BCLP Banking Blog

Main Content

OCC Releases Final Rule on Permissible Interest Rates, Addressing Madden Debate

On June 1, 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) released a final rule on permissible interest on loans that are sold, assigned, or transferred, and effectively reversed the Second Circuit’s 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015).[1]  In our post on the OCC’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) from November 2019, we discussed how this holding contradicted the “valid when made” doctrine, whereby an obligation is considered valid under the law that applied at the time of origination.  Effectively, a loan’s interest rate was no longer valid when resold to an entity in a state with a lower interest rate cap than where the loan was originally issued.  This week’s final published rule is the first step in addressing the tension between the Second Circuit and the federal powers granted to national banks and federal thrifts.      

An example of the Madden glitch...
An example of a Madden glitch, and visual representation as to why a fix was needed.

Adopted in the form in which it was initially proposed, the OCC’s final rule provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under sections 85 and 1463(g)(1), [national banks and federal thrifts] respectively, shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.”  Published in yesterday’s Federal Register and effective sixty days from now, the final rule reverses the Madden rule and reaffirms the “valid when made” doctrine.  Whereas the Madden decision held that subjecting credit assignees to state usury laws did not significantly interfere with the execution of a national bank’s powers, the OCC disagreed and viewed the decision as an affront to the inherent powers afforded to national banks.[2]  Credit lenders and others in the industry view the OCC final rule as an important and welcomed step in easing the uncertainty created by the Madden rule, citing the rule’s limiting of access to credit markets and propensity for instigating litigation. 

Read More

Paycheck Protection Program and EIDL Advances

The interplay of Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Loan Advances and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness is broken. Maybe there’s further guidance to come that will make the existing application and guidances makes sense, but as I’m reading the current guidance, PPP lenders could be required to “eat” the EIDL advances received by their PPP borrowers. While that’s certainly not the intent of the PPP, the existing mechanics may make that a reality.

Background

Section 1102 of the CARES Act provided that PPP borrowers who had received an EIDL loan between January 31, 2020 and April 3, 2020, could (and in some circumstances had to) increase their PPP loan amount to refinance outstanding EIDL loans. Section 1110 of the CARES Act provided that if an EIDL applicant received an EIDL advance subsequently was approved for a PPP loan, the advanced amount would be reduced from the loan forgiveness amount. (Whether Section 1110 of the Cares Act makes sense or not is also beyond this post; for now, I’m simply assuming it means what it says, at least with regard to EIDL advances related to COVID-19 existing at the time of PPP loan forgiveness.)

Note: Section 1102 only applied for existing EIDL loans as of April 3, 2020, while Section 1110 applies to subsequent EIDL advances, even if those amounts were not rolled into PPP loans.

Under the first Interim Final Rule, outstanding EIDL loans, less the amount of any outstanding EIDL advance, were rolled forward into the maximum PPP loan amount. Proceeds from any advance up to $10,000 on the EIDL loan would be deducted from the loan forgiveness amount on the PPP loan. “For purposes of determining the percentage of use of proceeds for payroll costs, the amount of any EIDL refinanced will be included. For purposes of loan forgiveness, however, the borrower will have to document the proceeds used for payroll costs in order to determine the amount of forgiveness.”

Read More

PPP Forgiveness Guidance

PPP Forgiveness Guidance

May 28, 2020

Authored by: Robert Klingler

We are still working on a few specific pieces of guidance for lenders as they process PPP forgiveness applications,  particularly with regard to minimizing the bank’s liability and with regard to EIDL advances. But in the meantime, I thought I would share some of the thought leadership that we’ve published from a PPP borrower perspective, since I suspect banks will also get a lot of questions from their borrowers as well.

In our view, the Paycheck Protection Program Loan Forgiveness Application answered many questions, but certainly not all of them.

The additional Loan Forgiveness And Loan Review regulations answered additional questions (but of course left more questions as well).

Another potential resource is the AICPA Loan Forgiveness Calculator available here. Given the continuing flow of ongoing guidance, the Calculator is updated regulatory. (Note: we have not verified any of the assumptions/calculations made by the AICPA calculator, but believe it can be a useful comparison tool regardless.)

