Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Covid-19

House Financial Services Committee Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Holds Hearing on Mortgage Servicers and CARES Act Implementation

By ,

A&B Abstract:

 On July 16, 2020, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services’ (the “Committee”) Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (the “Subcommittee”) held a hearing to discuss mortgage servicers and their implementation of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Stability Act (“CARES Act”). On May 4, 2020, Chairwoman of the Committee, Maxine Waters, sent a request for information (“RFI”) to eleven servicers, requesting information on their forbearance procedures and overall compliance with the CARES Act. The hearing focused on the data received through the RFI, as well as questions directed to witnesses regarding how COVID-19 has affected vulnerable communities and what additional steps Congress should take to provide borrowers with further relief.

Implementation of the CARES Act

 Subcommittee Chairman, Al Green, opened the hearing by noting that the information received from the eleven servicers in response to the Committee’s RFI indicated that over two million forbearance requests had been received since March 27, 2020.  However, Subcommittee Chairman Green raised concerns that some borrowers may not have been made aware of their right to the full 180 days (plus an additional 180 days) of forbearance provided under the CARES Act. Ranking Member Andy Barr acknowledged that mortgage servicers experienced “hiccups” in implementing the CARES Act’s forbearance and foreclosure provisions, but noted that the data received from the eleven servicers suggested that servicers were generally doing a “good job” in implementing and complying with the CARES Act.

Committee Chairwoman Waters and Subcommittee Chairman Al Green identified areas where servicers struggled to effectively implement the CARES Act’s protections. Specifically, both the Committee’s majority staff memorandum and Subcommittee Chairman Green noted that, in some cases, servicers failed to properly offer or inform borrowers about the full 180-day initial forbearance period available to borrowers under the CARES Act and only offered initial forbearance of 90-days.

Subcommittee Chairman Green noted that he believed the intent of the CARES Act was to ensure borrowers receive the full 180-day initial forbearance period, with the right to shorten forbearance upon request. Additionally, Chairman Green noted that in certain cases servicers advised borrowers that a lump sum repayment would be required at the end of the forbearance period, which could discourage borrowers from taking advantage of the CARES Act’s forbearance protections, and is inconsistent with federal agency guidance prohibiting servicers from requiring a lump sum repayment. That said, Representative Nydia Velazquez acknowledged that a HUD Office of Inspector General report found that the FHA may have provided incomplete, inconsistent data and suggested that additional guidance from the FHA is needed.  A similar sentiment was echoed in the Committee’s majority staff memorandum, wherein the majority staff noted that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have at times provided inconsistent and potentially confusing guidance regarding the CARES Act forbearance protections.”

Witnesses Marcia Griffin, founder and president of Homefree USA, and Donnell Williams, President of the National Association of Real Estate Brokers, acknowledged that servicers’ implementation of the CARES Act has improved since the start of the pandemic, but also noted certain areas for improvement.  For example,  Ms. Griffin and Mr. Williams both noted that servicers experienced a delay in implementing the CARES Act and in providing appropriate training to employees regarding the CARES Act’s protections as well as the post-forbearance loss mitigation options that would be available to impacted borrowers exiting forbearance. Furthermore, Ms. Griffin and Mr. Williams advocated for better training for customer service employees, more support for housing counselors, and more extensive borrower outreach.

Post Forbearance Measures and the Health Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (“HEROES”) Act

Members of the Subcommittee also questioned witnesses regarding what further measures should be taken by Congress to provide additional relief to impacted borrowers to ensure they can remain in their homes after their forbearance ends. Ranking Member Andy Barr noted that the HEROES Act, recently passed by the House, would require automatic forbearance and mandate certain post-forbearance loss mitigation options.  However, both he and Representative Lee Zeldin cautioned that mandating certain loss mitigation options may impact servicers’ ability to work effectively with impacted borrowers, and that it is best for servicers to speak with borrowers to determine the best option available for each borrower. Representative Rashida Tlaib and Subcommittee Chairman Green also indicated that Congress is considering whether to provide additional direct payments to borrowers.  Representative Zeldin noted that while mortgage servicers have a vital role to play in helping impacted borrowers, they cannot shoulder all of the associated financial burden without increased liquidity.

