Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On April 3, the New Mexico governor signed HB 150, which amends the New Mexico Bank Installment Loan Act of 1959 and the New Mexico Small Loan Act of 1955 to, among other things, change provisions relating to financial institutions and (i) clarify that unfair or deceptive trade practices, or unconscionable trade practices, are considered violations of the Unfair Practices Act; (ii) expand annual lender reporting requirements, including identifying secured and unsecured loan products, fees and interests paid by the borrowers, loan terms, and default rates; (iii) clarify allowable loan insurance, including provisions related to licensing requirements for lenders; and (iv) expand state and federal disclosure requirements. The amendments also limit interest and other charges (permitted finance charges cannot exceed the lesser of $200 or 10 percent of the principal with outlined exceptions); grant rights of rescission within specified time frames to allow borrowers to return the full amount of funds advanced by the lender without being charged fees; and provide for penalties for lenders who willfully violate any of the provisions. Specifically, the act applies to installment loans covered by the Installment Loan Act and the Small Loan Act, and does not apply to federally insured depository institutions. The act takes effect January 1, 2020, and is applicable to loans subject to the aforementioned acts that are executed on or after the effective date.
On February 11, the OCC released a statement from Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting supporting the CFPB’s proposed rule rescinding certain requirements relating to underwriting standards for short-term small-dollar loans. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Calling the proposal “important and courageous,” Otting praised the Bureau, noting that it was “[t]he shrinking supply and steady demand” that “drove up prices and promoted much less favorable terms.” He continued to state that a framework of rules that allows responsible lenders to compete in the market will make the market “work better for everyone.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May 2018, the OCC released a Bulletin encouraging banks to meet the credit needs of consumers by offering short-term, small-dollar installment loans subject to the OCC’s core lending principles.
On November 14, the FDIC issued a request for information (RFI) seeking public comment on ways it can encourage FDIC-supervised financial institutions to offer “responsible, prudently underwritten small-dollar credit products that are economically viable and address the credit needs of bank customers.” In the RFI’s release, FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams pointed to studies showing that “[c]onsumers benefit when small-dollar credit products are available from banks” and requested “the public to use the RFI process to tell [the FDIC] how to ensure that consumers can obtain small dollar credit from banking institutions in a responsible manner.” The RFI seeks information related to the “full spectrum of issues” related to banks offering small-dollar credit, including regulatory and non-regulatory obstacles for banks, as well as actions the FDIC could take to assist banks in serving the small-dollar market. In addition to general feedback, the RFI includes a list of suggested topics and questions for commenters to address. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Recently, the OCC and the CFPB have also made efforts to encourage banks to meet the small-dollar credit needs of consumers. In May, the OCC issued Bulletin 2018-14 encouraging banks to offer responsible short-term, small-dollar installment loans with typical maturities between two and 12 months (covered by InfoBytes here). In addition to applauding the OCC’s Bulletin, the CFPB announced it expects to publish proposed rules reconsidering the ability-to-repay provisions of the rule covering Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans in January 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here).
On October 26, the CFPB announced it expects to publish proposed rules reconsidering the ability-to-repay provisions of the rule covering Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans (the Rule) in January 2019. The Bureau does not intend to reconsider the payment provisions of the Rule, noting that the ability-to-repay provisions “have much greater consequences for both consumers and industry than the payment provisions.” Under the current Rule, it is an unfair and abusive practice for a lender to make a covered short-term loan or a covered longer-term balloon payment loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan (see the Buckley Sandler Special Alert for more detailed coverage on the Rule). The Bureau also intends to address the compliance date for the Rule, which is currently set at August 19, 2019.
On October 22, the Georgia Supreme Court held that legal settlement cash advances are not “loans” under the state’s Payday Lending Act (PLA) and the Industrial Loan Act (ILA) when the obligation to repay is contingent upon the success of the underlying lawsuit. The decision results from a class action lawsuit bought by clients of a legal funding company. After being involved in automobile accidents, appellants signed financing agreements with a legal funding company, which advanced them funds while their personal injury lawsuit was pending. Per the terms of their financing agreements, appellants were required to repay the funds only if their personal injury lawsuits were successful. They were successful and the settlement company soon sought to recover funds pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The appellants objected and brought suit, alleging, among other things, that the financing agreements they executed violated the state’s PLA and ILA because they were usurious loans and a product of unlicensed activity. The state trial court concluded that the PLA applied to the agreements but that the ILA did not. The state appeals court concluded that neither statute applied, determining that because the repayment obligation was contingent on the success of the lawsuit, it was not a “loan” under either the PLA or the ILA. The state supreme court agreed, holding that “an agreement that involves . . . a contingent and limited obligation of repayment is not a ‘contract requiring repayment,’” as required by the ILA’s definition of “loan.” Similarly, the financing arrangement did not constitute an agreement pursuant to which “funds are advanced to be repaid,” which would make it a loan under the PLA. Appellants also argued that the contingent repayment obligation in the financing agreement was illusory, contending that the legal funding company agrees to such an arrangement only when the risk the lawsuit will fail is “close to null.” The court rejected this claim, however, noting that nothing in the pleadings suggested that the agreements were shams.
California Supreme Court says loans not subject to state interest rate caps may still be unconscionable
On August 13, the Supreme Court of California held that interest rates on consumer loans of $2,500 or more could be considered unconscionable under Section 22302 of California’s Financial Code, notwithstanding Section 22303’s maximum interest rate cap for loans under $2,500. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court of California to address Section 22302’s application to higher cost consumer loans. In the class action that is before the 9th Circuit, consumers alleged that a lender violated the “unlawful” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) with an unsecured $2,600 loan carrying an APR between 96 percent and 136 percent and argued the product is “unconscionable” under Section 22302. To resolve this question, the California Supreme Court held that unconscionability is a “flexible standard” that includes the larger context surrounding the contract. The court held that, although Section 22303 specifies interest rate limitations on loans under $2,500, it does not affect whether a loan in excess of $2,500 is unconscionable, and a court may consider a loan’s interest rate in determining that a loan above this threshold violates Section 22302.
