InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York Attorney General sues over 25 lenders for predatory lending operation
On March 5, New York Attorney General Letitia James released a verified petition against 27 lenders accusing them of a “large-scale, predatory lending” operation in which they allegedly misrepresented themselves in order to issue small businesses short-term loans at “sky-high interest rates” in violation of New York Executive Law §63(12). According to the petition, the 27 lenders (Respondents) have issued “illegal, usurious” and fraudulent loans in the form of Merchant Cash Advances (MCAs), which imposed triple-digit interest rates as high as 820 percent. The NYAG noted such rates are beyond both the maximum civil usury interest rate (16 percent) and the maximum criminal usury interest rate (25 percent). The petition also alleged the Respondents misrepresented their transactions in court, making the court an “unwitting part of their illegal scheme.”
The petition asked the court to permanently enjoin Respondents from committing any further fraudulent or illegal practices, cease all MCA collection payments, and void and rescind all MCAs. The NYAG also will seek and order that the Respondents disgorge all profits and award civil penalties of $5,000 for each fraudulent MCA transaction and $2,000 in costs from each Respondent.
New York State Attorney General wins $77 million judgment against short-term lenders for predatory lending
On February 8, New York State Attorney General (AG) Letitia James announced a more than $77 million judgment against three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies for usury and fraud based on allegations the lenders used short-term loans to charge illegally high-interest and undisclosed fees.
In a June 2020 announcement, Attorney General James detailed her office’s investigation, which concluded that the companies employed practices including (i) extending MCAs to small business owners at illegal interest rates over short durations; (ii) imposing undisclosed fees; (iii) withdrawing excess amounts from merchants’ bank accounts; and (iv) procuring judgments against merchants through the submission of falsified affidavits in New York State courts.
The judgment follows a September 2023 court decision finding violations of New York’s prohibitions against, among other things, usury and predatory lending, and requiring the companies to cease collections and to repay thousands of small businesses the interest they paid. The companies were ordered to provide the full restitution and damages within 60 days to all merchants who entered into MCAs, including refunding all amounts taken from merchants or their guarantors in connection with the MCAs, minus the principal amounts funded to the borrowers. After the companies failed to pay the damages, the AG sought the entry of the monetary judgment from the court.
New Jersey reaches $27.3 million settlement with merchant cash advance operation
On January 3, the New Jersey attorney general announced a $27.4 million settlement with a private equity firm, its parent company, and six other associated companies (collectively, “respondents”) to resolve allegations related to violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA). According to the press release, the respondents targeted small businesses to enter into lending arrangements disguised as merchant cash advances (MCA) on future receivables. The AG claimed these loans effectively charged interest rates far exceeding the state’s usury caps. According to the attorney general’s press release, the respondents also allegedly engaged in deceptive servicing and collection practices against small businesses.
Under the terms of the consent order, the respondents are permanently enjoined from engaging in any acts or practices that violate the CFA and any applicable Advertising Regulations. The respondents have also agreed to forgive all outstanding balances for customers who entered MCAs (approximately $21.75 million) and pay $5.625 million to cover restitution, attorneys’ fees, costs of investigation and litigation and costs of administering restitution, and penalties not to exceed $250,000. The press release stated that the respondents will also (i) dismiss any pending debt collection actions against customers who had their balances forgiven as a result of the settlement; (ii) provide current customers with the ability to request modifications to their payment terms based on actual receivables; (iii) “[i]mprove internal business practices, be transparent in any terms of future MCA agreements regarding fees and reconciliation rights, and give notice to customers before taking legal action to collect on purported unpaid balances”; and (iv) ensure that all respondents, principals, and any future business entities that may result from a change in structure comply with the terms of the consent order.
CA approves commercial financing disclosure regs
On June 9, the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DFPI) proposed commercial financial disclosure regulations. The regulations implement commercial financing disclosure requirements under SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). (See also DFPI press release here.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written, consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances.
Notably, SB 1235 does not apply to (i) depository institutions; (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) a commercial financing transaction in which the recipient is a vehicle dealer, vehicle rental company, or affiliated company, and meets other specified requirements; and (v) a lender who makes no more than one applicable transaction in California in a 12-month period or a lender who makes five or fewer applicable transactions that are incidental to the lender’s business in a 12-month period. The act also does not cover true leases (but will apply to bargain-purchase leases), commercial loans under $5,000 (which are considered consumer loans in California regardless of any business-purpose and subject to separate disclosure requirements), and commercial financing offers greater than $500,000.