Alys Cohen, Staff Attorney for the National Consumer Law Center, supported providing protections similar to the CARES Act for borrowers with non-federally backed mortgages, including a requirement to provide automatic forbearance.  However, Dr. DeMarco cautioned that automatic forbearance may not be an appropriate tool. Dr. DeMarco indicated that rather than automatic forbearance, borrowers should communicate with their servicers before being put into forbearance so that the servicer and borrower can work together to determine the best path forward. While Ms. Cohen agreed that borrowers should try to speak with their servicers, she noted that more borrowers are missing payments than requesting forbearance.

Representative William Timmons asked witnesses to comment on whether certain temporary policies adopted in response to COVID-19, such as remote online notarization and additional flexibility regarding appraisals, should be made permanent.  Mr. Williams indicated, without specificity, that some of these temporary policies should be made permanent. Dr. Demarco supported extending the temporary flexibility around remote online notarization. Finally, Ms. Cohen noted that there was room for these temporary polices to be made permanent, but that appraisals should remain accurate.

Addressing Racial Disparities

Certain members of the Subcommittee’s majority caucus, including Subcommittee Chairman Green, Committee Chairwoman Waters, and Representative Velazquez highlighted the fact that COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on Black and Latinx communities. Of the witnesses, Ms. Cohen and Mr. Williams, in particular, suggested that people of color were less likely to receive a forbearance than their white counterparts. For example, Mr. Williams noted that there is currently a 13% gap between Black and White homeowners who receive forbearance. Ms. Cohen, Ms. Griffin, and Mr. Williams all noted that more communication from the federal government regarding forbearance protections, and additional funding to support Black and Latinx communities, such as funding for legal aid and housing counseling services, would help mitigate some of this apparent disparity.

Takeaway

The Subcommittee hearing suggested that servicers have been largely effective in implementing the CARES Act and communicating with borrowers, but that additional work is still needed.  Subcommittee Chairman Green, in particular, noted that additional legislation as well as further communication by servicers is needed to ensure all borrowers receive clear and consistent guidance regarding available relief options. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, it will be interesting to see what further legislation is promulgated to provide additional relief to borrowers facing financial hardship due to COVID-19.

New York Laws Require Forbearance for Private Mortgage Loans During COVID Emergency

By

A&B ABstract

On June 17, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law two measures, effective immediately, providing for mortgage forbearances for privately backed residential mortgage loans during the COVID-19 emergency. Senate Bill 8243 (2020 N. Y. Laws 112) amends the N. Y. Banking Law by adding new Section 9-x, “Mortgage Forbearance.”  Senate Bill 8428 (2020 N. Y. Laws 126) relates to state disaster emergency and, among other provisions, amends Section 9-x as added by Senate Bill 8243. These measures apply during the covered period, beginning on March 7, 2020 and ending when no Executive Order issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic relating to restricting public or private businesses or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals apply in the county of the borrower’s residence.

Mortgage Forbearance

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law imposes new requirements on any New York regulated banking organization, including banks, trust companies, private bankers, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and investment companies) and regulated mortgage servicers  (collectively, “regulated entities”)subject to supervision by the New York Department of Financial Services (the “Department”).

First, regulated entities must make applications for forbearance widely available to any qualified mortgagor who, during the covered period is in arrears or on a trial period plan or who has applied for loss mitigation. A qualified mortgagor is a natural person who (i) demonstrates financial hardship as result of COVID-19 during the covered period, (ii) whose loan is from or serviced by a regulated entity, and (iii) whose loan meets the following criteria: the loan is incurred for personal, family or household purposes, s secured by mortgage on a 1-4 family property located in New York, and is the borrower’s primary residence.  Forward and reverse mortgage as well as co-operative units are within scope.

Second, regulated entities must grant forbearance of all monthly payments due on a New York residential mortgage secured by a qualified mortgagor’s primary residence for up to 180 days with the option to extend the forbearance for up to an additional 180 days provided the borrower continues to demonstrate a financial hardship. Such forbearances may be backdated to March 7, 2020.

