InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court denied motion to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims against debt buyers
On August 22, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York refused to dismiss CFPA and FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB that alleged violations related to misrepresentations made to debtors by debt collectors. The CFPB’s complaint alleged that defendants purchased defaulted consumer debt and then placed it for collection with, or sold it to, a network of debt collectors who consistently violated consumer protection laws by making false statements to debtors. These false statements included informing consumers that (i) they would be sued for failing to pay the debts; (ii) that their credit score would be impacted by paying or not paying the debt; and (iii) that they could face criminal charges for failing to pay the debt. The complaint additionally alleged that defendants were aware of the allegedly unlawful acts by the debt collectors they used through monitoring of the debt collectors and consumer complaints made to defendants.
The CFPB’s complaint alleged violations against a variety of corporate entities responsible for the alleged debt collection practices, as well as individual executives at those entities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. The defendants argued that they are not “covered persons” under the CFPA, because they do not actually collect debts themselves. The district court held that the defendants were “covered persons” under the CFPA since they were engaged in the collection of consumer debt, writing that it would “strain ordinary understanding to say that a company is not engaged in collecting debt when it purchases defaulted debt, places that debt with other companies for collection, and then receives some of the money recovered by those debt collectors.” Similarly, the defendants argued that they are not “debt collectors” under the FDCPA. The court also rejected this argument, reasoning that defendants’ principal purpose was debt collection making them a “debt collector” for FDCPA purposes, because they purchased portfolios of debts and derived most of their revenue from collecting those debts.
The district court also rejected defendants’ arguments that they could not be held vicariously liable for the conduct of the third-party debt collectors under the CFPA or FDCPA, reasoning that parties can be found vicariously liable for the acts of their agents under both statutes. The court held that because the CFPB’s complaint alleged that the defendants exercised authority over the debt collectors, vicarious liability for the violations by the debt collectors was appropriate.
The district court further held that the complaint adequately alleged violations of the CFPA by the individual defendants. The court held that the individual defendants enabled violations of the CFPA, relying on the fact that the individual defendants had both knowledge of the violations and the ability to control the violations, by either providing instructions to the debt collectors or by refusing to place debts with those collectors. Further, the court held that the individual defendants could be liable for “substantially assisting” violations of the CFPA, because the complaint alleged that the individual defendants recklessly disregarded unlawful behavior by the debt collectors and continued to place or sell debts to those collectors.
Finally, defendants also argued that both the CFPA and the FDCPA claims are time barred by the statute of limitations. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the CFPB’s FDCPA claims were barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations, holding that this provision applies only to private plaintiffs. The court held that FDCPA claims brought by the CFPB are subject to the CPFA’s statute of limitations, which bars claims brought more than three years after the CFPB’s discovery of the violations. The court further rejected the defendants’ argument that the claims were barred by this three-year statute of limitations, holding that it is unclear from the complaint when the CFPB became aware of facts constituting the violation and that the receipt of a consumer complaint by the CFPB will not necessarily constitute the date that the CFPB discovered or should have discovered the facts constituting the violation.
CFPB contests motions for preliminary injunctions to block enforcement of Small Business Lending Rule
On August 22, the CFPB filed an opposition to a motion made by a group of intervenors seeking to expand the scope of a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which enjoined the CFPB from implementing its Small Business Lending Rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the original plaintiffs in the litigation, a Texas banking association and a Texas bank, challenged the legality of the CFPB’s Small Business Lending Rule. After the American Bankers Association joined the case, the plaintiffs sought, and the court granted, a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation and enforcement of the rule against plaintiffs and their members. The intervenors, who consist of both banking and credit union trade associations, as well as individual banks and credit unions, seek a nationwide injunction that would apply beyond the parties to the case, or at least to the intervenors and their members. The CFPB’s opposition to this request for an expanded preliminary injunction argues that the intervenors fail to show that they would suffer immediate harm from enforcement of the Small Business Lending Rule.
In a related matter, on August 21, a group of Kentucky banks and a Kentucky banking association filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against the CFPB, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the CFPB from enforcing the Small Business Lending Rule against the plaintiffs and their members. Referencing the parallel Texas litigation, the Kentucky plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to an order enjoining enforcement of the Small Business Lending Rule against them for the same reasons that the Texas district court enjoined enforcement of the rule.
The most recent litigation activity follows a request from a group of trade associations to the CFPB to take administrative action to address the disparity in compliance dates that results from the district court’s injunction, a disparity that the trade associations argue is both unfair and disruptive to the market’s compliance efforts. The CFPB declined this request.
Both of these challenges to the Small Business Lending Rule point to a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where the court found that the CFPB’s “perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure” violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause (covered by InfoBytes here), as justification for why the final rule should ultimately be set aside.