California released four rounds of draft proposed regulations between 2019 and 2021 to solicit public comments on various iterations of the proposed text (covered by InfoBytes here). In conjunction with the approved regulations, DFPI released a final statement of reasons that outlines specific revisions and discusses the agency’s responses to public comments.
Among other things, the regulations:
- Clarify that a nondepository institution providing technology or support services to a depository institution’s commercial financing program is not required to provide disclosures, provided “the nondepository institution has no interest, or arrangement or agreement to purchase any interest in the commercial financing extended by the depository institution in connection with such program, and the commercial financing program is not branded with a trademark owned by the nondepository institution.”
- Provide detailed instructions for the content and layout of disclosures, including specific rows and columns that must be used for a disclosure table and the terms that must appear in each section of the table, that are to be delivered at the time a specific type of commercial financing offer equal to or less than $500,000 is extended.
- Cover the following commercial loan transactions: closed-end transactions, commercial open-end credit plans, factoring transactions, sales-based financing, lease financing, asset-based lending transactions. Disclosure formatting and content requirements are also provided for all other commercial financing transactions that do not fit within the other categories.
- Require disclosures to provide, among other things, the amount financed; itemization of the amount financed; annual percentage rate (the regulations provide category-specific calculation instructions); finance charges (estimated and total); payment methods, including the frequency and terms for both variable and fixed rate financing; details related to prepayment policies; and estimated loan repayment terms.
The regulations take effect December 9.
FTC bans MCA providers, returns $2.7 million to consumers
On June 6, the FTC obtained a stipulated court order permanently banning a company and owner from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last June the FTC filed an amended complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (including the settling defendants), claiming the defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by, among other things, misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances, using unfair collection practices, deceiving consumers about personal guarantees, forcing consumers and businesses to sign confessions of judgment, providing less funding than promised due to undisclosed fees, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. Under the terms of the stipulated order, the settling defendants are required to pay a more than $2.7 million monetary judgment to go towards refunds for harmed consumers and must vacate any judgments against former customers and release any liens against their customers’ property. The announcement notes that the settling defendants are also “prohibited from misleading consumers about any key facts about any good or service, including any fees, the total cost of the product, and other facts that reflect their deceptions in this case.”
Earlier in January, a stipulated order was entered against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here), which permanently banned them from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries and required the payment of a $675,000 monetary judgment.
FTC permanently bans merchant cash advance providers
On January 5, the FTC announced that two defendants who allegedly participated in small business financing scheme are permanently banned from participating in the merchant cash advance and debt collection industries. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a complaint against two New York-based small-business financing companies and a related entity and individuals (including the settling defendants), claiming the defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by, among other things, misrepresenting the terms of their merchant cash advances, using unfair collection practices, and making unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ accounts. The defendants also allegedly violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s prohibition on using false statements to obtain consumers’ financial information, including bank account numbers, log-in credentials, and the identity of authorized signers, in order “to withdraw more than the specified amount from consumers’ bank accounts.” Additionally, the defendants allegedly “engaged in wanton and egregious behavior, including laughing at consumer requests for refunds from [the defendants’] unauthorized withdrawals from customer bank accounts; abusing the legal system to seize the business and personal assets of their customers; and threatening to break their customers’ jaws or falsely accusing them of child molestation during collection calls.” Under the terms of the stipulated order, the settling defendants are required to pay a $675,000 monetary judgment, and must vacate any judgments against their former customers and release any liens against their customers’ property.
DFPI issues fourth round of draft regulations for commercial financing disclosures
On November 5, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a fourth draft of proposed regulations implementing the requirements of the commercial financing disclosures required by SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written, consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. California released the first draft of the proposed regulations in July 2019, initiated the formal rulemaking process with the Office of Administrative Law in September 2020, and subsequently released second and third rounds of modifications in August and October of this year (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here). The fourth modifications to the proposed regulations follow a consideration of public comments received on the various iterations of the proposed text. Among other things, the proposed modifications amend the term “average monthly cost” to mean the average total amount paid by the recipient (for periodic and irregular payments) over a contract’s term divided by the number of months specified in the contract. Providers may divide the number of days in the contract term by 30.4 to determine the number of months in the contract term. This calculation may also be used to determine the “estimated monthly cost.” Comments on the fourth modifications must be received by November 22.