Third, any mortgage forbearance granted by a regulated entity to a qualified mortgagor as a result of a financial hardship pursuant to Executive Order 202.9 the regulation promulgated thereunder (3 NYCRR Part 119) or Section 9-x of the Banking Law subject to post forbearance repayment requirements. Specifically, the qualified mortgagor shall have the following four options:

  • Extend the term of the loan for the length of the period of forbearance with no additional interest or late fees or penalties incurred on the forborne payment
  • Have the arrears accumulated during the forbearance period payable on a monthly basis for the remaining term of the loan without being subject to penalties or late fees as a result of the forbearance
  • Negotiate a loan modification or any other option that meets the changed circumstances of the borrower, or
  • If the borrower and regulated entity cannot reasonably agree on a mutually acceptable loan modification, the regulated entity must offer to defer arrears accumulated during the forbearance period as a non-interest bearing balloon loan payable at the maturity of the loan, or at the time the loan is satisfied through a refinance or sale of the property.  Late fees accumulated as a result of the forbearance must be waived.

The measure prohibits a regulated entity from reporting negatively to any credit bureau that the borrower has exercised any of the four post forbearance options

Significantly, Section 9-x of the Banking Law does not apply to any mortgage loan made, insured, purchased or securitized by: (i) any agency or instrumentality of the United States (such as FHA, VA or USDA); (ii) any government sponsored enterprise  (such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac); (iii) a federal home loan bank;  (iv) a corporate governmental  agency of the state constituted as a political subdivision and public benefit corporation; or (iv) “the rights and obligations of any lender, issuer, servicer or trustee of such obligations, including servicers for” Ginnie Mae.

Privately backed mortgage loans are also subject to New York Executive Order 202.9, which modified Subdivision two of Section 39 of the Banking Law to provide that it is an unsafe and unsound business practice for any financial institution subject to the jurisdiction of the Department to, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, fail to grant a forbearance to any person or business who has a financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic for a period of ninety days. The Executive Order also directed the Superintendent of the Department to promulgate emergency regulations to require that the application for such forbearance be made widely available for consumers, and such application shall be granted in all reasonable and prudent circumstances solely for the period of such emergency. These regulations are set forth in new Part 119 to 3 NYCCR. The covered period of Executive Order 202.9 was extended by subsequent executive order to be valid through July 6, 2020, unless further extended.

Capital and Liquidity

New Section 9-x of the Banking Law provides that the obligation to grant the forbearance relief required by Section 9-x is subject to the regulated entity “having sufficient capital and liquidity to meet its obligations and to operate in a safe and sound manner.” If a regulated entity determines it is not able to offer the forbearance to any qualified mortgagor, it must notify the Department within five business days of making such determination. Any such notice filed with the Department must include: (1) information about the mortgagor; (2) the reason the regulated entity determined that it was unable to offer any forbearance relief pursuant to Section 9-x; (3) information about the institution’s financial condition supporting the its determination; and (4) any other information required by the Department. Additionally, when such a notice is provided to the Department, the regulated entity must advise the mortgagor that the application for relief was denied and provide a statement that the applicant may file a complaint with the New York state department of financial services at 1-800-342-3736 or http://www.dfs.ny.gov if the applicant believes the application was wrongly denied.

Defense to Foreclosure

Section 9-x of the Banking Law, provides that adherence with Section 9-x is a condition precedent to commencing a foreclosure action stemming from missed payments which would have otherwise been subject to this section, and that a defendant may raise the violation of this section as a defense to such a foreclosure action commenced on the defendant’s property.

Takeaway

These New York measures provide protections to New York borrowers who aren’t otherwise covered by the CARES Act.  Servicers should take note of these provisions as well as similar ones in other states, such as the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Oregon.  In the immediate term, servicers will need to quickly operationalize these new protections.  In the longer term, questions may be raised as to whether these types of measures infringe upon any private investors’ rights.