Read More

A Trust Relationship Saves Aunt’s TILA, RESPA and FDCPA Claims from Dismissal

May 20, 2020

Categories

The Ninth Circuit held, in a matter of first impression, that a trust created by an individual for tax and estate tax planning purposes does not lose all state and federal consumer disclosure protections when it seeks to finance repairs to a personal residence for the trust beneficiary, rather than for the trustee herself; instead, the loan transaction remains a “consumer credit transaction” under TILA, RESPA and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gillian, Trustee of Lou Easter Ross Revocable Trust v. Levine, — F.3d — (9th Cir. 2020), 2020 WL 1861977 (4/14/2020).

Acting in her capacity as trustee of a trust created by her dead sister, the plaintiff obtained a loan to make repairs to a personal residence occupied by her sister’s daughter.  The district court held, on a motion to dismiss, that because the plaintiff borrower did not intend to live in the house, the loan was not a consumer credit transaction, which TILA defines as a loan extended to a natural person “primarily for personal, family or household purposes.” Both TILA and RESPA are inapplicable to “credit transactions involving extensions of credit primarily for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes.” The Rosenthal Act similarly applies to debt “due or owing from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction,” which it defines identically to TILA.

Read More

Coming Up: A National Non-Depository Payments Charter?

Brian Brooks, Chief Operating Officer of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) said on Monday that he believes the OCC should investigate the viability and utility of a non-depository payments charter: “One of the things I think we have to ask ourselves as an agency is, if it makes sense to have a non-depository lending charter, which was the original fintech concept, would it also make sense to have a non-depository payments charter?”

In his talk, given as part of the Consensus: Distributed virtual conference, Brooks focused on cross-border concerns that are particularly salient to crypto companies. He notes that we may have come to a point where the traditional state-federal divisions of licensing and oversight authority are less relevant, particularly in the crypto space. Brooks says there is an argument that “crypto looks a lot like banking for the twenty-first century,” in which case a single national license may provide modern update to the current patchwork of laws, which is burdensome and time-consuming for both payments companies and state regulators.

Brooks said “one of [his] missions at the OCC . . . is to investigate the extent to which over time it makes sense to think of crypto companies like banks and to think of charter types that might be appropriate for crypto companies.” While Brooks’ comments focused on crypto in mentioning a payments charter, he noted Stripe and PayPal as non-blockchain payments companies, which would presumably also be covered by such a payments charter.

Read More

CFPB Issues Final Remittance Rule

On May 11, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced that it will impose stricter reporting requirements on entities that process international money and remittance transfers for consumers. This final rule will take effect on July 21, 2020, replacing a temporary rule that has been in place since 2013. The new rule requires that international money transfer and remittance providers disclose the following information to consumers: exact exchange rates; the total value of transaction fees; and the amount of money expected to be received by the transfer or remittance recipient. For banks and credit unions that process large numbers of transfers, compliance costs and associated oversight policies will remain burdensome.

The new rule, however, augments the safe harbor protections afforded to certain banks and credit unions when reporting the costs of transfers and remittances to consumers. Under the temporary version of Regulation E, which was adopted in 2013, banks and credit unions that provide fewer than 500 remittances or transfers per year were permitted to estimate the costs of remittance transfers to consumers rather than providing exact transaction fees and exchange rates. Preceding the effective date of the temporary regulation, this safe harbor provision only applied to those banks and credit unions that processed fewer than 100 transfers per year. The final rule increases the transfer threshold to 500 transfers per year, making the temporary exemption permanent. In addition, the Bureau adopted a new, permanent exemption for insured institutions to “estimate the exchange rate for a remittance transfer to a particular country if, among other things, the designated recipient will receive funds in the country’s local currency and the insured institution made 1,000 or fewer remittance transfers in the prior calendar year” and the recipients received funds in the country’s local currency.

Read More

Analyzing Borrower Certification Risks under the Paycheck Protection Program

As the editor of BankBCLP.com, I tend not to write a lot of posts for other blogs hosted by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. However, the Paycheck Protection Program(PPP) has affected small business clients throughout the firm.

The shifting narratives around the government’s interpretations regarding eligibility for participation in the PPP has caused many borrowers to reconsider their own applications and to consider exiting the program by returning PPP funds by the government’s current safe harbor return deadline of May 14th.

In this post on the BCLP US Securities and Corporate Governance Blog, I describe the history and background of the PPP certification process, and suggest a three bucket risk framework for analyzing one’s certification. In discussions with corporate clients, we have found this framework to be useful for public and private companies.