DFPI issues third round of draft regulations for commercial financing disclosures
On October 12, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a third draft of proposed regulations implementing the requirements of the commercial financing disclosures required by SB 1235 (Chapter 1011, Statutes of 2018). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, California enacted SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. In July 2019, California released the first draft of the proposed regulations, initiated the formal rulemaking process with the Office of Administrative Law in September 2020, and subsequently released a second round of modifications in August (covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here). The third modifications to the proposed regulations follow a consideration of public comments received on the various iterations of the proposed text. Among other things, the proposed modifications:
- Amend several terms including “approved advance limit,” “approved credit limit,” “at the time of extending a specific commercial financing offer,” “benchmark rate,” “broker,” “provider,” and “recipient funds.”
- Define the term “specific commercial financing offer” to mean a written communication to a recipient related to specific payment amounts and costs of financing, but does not include a recipient’s name, address, or general interest in financing.
- Amend certain disclosure requirements and thresholds, including specific circumstances that a provider can disregard when making calculations and disclosures.
- Clarify APR calculation requirements and tolerances and outline disclosure criteria for specifying the amount of financing used to pay down or pay off other amounts owed by a recipient.
- Amend duties and requirements for financers and brokers.
- Amend criteria for specifying the amount of funding a recipient will receive.
Comments on the third modifications must be received by October 27.
NYDFS issues pre-proposed regulation to implement Commercial Finance Disclosure Law
On September 21, NYDFS Acting Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris announced a pre-proposed regulation to implement New York’s Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (CFDL) (covered by InfoBytes here), which was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February to expand coverage and delay the effective date to January 1, 2022. (See S5470-B, as amended by S898.) Under the CFDL, providers of commercial financing, which includes persons and entities who solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party, are required to give consumer-style loan disclosures to potential recipients at the time a specific offering of finance is extended for certain commercial transactions of $2.5 million or less.
The CFDL and the pre-proposed implementing regulation are applicable to persons or entities who (i) extend a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient (i.e., a person who applies for commercial financing and is made a specific offer of commercial financing); (ii) solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party; or (iii) provide or will provide commercial financing to recipients and communicate a specific amount, rate or price, in connection with the commercial financing, either directly to a recipient, or to a broker with the expectation that the information will be shared with a recipient.
The term “commercial financing” is defined broadly to include:
- Open-End Financing
- Closed-End Financing
- Sales-Based Financing (i.e., merchant cash advance)
- Defined to mean any transaction repaid over time as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may vary by sales or revenue volume, including any financing with a sales or revenue based true-up mechanism.
- Accounts Receivable Purchase Transactions, including Factoring
- Factoring is defined to mean any accounts receivable purchase transaction that includes an agreement to purchase, transfer, or sell a legally enforceable claim for payment held by a recipient for goods or services that have been supplied or rendered, but for which payment has not yet been made.
- Asset-Based Lending
- Defined to mean a transaction in which advances are made from time to time contingent upon a recipient forwarding payments received from one or more third parties for goods or services the recipient has supplied or rendered to such third party.
- Lease Financing
- Defined to mean providing a lease for goods that includes a purchase option that creates a security interest in the goods leased, including a “finance lease” as defined in the UCC.
- Any other form of financing for which proceeds are not primarily intended for consumer-purpose.
Notwithstanding, the pre-proposed regulation provides that commercial financing does not encompass any transaction in which a financer provides a disclosure required by the Truth in Lending Act. The following entities and transactions are exempt from the CFDL: (i) financial institutions (defined as a chartered or licensed bank, trust company, industrial loan company, savings and loan association, or federal credit union, authorized to do business in New York); (ii) lenders regulated under the federal Farm Credit Act; (iii) commercial financing transactions secured by real property; (iv) technology service providers; (v) certain lease transactions under the New York Uniform Commercial Code; (vi) lenders who make no more than five applicable transactions in New York in a 12-month period; (vii) individual commercial financing transactions in an amount over $2.5 million; and (viii) commercial financing transactions involving certain vehicle dealers.
Among other things, the pre-proposed regulation:
- Includes definitions for terms used in the CFDL and the pre-proposed regulation, including definitions of “finance charge” under the different covered transactions (e.g., commercial financing transactions generally, account receivable purchase transactions that are not factoring transactions, factoring transactions, lease financing transactions).
- Explains how providers should calculate the annual percentage rate and outlines allowed tolerances.
- Outlines formatting requirements for disclosures for the following types of financing: (i) sales-based financing (including merchant cash advances); (ii) closed-end financing; (iii) open-end financing; (iv) factoring transaction financing; (v) lease financing; (vi) general asset-based financing; and (vii) all other commercial financing transactions.
- Provides disclosure requirements for instances where the amount financed is greater than the recipient funds, which includes a disclosure entitled “Funding You Will Receive.”