CFPB Issues CARES Act Consumer Reporting FAQs

By

A&B ABstract

On June 16th, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued a Compliance Aid titled “Consumer Reporting FAQs Related to the CARES Act and COVID-19 Pandemic.” This Compliance Aid clarifies the Bureau’s April 1, 2020 Statement that providing furnishers flexibility in handling disputes during the pandemic is not unlimited, putting consumer reporting agencies and furnishers on notice that the Bureau is enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by the CARES Act, and its implementing Regulation V.  The Compliance Aid also addresses questions on reporting CARES Act accommodations.

CFPB Focusing on Credit Reporting Accuracy and Dispute Handling

In its April 1, 2020 statement, the Bureau indicated that while furnishers are expected to comply with the CARES Act, the Bureau “does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to [CRAs] that accurately reflects the payment relief measures they are employing” and will not take enforcement or supervisory actions against furnishers and CRAs for failing to timely investigate consumer disputes. On June 16th the Bureau clarified that it is enforcing FCRA and that while it previously provided some flexibility the April 1st Statement “did not state that the Bureau would give furnishers or CRAs an unlimited time beyond the statutory deadlines to investigate disputes before the Bureau would take supervisory or enforcement action.”  The Bureau warns that it will take public enforcement action against companies or individuals that fail to comply with FCRA, but will consider the unique circumstances that entities face as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and entities’ good faith efforts to timely investigate disputes.

CARES Act Amendment to FCRA

Section 4021 of the CARES Act amends FCRA by adding a new section providing a special instruction for reporting consumer credit information to credit reporting agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Specifically, if a creditor or other furnisher offers an “accommodation” to a consumer affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in connection with a credit obligation or account, and the consumer satisfies the conditions of such accommodation, the furnisher must:

  • report the credit obligation or account as “current;” or
  • if the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation maintain the delinquent status during the effective period of the accommodation, or, if the consumer brings the account current during such period, then to report the account as current.

Stated differently by the CFPB, “during the accommodation, the furnisher cannot advance the delinquent status.” The CFPB provides the following example:

If the credit obligation or account was current before the accommodation, during the accommodation the furnisher must continue to report the credit obligation or account as current.

If the credit obligation or account was delinquent before the accommodation, during the accommodation the furnisher cannot advance the delinquent status. For example, if at the time of the accommodation the furnisher was reporting the consumer as 30 days past due, during the accommodation the furnisher may not report the account as 60 days past due. If during the accommodation the consumer brings the credit obligation or account current, the furnisher must report the credit obligation or account as current. This could occur, for example, if the accommodation itself brings the credit obligation or account current (such as a loan modification that resolves amounts past due so the borrower is no longer considered delinquent) or if the consumer makes past due payments that bring the credit obligation or account current.

An “accommodation,” as defined in this section, includes relief granted to impacted consumers such as an agreement to defer a payment, make a partial payment, grant forbearance, modify a loan or contract, or any other assistance or relief granted to a consumer affected by COVID-19. The reporting requirements do not apply to charged-off accounts.  This section applies from January 31, 2020 through the later of 120 days after: (i) enactment of this section, or (ii) termination of the national emergency declaration.

Questions on Reporting Accommodations under FCRA

There has been much confusion in how the CARES Act requirements translate into Metro 2 reporting requirements.  The CFPB offers the following guidance:

  • When furnishers are reporting an account to the CRAs, furnishers are expected to understand all the CRA’s data fields, to ensure that the information reported accurately reflects a consumer’s status as current or delinquent. Specifically, the Bureau provides “information a furnisher provides about an account’s payment status, scheduled monthly payment, and the amount past due may all need to be updated to accurately reflect that a consumer’s account is current consistent with the CARES Act.”
  • With respect to the use of special comment codes, the CFPB provides that “Furnishing a special comment code indicating that a consumer with an account is impacted by a disaster or that the consumer’s account is in forbearance does not provide consumer reporting agencies with this CARES Act-required information.  Left unaddressed is whether servicers are permitted to report special comment codes and other fields as required by CDIA/Metro2.
  • With respect to reporting the status of an account after an accommodation ends, the Bureau provides two instructions.  First, the Bureau states “[a]ssuming payments were not required or the consumer met any payment requirements of the accommodation, a furnisher cannot report a consumer that was reported as current pursuant to the CARES Act as delinquent based on the time period covered by the accommodation after the accommodation end.” Second, “a furnisher also cannot advance the delinquency of a consumer that was maintained pursuant to the CARES Act based on the time period covered by the accommodation after the accommodation ends.”