As recognized in FAQ 31, this remains primarily a risk for PPP borrowers, and not PPP lenders, as “lenders may rely on a borrower’s certification regarding the necessity of the loan request.” In our experience, this has also made many lenders reasonably constrained from providing any further advice to borrowers regarding analysis of the borrower’s certification.

Read More

The Paycheck Protection Program: Managing Fair Lending Risks

The past few weeks have seen increasing scrutiny of the lenders and borrowers participating in the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), including by the Treasury Department, SBA Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, and Congress with the Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery surely soon to follow.

Against this backdrop, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has recently raised concerns related to fair lending for lenders participating in the PPP. On May 6, 2020, the CFPB issued guidance related to the timing for Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”)-mandated adverse action notices under the PPP. On April 27, 2020, the CFPB published a statement in which the Bureau emphasized that lenders must comply with ECOA when extending small business credit, outlining key bases for discrimination claims under ECOA and encouraging women and minority-owned businesses who feel they have suffered lending discrimination to submit complaints to the CFPB through its complaint portal.

The CFPB’s recent focus on institutional fair lending compliance accords with that of federal banking regulators. For example, on April 27, 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released “OCC Bulletin 2020-45,” which, among other things, encourages institutions to “prudently document their implementation and lending decisions” under the SBA’s PPP.

Given recent regulatory focus on fair lending compliance in connection with PPP lending, banks and other lenders should consider the following proactive risk mitigation steps.

Read More

CFPB Joint Advisory Committee Meeting – COVID-19 Impact Trends

Special populations need extra support during the COVID-19 pandemic. The CFPB is committed to providing real time, easily understood consumer education materials as well as clear guidelines for financial services companies. The Bureau stands ready to prosecute bad actors for UDAAP violations in the marketplace through enforcement and referrals of UDAAP violations. These were three themes offered by Director Kathleen Kraninger in public meeting remarks. And not to bury the lead, she noted the Bureau’s on-going monitoring of consumer impacts with the Department of Justice, Treasury, the FTC and state Attorneys’ General.

On Friday, May 1, 2020, the CFPB convened a joint session of its several Advisory Committees, including the Consumer Advisory Board, the Community Bank Advisory Council, the Credit Union Advisory Council and the Academic Research Council.  The meeting involved presentations from staff focused on (1) consumer complaint analysis and trends, (2) household and market impacts and (3) special populations concerns. Public questions and comments were entertained relating to each topic. The presentation materials contain useful initial analysis on consumer complaints trends arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Read More

COVID-19 and Georgia’s Reopening, New DOL Guidance on the FFCRA, and Opening Trading Windows

The devastating impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) needs no introduction.  BCLP has consolidated all of its client alerts regarding Coronavirus (COVID-19) as one page of resources. On that page, you can also limit by topic area, jurisdiction and areas of practice.

In this post, we have highlighted some of the client alerts that we believe may be of specific importance to our community bank clients.

Back to Work: Georgia’s Reopening Executive Order – Risks and Guidance for Businesses

On April 20, 2020, Governor Brian Kemp signed an Executive Order which initiates the process of reopening businesses within the State of Georgia on April 24, 2020, and issued a subsequent Executive Order on April 23, 2020, providing further guidance on the process for reopening (collectively the “Orders”). These Orders, which are quite limited in scope, only grant a small subset of businesses permission to reopen. They do, however, pre-empt all local and city orders that are more or less restrictive than the state-wide Orders. 

The Orders, while limited, nevertheless shed light on what the process of reopening will look like for additional business sectors going forward. All companies with locations in Georgia would be wise to invest time planning how they may implement screening, sanitation, and social distancing at their workplace to allow for a timely, safe and compliant reopening. 

This alert examines what businesses are permitted to reopen, what restrictions exist for those businesses, and advice and guidance for companies that BCLP anticipates will be affected by similar reopening orders in the future.

As the FFCRA Goes Live, the DOL Continues to Publish Revised and New Guidance for Employers

Although the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) declared April 1 – 17 to be a temporary period of non-enforcement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), the DOL was far from idle during that period. Importantly, the DOL provided key revised and new guidance for employers by: (1) issuing technical corrections to the temporary rule; and (2) posting additional informal questions and answers. The new guidance provides much-needed clarity on key issues, especially since the period of non-enforcement is now over. This post examines the new guidance and provides advice for employers to comply with the provisions of the FFCRA.

Read More
The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.