s account is a commingled mixture of exempt and non-exempt funds.  Financial institutions, in an effort to comply with the state court order, typically put a freeze on the account until the issue can be resolved but because these exempt federal benefits are sometimes the only source of income for individuals, even a temporary freeze on the account can wreak havoc on an individual’s financial security. 

The proposed guidance is intended to solicit comments regarding how to comply with both federal and state laws.  The proposed guidance also proposes best practices, such as promptly notifying the customer of a garnishment order, determining whether accounts contain only exempt funds, notifying the creditor that the account may contain exempt funds, minimizing the cost to the customer by refraining from charging certain fees, and lifting the freeze as soon as permissible.

Comments can be made via the Federal Reserve’s website or by email, fax, or snail mail.

For further information contact Mary Zambreno.

Regulators Issue Statement on Avoiding Losses Associated with Securitized Mortgages

The federal banking regulators (the FDIC, Federal Reserve, OCC, OTS, and NCUA), along with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a statement encouraging regulated institutions that service mortgage loans to employ certain "loss mitigation techniques" that would preserve homeownership.  The statement is a follow-up to the April 2007 Statement on Working with Mortgage Borrowers and the July 2007 Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending.  Unlike these previous statements, which urged prudent workout arrangements, the new statement is focused on mortgage loans that have been transferred into securitization trusts. 

The regulators state that when faced with an increased risk of default, servicers of loans should: contact the borrower and assess their ability to repay, assess whether default is reasonably foreseeable, and explore, where appropriate, a loss mitigation strategy that avoids foreclosure, such as loan modifications, payment deferral, conversion into fixed rate, and capitalization of delinquent amounts.

In considering loss mitigation techniques, the statement urges services to consider the borrower's income, debt, and housing related expenses.  Servicers are also urged to refer borrowers to government programs, non-profits, and counseling services that could assist the borrower.  The statement claims that "loss mitigation techniques" that preserve homeownership are less costly than foreclosure. 

This guidance was issued as political pressure to address the mortgage industry mounts.  Presidential candidates have increasingly integrated mortgage and foreclosure issues into their agendas.  President Bush threw his hat in the ring last week by announcing that his administration would put forth proposals to prevent some expected defaults over the next two years.

Unfortunately, this regulatory statement may not stem the congressional tide to over-regulate the industry.

Agencies Issue Proposed Illustrations on Subprime Mortage Lending

          The federal agencies this week issued proposed illustrations contemplated by last month's jointly issued Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending (Subprime Statement).  Triggered by the agencies' concerns over subprime mortgage lending practices for certain adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products, the illustrations aim to improve communications between lenders and consumers by providing examples of the types of communications anticipated by July's Subprime Statement. 

          The Subprime Statement encourages lenders to provide consumers clear, balanced, and timely information to help consumers more effectively weigh the costs and benefits of certain ARM products.  The illustrations both:

• explain some important features and hazards identified in the Subprime Statement (such as payment shock), and
• provide a chart of potential implications of payment shock in a specific, easy-to-understand fashion.

          Use of the illustrations is completely voluntary.  Institutions are free to tailor the illustrations to reflect their product offerings, current market conditions, and a consumer's particular loan requirements.  Whether institutions choose to use the illustrations or not, they should review their statements to consumers regarding subprime lending to ensure that they are clear, balanced, and full explain the terms and risks of such loans.

         The agencies seek public comment on the proposed illustrations.  Comments are due 60 days from the Federal Register publication.  The proposed illustrations are available here on the OTS website.

          For more information on ensuring that your institution is making the necessary disclosures, contact Megan Erickson of Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C. at 515-244-2600. 

OTS Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Unfair and Deceptive Practices

On August 3, 2007, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments not only about defining unfair and deceptive practices but also about whether the OTS should expand current prohibitions against unfair or deceptive acts.  The OTS seeks comment on various issues, including:

• Should the OTS consider further rulemaking on unfair and deceptive practices that would cover products and services in addition to consumer credit? 
• Should the rulemaking cover non-savings institution entities that are related to a savings institution? 
• What principles should OTS consider in defining an act or pratice as unfair and deceptive? 
• Is the FTC guidance on unfair and deceptive practices appropriate for the OTS?
• Should the OTS expand its advertising regulation?

The OTS's proposal does not commit the agency to any particular course of action, if merely seeks comment on the most effective course of action.  Nonetheless, it is a strong indication that the OTS intends to strengthen its unfair and deceptive practices regualtions.  Many analysts think that, at the very least, any OTS rule or guideline will address issues related to unfair mortgages due to the increasing delinquency and foreclosure rates on home loans.

As a bit of background, the Federal Trade Commission Act shields depository institutions from FTC enforcement, leaving unfair and deceptive practices to the Federal Reserve, OTS, and NCUA to deal with.  In June, Rep. Barney Frank threatened the Federal Reserve, stating that if it does not use its rulemaking authority to address unfair and deceptive pratices, and subprime lending specifically, then Congress may take away the Federal Reserve's rulemaking authority on the issue and give it back to the FTC. 

By taking this step, the OTS has put further pressure on the Federal Reserve to take action.  To date, the Federal Reserve has expressed a preference for using its supervisory authority on a case-by-case basis, as opposed to writing proscriptive regulations.  (link to article on Federal Reserve Governor Kroszner's statements in House hearing). 

The full text of the proposed rulemaking can be found here:  http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/73373.pdf

For further information contact Mary A. Zambreno and Jeffrey J. Andersen of Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, P.C.