InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC addresses permissible activities for chartered national banks
On January 11, the OCC published an interpretive letter #1176 addressing the OCC’s authority to charter national banks within the scope of 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) of the National Bank Act. As described by the OCC, the statute “recognizes the authority of the OCC to charter a bank that limits its operations to those of a trust company and activities related thereto.” Trust company activities include those “permissible for a state trust bank or company even if those state authorized activities are not necessarily considered fiduciary in nature under 12 U.S.C. § 92a and 12 CFR Part 9.” Accordingly, the letter explains that a national bank chartered under 12 U.S.C. § 27(a) is not limited to fiduciary activities as defined for purposes of 12 C.F.R. Part 9 and may engage in any permissible activities of a trust company. The letter also discusses (i) standards the OCC considers when assessing whether an activity is conducted in a fiduciary capacity; (ii) implications for chartering de novo institutions that limit activities to those of a trust company; (iii) permissible activities of converting state-chartered institutions and the handling of nonconforming assets; and (iv) permissible activities for national banks that do not have fiduciary powers.
OCC addresses qualifying activities for CRA final rule
On January 4, the OCC issued interpretive letter #1177, which addresses qualifying activities of the affiliates and subsidiaries of national banks and savings associations under the OCC’s 2020 final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert here, the 2020 final rule, among other things (i) updated deposit-based assessment areas; (ii) mandated the inclusion of consumer loans in CRA evaluations; and (iii) included a non-exhaustive illustrative list of activities that qualify for CRA consideration. The interpretive letter states that qualifying activities under the 2020 final rule may include the CRA qualifying activities of the consolidated subsidiaries of a bank, but that a bank’s qualifying activities generally do not include the activities of the bank’s nonbank affiliates. The OCC notes that the “very factors demonstrating the tight link between a bank and its consolidated subsidiary…suggest that activities conducted by a bank’s parent and sister companies should generally not receive CRA credit.” Thus, banks will not be given credit for qualifying activities conducted by such affiliates unless the bank “directly financed or otherwise supported such activities.”
NYDFS virtual currency techsprint set for March
On January 21, NYDFS announced the details of its first-of-its-kind techsprint focusing on virtual currency that will open on March 1 and culminate on March 12. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the techsprint is a collaboration with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Alliance for Innovative Regulation, and the objective is “to achieve creative and collaborative prototyping as a step toward smarter regulatory reporting in virtual currency.” NYDFS notes that the virtual format will allow flexibility for the techsprint to include a combination of full-day facilitated exercises and self-paced, team-managed efforts. The teams will work to address one of several problem statements, including (i) “[h]ow can DFS achieve real-time or more frequent access to company financial data from virtual currency licensees and receive early warning signs of financial risks to the companies or their customers?” (i) “[h]ow can DFS obtain real-time transaction data from its licensees and automatically analyze the data to safeguard against illicit financing risks?” and (iii) “[h]ow can DFS use tools such as natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to identify risks by processing and analyzing supervisory reports that are submitted by licensees in a wide range of formats?”
Fed proposes SAR filing exemptions
On January 22, the Federal Reserve Board published a notice of proposed rulemaking, which would modify the requirements to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, U.S. offices of foreign banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve, and bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries. The proposal would amend the Board’s SAR regulations to allow for the issuance of exemptions from the requirements of those regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December, the FDIC and the OCC issued similar proposals. As with the OCC and the FDIC proposals, the Board’s proposal is intended “to facilitate supervised institutions in meeting Bank Secrecy Act requirements more efficiently and effectively, including through development of innovative solutions.” Comments on the proposed rule are due February 22.
FDIC revises supervisory appeals guidelines
On January 19, the FDIC issued FIL-04-2021 announcing the adoption of revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations (Guidelines). The Guidelines, originally proposed last August (covered by InfoBytes here), will establish a new, independent Office of Supervisory Appeals (Office) replacing the current Supervision Appeals Review Committee. The new Office will have final authority to resolve appeals by a panel of reviewing officials and will be independent from other divisions within the FDIC that have authority to issue material supervisory determinations. The Guidelines provide that appeals submitted to the Office will be decided by a panel of term-appointed reviewing officials with bank supervisory or examination experience. Additionally, the division director will make an independent supervisory determination without deferring to the judgments of either party, with communications between the Office and members of either the supervisory staff or the appealing institution to be shared with the other party to the appeal. The Guidelines will also permit an institution to request expedited review of its appeal, and will amend the procedures and timeframes for considering formal enforcement-related decisions through the supervisory appeals process. The Guidelines will take effect once the new Office is fully operational. In the meantime, the current guidelines will remain in effect.