On May 23, the OCC released Bulletin 2018-14, which encourages banks to meet the credit needs of consumers by offering short-term, small-dollar installment loans subject to the OCC’s core lending principles. The Bulletin acknowledges the CFPB’s final rule on Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-cost Installment Loans (Payday Rule) – which generally covers loans with maturities shorter than 45 days or longer-term loans with balloon payments – and states the OCC intends on working with the Bureau to ensure banks can “can responsibly engage in consumer lending, including lending products covered by the Payday Rule.”
Specifically, the Bulletin encourages banks to offer loans without balloon payments and with maturities greater than 45 days subject to three core lending principles: (i) the product should be consistent with safe and sound banking, treat customers fairly, and comply with all applicable laws and regulations; (ii) banks should effectively manage risks associated with the product; and (iii) the product should be underwritten based on reasonable policies and practices, such as amount and repayment terms aligning with eligibility, use internal and external data sources to assess a consumer’s creditworthiness, and loan servicing processes that assist distressed borrowers. Additionally, with regard to pricing, the Bulletin stated that the “OCC views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entity’s licensing state(s).”
Immediately after the OCC’s release, the CFPB issued a statement applauding the Bulletin because “[m]illions of Americans desperately need access to short-term, small-dollar credit.” In January, the CFPB stated it plans to reconsider the Payday Rule and the Spring 2018 rulemaking agenda indicates the Bureau expects a notice of proposed rulemaking to be issued by February 2019 (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here).
On April 19, the Illinois Attorney General announced a lawsuit against a Nevada-based installment loan company alleging the company made illegal installment loans without a license. According to the press release, the Illinois Attorney General alleges that the company markets high rate installment loans in exchange for payments from a consumer’s pension benefits in violation of Illinois law. In addition, the Attorney General claims that the company illegally advertised its loans and concealed high finance charges from consumers and, in some instances, continued to withdraw money from accounts after consumers attempted to cancel the agreement. The Attorney General is seeking the contracts to be voided, an injunction against the behavior, restitution for consumers, and civil money penalties.
On March 19, the Florida governor signed SB 386, which amends Florida’s consumer finance law to remove the requirement that installment payments must be made monthly, and updates the allowable charges for delinquencies. Specifically, SB 386 now allows equal, periodic installment loan payments to be made every two weeks, semimonthly, or monthly. This provision does not apply to lines of credit. Additionally, SB 386 provides that a delinquency charge for a payment in default may not exceed $15 for payments due monthly; $7.50 for payments due semimonthly; and $7.50 or $5.00 for payments due every two weeks, depending on the number of payments due within a calendar month. The law is effective July 1.
CFPB succession update: CFPB requests zero funding; seeks public comment regarding Bureau’s activities; & more
On January 17, in a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney requested zero dollars for the Bureau’s quarterly operating funds. Each fiscal quarter, as required by law, the CFPB formally requests that the Federal Reserve transfer a specified amount of money to the Bureau so it can perform the functions outlined in its budget. In his letter, Mulvaney stated that the prior Director maintained a “reserve fund” for the CFPB, and the money in this fund is sufficient to cover the CFPB’s expenses for the second quarter. This will be the first time in the history of the CFPB that its Director has requested no additional amount to fund quarterly operations. The CFPB also announced its plan to publish a series of Requests for Information (RFIs) in the Federal Register seeking public input on the way the Bureau is performing its statutory obligations. These RFIs will request “comment on enforcement, supervision, rulemaking, market monitoring, and education activities.” The first RFI will seek information regarding the Bureau’s Civil Investigative Demand processes and procedures.
On January 18, the CFPB voluntarily dismissed its case against four online installment lenders for allegedly deceiving customers by collecting debts that were not legally owed, previously covered by InfoBytes here. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged, among other things, that the lenders engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive acts—a violation of the Dodd-Frank Act—by collecting on installment loans that are partially or wholly void under state law. In September 2017, the case was transferred to Kansas, where the Bureau’s notice of dismissal was filed. The notice does not specify a reason for the dismissal.
- Buckley Webcast: The next consumer litigation frontier? Assessing the consumer privacy litigation and enforcement landscape in 2019 and beyond
- Buckley Webcast: The CFPB’s proposed debt collection rule
- Buckley Webcast: Trends in e-discovery technology and case law
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "What the flood? Don’t get washed away by a flood of changes" at the American Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Mitigating the risks of banking high risk customers" at the American Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano, Kari K. Hall, Brandy A. Hood, and H Joshua Kotin to discuss "Regulations that matter in a deregulatory environment" at the American Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference Power Hour
- Buckley Webcast: Data breach litigation and biometric legislation
- Hank Asbill to discuss "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: Addressing prosecutions driven by hidden actors" at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers West Coast White Collar Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Keep off the grass: Mitigating the risks of banking marijuana-related businesses" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Mid-year policy update" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss "Navigating the challenges of the latest data protection regulations and proven protocols for breach prevention and response" at the ACI National Forum on Consumer Finance Class Actions and Government Enforcement
- Benjamin W. Hutten to discuss "Requirements for banking inherently high-risk relationships" at the Georgia Bankers Association BSA Experience Program
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from recent enforcement actions and CMPs" at the ACAMS AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Assessing the CDD final rule: A year of transitions" at the ACAMS AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Douglas F. Gansler to discuss "Role of state AGs in consumer protection" at a George Mason University Law & Economics Center symposium