- Provides that, consistent with the CFDL, a provider must give the required disclosures to a recipient at the time of extending a specific offer for commercial financing. The pre-proposed regulation defines “at the time of extending a specific offer” to mean (i) any time a specific periodic or irregular payment amount, rate or price in connection with commercial financing is quoted in writing to a recipient, based upon information from, or about, the recipient; and (ii) any subsequent time when the terms of an existing consummated commercial financing contract are changed, prior to the recipient agreeing to the changes, if the resulting changes would increase the finance charge (certain alternative parameters apply with respect to open-end credit plans). The pre-proposed regulation also notes that where a provider allows a recipient to select from multiple offer options or customize a financing offer, the provider need only provide the disclosure(s) for the specific offer that the recipient elects to pursue.
- Provides disclosure signature requirements, which may be electronic (prior to consummating a commercial financing, a financer must obtain a copy of the disclosures made pursuant to the CFDL that are signed by the recipient).
- Describes how the CFDL’s $2.5 million disclosure threshold is calculated.
- Outlines requirements for commercial financings that offer multiple payment options.
- Specifies certain duties of financers and brokers involved in commercial financing, including record retention requirements (four years).
- Details the reporting process for which certain providers calculating estimated annual percentage rates will report data to the superintendent relating to “the estimated annual percentage rates disclosed to the recipient and actual retrospective annual percentage rates of completed transactions” in order to facilitate accurate estimates for future transactions.
Outreach comments on the pre-proposed regulation are due by October 1. After NYDFS completes this preliminary phase, NYDFS will make a formal proposed regulation. Comments on the formal proposed regulation will be due within 60 days of publication in the State Register. NYDFS expects to have a final regulation in place by January 1, 2022, which is the effective date set forth in the underlying law.
Special Alert: CFPB proposes small business loan data collection regime
Over a decade ago, Congress enacted an amendment to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement a new regime for small business loan data collection similar to the regime that exists in the mortgage industry. Last week, a month before a court-imposed deadline, the Bureau issued its long-awaited proposed rule. The proposal was largely consistent with prior Bureau statements regarding its approach, but nonetheless contained some surprises that reflect the change in leadership at the CFPB. Lenders will need to carefully assess the impact of the proposed rule on their business.
The proposed rule, which is mandated under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, would require a broad swath of lenders to collect data on loans they make to small businesses, including information about the loans themselves, the characteristics of the borrower, and demographic information regarding the borrower’s principal owners. This information would be reported annually to the Bureau, and eventually published by the Bureau on its website, with some potential modifications.
The statute’s stated intent is to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.” CFPB Acting Director Dave Uejio echoed these themes in prepared remarks, suggesting that the proposal was a step towards “a fairer, more transparent small business lending market.” But the Bureau itself acknowledges that it is engaged in a balancing exercise, weighing the intended benefits of the rule against the cost imposed on lenders (and by extension, borrowers), the risk to privacy interests, and the risk of unintended consequences that accompany any major regulatory intervention. The public, including lenders potentially subject to the rule, have 90 days to submit comments on whether the Bureau got the balance right.
The proposed rule would cover most of the small business lending market
By its terms, the statute would apply broadly to any “financial institution” that extended credit to any women-owned, minority-owned, or small business. But the statute also allowed the Bureau to exempt any “class of financial institutions” from its requirements. Last fall, as part of a process required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Bureau suggested that it might exempt lenders based on their size (i.e., those beneath thresholds of $100 million or $200 million in assets), their loan activity (i.e., those making 25, 50, or 100 or fewer loans annually), or based on either threshold. The proposed rule lands at the broadest end of this possible spectrum, abandoning any exemptions based on size altogether and adopting the lowest of the proposed activity levels. Any financial institution that originates at least 25 “covered credit transactions” for “small businesses” in each of the two preceding years would be subject to the rule.
Any loan, line of credit, credit card, or merchant cash advance, including agricultural-purpose credit and those that are also covered by HMDA, would be considered a “covered credit transaction.”[1] Notably, the Bureau suggested in its SBREFA Outline that it would exclude merchant cash advances, but declined to do so in the proposal, concluding that the segment is growing and presents unique fair lending risk.
Just as it did in its SBREFA Outline, the Bureau would adopt the Small Business Administration’s definition of “small business,” except that the Bureau’s definition would use a simplified size threshold of $5 million or less in gross annual revenue. This divergence will require SBA approval, which Uejio expressed confidence in getting.
