Top Story Compliance Related

OFAC has announced efforts to modernize its infrastructure and approaches to engaging with stakeholders to ensure sanctions are easily understood and enforceable — a key recommendation highlighted in Treasury’s 2021 Sanctions Review that OFAC is working to implement.

To ensure that its guidance remains up to date and relevant for the public, OFAC is updating many of its FAQs on general sanctions questions and issues. These FAQs are often OFAC's most viewed guidance, as they deal with basic principles of sanctions implementation. The first installment of updated FAQs is available now (FAQs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 91, 126, 468, and 469) and includes guidance on key topics such as what OFAC means by “blocked property” and how to verify the authenticity of an OFAC document.

OFAC will continue reviewing FAQs through an ongoing process focused on providing up-to-date and useful information to the public. OFAC will announce subsequent FAQ updates via its Recent Actions Notices.

The IRS has issued interim guidance for sponsors of 401(k) and similar retirement plans that provide, or wish to provide, matching contributions based on eligible student loan payments made by their participating employees.

Notice 2024-63 implements section 110 of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, which for the first time permits employers to provide matching contributions for employees based on their payments on student loans. The 2022 legislation permits employers with a 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, governmental 457(b) plan or SIMPLE IRA plan to provide matching contributions based on student loan payments, rather than based only on elective contributions to retirement plans, in plan years beginning after December 31, 2023.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission reported it had filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought by a group of parents who are suing IXL Learning, Inc. The FTC’s brief disputes the company’s argument that under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the COPPA Rule, the schools’ agreement to binding arbitration also applied to parents.

The Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday announced charges against Carl C. Icahn and his publicly traded company, Icahn Enterprises L.P. (IEP), for failing to disclose information relating to Icahn’s pledges of IEP securities as collateral to secure personal margin loans worth billions of dollars under agreements with various lenders. IEP and Icahn agreed to pay $1.5 million and $500,000 in civil penalties, respectively, to settle the SEC’s charges.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced it is taking action against a large automotive dealer group, Asbury Automotive, for systematically charging consumers for costly add-on items they did not agree to or were falsely told were required as part of their purchase. The FTC also alleges that Asbury discriminates against Black and Latino consumers, targeting them with unwanted and higher-priced add-ons.

In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleges that three Texas dealerships owned by Asbury that operate as David McDavid Ford Ft. Worth, David McDavid Honda Frisco, and David McDavid Honda Irving, along with Ali Benli, who acted as general manager of those dealerships, engaged in a variety of practices to sneak hidden fees for unwanted add-ons past consumers. These tactics included a practice called “payment packing,” where the dealerships convinced consumers to agree to monthly payments that were larger than needed to pay for the agreed-upon price of the car, and then “packed” add-on items to the sales contract to make up that difference.

While some consumers reported that salespeople never discussed these products during the sales process, others said that they specifically declined these products only to find they were added on without consent. The FTC says that Asbury’s sales and financing process made it difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to know they were being charged for these add-ons, with consumers being asked to sign documents on electronic devices that showed only the places where they should sign and not the full documents. In other cases, consumers who noticed the add-on charges were falsely told they were mandatory.

In addition, according to the complaint, company documents show that the dealerships treated Black and Latino consumers differently from non-Latino White consumers, charging them hundreds of dollars extra on average for add-ons – including those add-ons for which they were charged without consent. The complaint alleges that there was no non-discriminatory reason for these higher costs.

The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge.

The FDIC has published [89 FR 67002] in this morning's Federal Register a proposal to amend its filing requirements and processing procedures for notices filed under the Change in Bank Control Act (CBCA) by removing the exemption from the notice requirement for acquisitions of voting securities of a depository institution holding company with an FDIC-supervised subsidiary institution for which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) reviews a notice under the CBCA and by making conforming definitional changes. The FDIC also seeks information and comment regarding its approach to change in control notices under the CBCA with regard to persons who may be directly or indirectly exercising control over an FDIC-supervised institution.

Comments are due by October 18, 2024.

FDIC FIL-57-2024 was issued Friday with information to provide regulatory relief to FDIC-supervised financial institutions and facilitate recovery in areas of Florida affected by Hurricane Debby. The affected areas are Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Manatee, Sarasota, Suwannee, and Taylor Counties.

The FDIC has issued FIL-56-2024 to alert financial institutions it has updated its Questions and Answers page for the final rule governing FDIC Official Signs and Advertising Requirements, False Advertising, Misrepresentation of Insured Status, and Misuse of the FDIC Name or Logo (part 328). The Q&As provide clarifying information on the final rule to support stakeholders in the implementation of part 328.

The Q&As cover key implementation topics that include, for example, the placement and display of the official digital sign and non-deposit sign, use of the advertising statement on various deposit-taking channels on websites, mobile apps, ATMs, and social media, as well as information on technical assistance support, such as where to obtain downloadable versions of the official digital sign.

The CFPB has issued the 2025 Small Business Lending Filing Instructions Guide, which updates dates used in the filing instructions to correspond with the new compliance dates for the rule. Additionally, the Action Taken Date and Application Date data point examples have been updated to reflect the new compliance dates and use year 2025.

The Bureau also updated other Small Business Lending reporting resources to reflect the extended compliance dates.

The Federal Reserve Board yesterday announced the execution of two enforcement actions —

• A Written Agreement with Heritage Bancshares Group Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan and Trust, Spicer, Minnesota, and Heritage Bancshares Group, Inc., Spicer, Minnesota
• A Written Agreement with SNB Bancshares, Inc., Eufaula, Oklahoma, and Bank of Eufaula, Eufaula, Oklahoma