Questions remain on how to address a consumer’s delinquency after an accommodation ends if the delinquency hasn’t been resolved through loss mitigation or otherwise.  Also unaddressed is whether furnishers are permitted to report (i) a “special comment code” for natural disaster or forbearance or (ii) the “terms frequency” field (each of which can indicate an account is in forbearance or deferment, even while the “account status code” field is marked “current”), without violating the CARES Act requirement to report borrowers in forbearance as “current.”

Takeaway

CFPB has put furnishers on notice that the Bureau will begin to enforce the CARES Act credit reporting requirements.  Companies should pay attention to credit reporting complaint trends in the coming months.  Companies should also document good faith efforts to comply and respond to disputes as soon as possible.  Last, with the CFPB’s revised Responsible Business Conduct Policy, companies may consider getting in front of any issues while the environment is still favorable. Once forbearance ends and foreclosures resume, and given where we are in the election cycle, the situation could turn political this Fall and the enforcement posture could change.

Alston & Bird Hosts Calabria, Kraninger to Discuss COVID-19 Challenges

By

A&B ABstract: On June 15, Alston & Bird partners Nanci Weissgold and Brian Johnson hosted Dr. Mark A. Calabria, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and Kathy Kraninger, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to discuss federal regulatory responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and how they affect consumer lending and mortgage servicing.

The discussion was the inaugural event in Alston & Bird’s Financial Services Regulatory Speaker Series.

Pandemic Response

Directors Kraninger and Calabria first addressed their respective agencies’ efforts (individually and jointly) to respond to the effects of the pandemic.

Focusing on efforts relating to the GSEs, Dr. Calabria discussed the foreclosure moratorium (which he stated will soon be extended past June 30), and the focus on borrowers who are truly suffering a hardship.  He further indicated that approximately a quarter of borrowers in forbearance are continuing to make payments, which lead to the agency’s announcement in May that such borrowers will be treated as current for purposes of eligibility for refinancings or new purchases.

Director Kraninger expressed pride in the CFPB’s broad-based response to the crisis, and specifically mentioned efforts to educate consumers on their rights and expectations for relief, adjusting supervisory and enforcement processes to be more responsive to current needs and circumstances, and engaging all of the CFPB’s stakeholders in regulatory work (including the production of guidance relating to mortgages and consumer loans).

Market Prognosis

Asked for his assessment of the overall health of the residential mortgage market, Dr. Calabria compared current circumstances favorably to the 2008 financial crisis.  He specifically referenced the low number of GSE loans for which borrowers are underwater, indicating that borrowers with equity are less likely to walk away.  However, he anticipated that it will not be until the fourth quarter of the year that the true “wild card” – the number of loans in forbearance that will go into delinquency and foreclosure – will be known.

Coordinated Action

Director Kraninger stressed the importance of federal regulators acting in concert, and continuing conversations with the states to send a “clear signal across the regulatory landscape” of expectations for regulated institutions to accommodate their customers.  She stressed that the CFPB is using the examination process to conduct priority assessments as an opportunity to engage institutions, understanding how forbearance programs work and how they are engaging consumers.  Regulated institutions, she said, should expect the process to be iterative, rather than only a matter of identifying violations.

CARES Act and the Mortgage Servicing Rules

With respect to the interplay of the CARES Act and the Mortgage Servicing Rules, Director Kraninger addressed specific concerns regarding payment deferral.  Specifically, as to whether servicers are required to collect a complete loss mitigation application before approving a borrower for a payment deferral, she indicated that the CFPB is actively working with the FHFA on how best to provide options to consumers, and that the agencies expect to provide clarification on how the Mortgage Servicing Rules apply to CARES Act deferrals in the near term.  In the longer term, Director Kraninger suggested that the CFPB is considering new provisions  of the Rules applicable to national disasters (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic, or severe weather).