The proposal’s collection requirements are triggered whenever a lender subject to the rule under the activity threshold receives a “covered credit application.” This term is defined broadly to include “any oral or written request for a covered credit transaction that is made in accordance with procedures used by [the] financial institution for the type of credit requested.” Reevaluation requests, extension requests, and renewal requests would not be considered applications (unless the request seeks additional credit amounts), nor would inquiries and prequalification requests.
The rule would require the collection of 21 data points
The statute sets forth thirteen specific data points to be collected by lenders that the Bureau refers to as “mandatory data points:”
- Whether the applicant is minority-owned
- Whether the applicant is women-owned
- Unique identifier for each application
- Application date
- Loan type (i.e., product type, guarantees, and term)
- Loan purpose
- Amount applied for
- Amount approved or extended
- The action on the application (i.e., originated, approved but not accepted, denied, withdrawn, or incomplete)
- Action date
- Census tract
- Gross annual revenue
- Race, sex, and ethnicity of the principal owners
The collection of information about the principal owner’s[2] race, sex, and ethnicity is a major change from the SBREFA Outline, which suggested that the Bureau would likely propose the collection of such information solely based on applicant self-reporting. As the Bureau recognized at the time, “requiring reporting based on visual observation or surname could create unwarranted compliance burdens in the context of small business lending.” The proposal reverses course, and would require lenders who meet with any principal owner to determine the ethnicity and race of the principal owner if the applicant declines to provide that information. As the statute requires, the data collected regarding the principal owners’ race, sex, and ethnicity—as well as whether the business is minority-owned or women-owned—must not be shared with underwriters, unless restricting access is not feasible.[3]
The statute also authorized the Bureau to require additional data that would advance the purposes of the statute (so-called “discretionary data points”). The CFPB’s proposed discretionary data points are consistent with this administration’s prioritization of fair lending enforcement:
- Pricing
- Time in business
- NAICS Code
- Number of employees
- Application method (e.g., in-person, phone, mail, online)
- Application recipient (e.g., direct or through a third party)
- Reasons for denial (providing nine specific reasons and a text box for any other reason)
- Number of principal owners (i.e., 0-4)
The SBREFA Outline envisioned the first four above; the last four were introduced in the proposal. Of particular note, pricing data is granular: for fixed-rate loans, the rate; for variable-rate loans, the margin, index value, and index name; for merchant cash advances and similar products, the difference between the amount advanced and the amount paid; and for all transactions, origination charges, broker fees, whether the fees were paid directly to the broker or to the financial institution for delivery to the broker, noninterest charges imposed over the first year, whether the financial institution could have included a prepayment penalty under its policies, and whether it did impose a prepayment penalty.
Will everything be published?
Lenders must collect and report to the Bureau annually, which will publish the data on its website — subject to modifications or deletions that it determines advance a privacy interest. The Bureau has not yet proposed modifications or deletions, but intends to issue a policy statement on its approach after it has received one full year of data.
In the meantime, however, the Bureau has made clear that it will disclose the identity of financial institutions and is generally not persuaded that competitive or reputational harms to financial institutions or increased litigation are a basis to withhold publication of data. Instead, the Bureau has indicated that its principal concern is avoiding the risk that an applicant could be re-identified through specific data points.
How will the rule impact small business lending?
The proposal would apply to thousands of small business lenders offering a wide range of products. The Bureau acknowledges the collection and reporting of this information will impose costs on lenders, some of which it expects to be passed along to borrowers.
But the most significant impact of the rule will be the Bureau’s eventual publication of the data. In its view, publication of granular data on specific lending decisions will advance the statutory goals of facilitating fair lending enforcement and business and community development. But concerns over reputational harms and increased fair lending scrutiny may also cause lenders to eliminate subjective elements of underwriting that are a traditional, and often appropriate, feature of small business underwriting. If the eventual effect of the rule is to, as one commenter put it, “artificially flatten prices,” the rule could lead to a small business lending market that is less innovative and less sensitive to actual credit risk than the market that exists today.
The public has 90 days to submit comments regarding the CFPB’s proposal.
If you have any questions regarding the CFPB’s proposed rule, please visit our Fair Lending and Fair Servicing page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
[1] The proposal would exclude certain other types of credit, including trade credit, public utilities credit, securities credit, and incidental credit. The rule would also not cover factoring, leases, consumer-designated credit used for business purposes, and credit secured by certain investment properties (specifically 1-4 individual dwelling units).
[2] A principal owner is any individual who owns 25% or more of the small business.
[3] If not feasible, the institution must provide notice to the applicant of its intention to share this information.