Fed finalizes rule updating capital planning and stress testing requirements
On January 19, the Federal Reserve Board adopted a final rule updating the agency’s capital planning and stress testing requirements applicable to large bank holding companies and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations. Among other things, the final rule, which is generally similar to the Fed’s September 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here), conforms the capital planning, regulatory reporting, and stress capital buffer requirements for firms with $100 billion or more in total assets (Category IV) with the tailored regulatory framework approved by the Fed in 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule also makes additional changes to the Fed’s stress testing rules, stress testing policy statement, and regulatory reporting requirements related to “business plan changes and capital actions and the publication of company-run stress test results for savings and loan holding companies.” In addition, the Fed’s capital planning and stress capital buffer requirements will now apply to covered saving and loan holding companies subject to Category II, III, and IV standards under the tailoring framework. The Fed notes that firms in the lowest risk category are on a two-year stress test cycle and will not be subject to company-run stress test requirements. The final rule takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Agencies release SARs/AML consideration FAQs
On January 19, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and the OCC, in consultation with staff at certain other federal functional regulators, published answers to frequently asked questions concerning suspicious activity reporting (SAR) and other anti-money laundering (AML) considerations. The answers clarify financial institutions’ commonly asked questions about SARs/AML regulatory requirements and are provided to assist financial institutions with their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/AML compliance obligations in order to enable them “to focus resources on activities that produce the greatest value to law enforcement agencies and other government users of [BSA] reporting.” Topics discussed include (i) law enforcement requests for financial institutions to maintain accounts; (ii) receipt of grand jury subpoenas and law enforcement inquiries and SAR filings; (iii) maintaining customer relationships following the filing of SARs; (iv) filing SARs based on negative news identified in media searches; (v) information provided in SAR data and narrative fields; and (vi) SAR character limits. The agencies note that the FAQs do not alter existing BSA/AML requirements or establish new supervisory expectations, but have been developed in response to recent recommendations as described more thoroughly in FinCEN’s Advance Notice or Proposed Rulemaking issued last September on AML program effectiveness (covered by InfoBytes here).
OCC settles with bank’s former GC on account openings
On January 15, the OCC announced a $3.5 million penalty against a national bank’s former general counsel for his role in the bank’s incentive compensation sales practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in January 2020, the OCC announced charges against the former general counsel and other executives, seeking a lifetime prohibition from participating in the banking industry, a personal cease and desist order, and/or civil money penalties. The January announcement included settlements with three of the executives, and the OCC settled with three others in September 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here).
In addition to the $3.5 million penalty, the consent order against the former general counsel includes a personal cease and desist, and a requirement to cooperate with the OCC in any investigation or proceeding related to the sales practices of the bank. The consent order does not prohibit the former general counsel from holding future executive positions within the industry.
OCC urges court to uphold valid-when-made rule
On January 14, the OCC moved for summary judgment in an action filed by the California, Illinois, and New York attorneys general (collectively, “states”) challenging the OCC’s valid-when-made rule, arguing that the challenge is without merit and that the agency “reasonably interprets the ‘gap’ in [12 U.S.C. § 85] concerning what happens when a national bank sells, assigns, or transfers a loan.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC’s final rule was designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision and provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. § 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” The states challenged the rule, arguing that it is “contrary to the plain language” of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)) and “contravenes the judgment of Congress,” which declined to extend preemption to non-banks. Moreover, the states contend that the OCC “failed to give meaningful consideration” to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.”
In response, the OCC argued that not only does the final rule reasonably interpret the “gap” in section 85, it is consistent with section 85’s “purpose of facilitating national banks’ ability to operate their nationwide lending programs.” Moreover, the agency asserts that 12 U.S.C. § 25b’s preemption standards do not apply to the final rule, because, among other things, the OCC “has not concluded that a state consumer financial law is being preempted.” The final rule “addresses only the ‘substantive [ ] meaning’ of § 85” and Congress “expressly exempted OCC’s interpretations of § 85 from § 25b’s requirements.” Lastly, the OCC argued that it made an “informed and reasoned decision,” including addressing issues raised during the public comment period. Thus, the court should uphold the final rule and affirm summary judgment for the agency.
CFPB finalizes rule stating supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On January 19, the CFPB issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and the NCUA on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] MRAs and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.”
The Bureau notes that it chose to issue a final rule that is specific to the Bureau and Bureau-supervised institutions, rather than a joint version including the five agencies as it did with the proposal. However, the final rule adopts the proposed rule without substantive change. The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Similar announcements were issued by the OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.