Takeaways

Closing the discussion, Directors Calabria and Kraninger discussed overall perceptions of their agencies’ responses to the pandemic. Director Kraninger reiterated that the CFPB is committed to making clear its expectations for regulated entities.  By comparison to the financial crisis, the CFPB is focused on getting ahead of issues (e.g., with the credit reporting industry).

Dr. Calabria said that the greatest misunderstanding about the CARES Act relates to the scope of and eligibility for forbearance.  Borrowers are eligible for “up to” a year of forbearance – a ceiling, not a floor.  Additionally, to obtain an initial forbearance and the optional extension, a borrower must have suffered (and continue to suffer) economic hardship relating to the pandemic.  Thus, he indicated, initial estimates about the number of loans that would be in forbearance were too high.  Further, the number of borrowers with significant equity in their homes makes it more likely for the impact of the pandemic to be a liquidity event, not a solvency event.

Alston & Bird thanks Directors Calabria and Kraninger for sharing their insights with the hundreds of listeners in attendance. Stay tuned for more events in the series.

DOJ Issues Third Iteration of Its Corporate Compliance Guidance

By , ,

The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division began June 2020 by issuing revisions to its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance. First published in 2017, and later updated in April 2019, the guidance provides insight into how the Criminal Division assesses a company’s compliance program. Further, it allows companies to proactively implement and strengthen compliance programs to align closely with the DOJ’s considerations and focuses.

The substance and tenor of the guidance remains largely unchanged from its prior versions, but the revisions continue to reflect an ongoing commitment by the DOJ to provide transparency into its compliance program policies and priorities. For example:

  • The revisions demonstrate the importance of a dynamic and evolving compliance program that emphasizes well-documented internal processes and continually incorporates lessons learned and solutions to issues as they are identified.
  • While the prior version included language about individual determinations in each case, the update now specifies the factors the DOJ will consider in this determination.
  • The revisions focus on the need to create a culture throughout all levels of the business, not just at the top.

Notwithstanding the many disruptions the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused to businesses, it’s clear that legal compliance and corporate accountability remain a focus within the Criminal Division.

Key Updates

While the overall tone of the guidance remains the same, the update provides additional guidance in several key areas.  The following are some notable revisions or additions to the April 2019 guidance:

  • Individualized assessment – the DOJ articulated some of the specific factors it will consider in making each company’s individualized compliance program assessment, including the company’s size, industry, geographic footprint, and regulatory landscape.
  • Resourced and empowered program – emphasis on ensuring a company’s compliance program is adequately resourced and empowered to effectively function.
  • Access to data – emphasis on ensuring that compliance and control personnel have sufficient direct or indirect access to the relevant sources of data to ensure timely and effective monitoring and testing of the company’s compliance policies and controls.
  • Lessons learned – emphasis on companies having a process for tracking and continually incorporating lessons learned from the company’s own prior issues or those of other companies operating in the same industry or region.
  • Reporting and training – companies should ensure employees have a forum to ask questions during training and continue to test the company’s hotline and other resources.
  • Culture of compliance – companies should demonstrate a commitment to compliance at all levels of the company, not just the top, and perform due diligence of third-party partners at onboarding and throughout the duration of the relationship.

Takeaways

Without significant change, the revisions continue to provide additional insight into the DOJ’s considerations for robust compliance programs. The DOJ’s decision to expressly require compliance functions to be adequately resourced is somewhat surprising, given the financial difficulties that many companies face during the coronavirus pandemic. And what is absent is any recognition of the current challenges that have come with the pandemic and companies’ inability to spend as much as they would otherwise want to on compliance functions while struggling to stay alive. However, the evolution of the guide over the past three years demonstrates the DOJ’s willingness to listen to the business community and provide more guidance based on feedback.

As the pandemic continues, we would hope that the DOJ will provide additional guidance that further expands on how compliance should or could change based on the crisis. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the DOJ remains focused on requiring companies to “show their work” and to be able to document compliance efforts through data. The DOJ’s decision to update this guidance now emphasizes that companies should continue to prioritize compliance programs even while dealing with the ramifications of the global pandemic.