7th Circuit affirms dismissal of proposed Driver’s Privacy Protection Act class action
On August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that defendant insurance companies leaked the plaintiffs’ drivers license numbers, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the insurance companies. In a split decision, the majority opinion held that plaintiffs failed to establish standing to bring a lawsuit under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) based on the unauthorized disclosure of their driver’s license numbers through a form on defendant’s website. The majority held that plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury, writing that allegations that plaintiffs are worried about future identity theft stemming from the disclosure are insufficient for standing, focusing on legitimate reasons why driver’s license numbers are commonly exposed to third-parties. The majority further held that plaintiffs failed to allege that false unemployment benefit applications submitted in their name were traceable to the disclosure of their driver’s license number, dooming their standing claim. In a dissent, Judge Kenneth Ripple disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs failed to make sufficient allegations to justify standing, reasoning that the DPPA contemplates a private right of action for the types of harms suffered by the plaintiffs and that plaintiffs adequately alleged that they suffered harm from false unemployment benefit applications submitted as a result of the driver’s license number leak.
2nd Circuit affirms leveraged loans are not securities
On August 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claim that a national bank’s nearly $1.8 billion syndicated loan for a drug testing company were securities. The drug testing company filed for bankruptcy subsequent to a $256 million global settlement with the DOJ in qui tam litigation involving the company’s billing practices.
Plaintiff, a trustee of the drug testing company, brought claims to the New York Supreme Court in 2017 against defendant for violations of (i) state securities laws; (ii) negligent misrepresentation; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) breach of contract; and (v) breach of the implied contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the district court denied plaintiff’s motion to remand after concluding it had jurisdiction under the Edge Act, and later granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff failed to plead facts plausibly suggesting the notes are securities.
The 2nd Circuit held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Edge Act. The court then applied a “family resemblance” test to determine whether a note is a security and examined four separate factors to help uncover the context of a note. In comparing the loan note to “judicially crafted” list of instruments that are not securities, the court found that the defendant’s note “‘bears a strong resemblance’” to one, therefore concluding that the note is not a security and affirming the district court’s earlier decision.
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal of FCA claims following government motion to dismiss
On August 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a whistleblower False Claims Act (FCA) case, holding that FCA qui tam relator complaints may be dismissed upon the government’s motion without a hearing, provided the district court consider the parties’ arguments. The plaintiff qui tam here alleged that a bank (defendant) failed to pay penalties to the government for violating economic sanctions. Plaintiff’s complaint specifically alleged that defendant facilitated illegal transactions violating economic sanctions and defrauded the government by concealing the extent of its illegal activities during negotiation of a deferred prosecution agreement. In a summary order without precedential effect, the 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff’s complaint was initially dismissed by the district court following a motion to dismiss by the government, which intervened in the action to argue that the complaint should be dismissed because it lacked merit and would waste government resources. Consideration of plaintiff’s appeal of the dismissal was delayed until after the Supreme Court issued a decision in Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., a different FCA case raising applicable issues regarding when the government has the authority to force the dismissal of an FCA case brought by a whistleblower.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Polansky, the 2nd Circuit upheld the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, reasoning that district court properly dismissed the qui tam relator claim after the government’s intervention seeking dismissal, since the defendant bank had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. The 2nd Circuit held that “the district met the hearing requirement” established by Polansky for dismissing qui tam relator cases through its careful consideration of the briefs and materials submitted by the parties. In reaching this conclusion, the 2nd Circuit noted that Polansky does “not mandate universal requirements” for an FCA hearing in every case. The 2nd Circuit also rejected plaintiff’s due process arguments, plaintiff’s claim that the court failed to evaluate defendant’s settlement with the government resolving related criminal and administrative violations, and plaintiff’s claim that the district court erred in denying its motion for an indicative ruling, based on new evidence published while the appeal was pending.
OCC announces Tropical Storm Hilary disaster relief
On August 21, the OCC issued a proclamation providing discretion to OCC-regulated institutions to close offices affected by Tropical Storm Hilary in California, Nevada, and Arizona “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the OCC, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
OCC releases enforcement actions and terminations
On August 17, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. The new enforcement actions include civil money penalty orders, formal agreements, and prohibition orders, each issued with the consent of the parties. The OCC also announced a termination of an existing enforcement action against a bank. Included in the release is a formal agreement entered into with a Minnesota-based bank on June 27 in connection with OCC findings of alleged unsafe or unsound practices relating to, among other things, consumer compliance and third party risk management. In connection to violations of certain Flood Disaster Protection Act rules, the agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board of directors on a quarterly basis; and (iii) implement a written consumer compliance program. This program must also include procedures and guidance for compliance with all consumer protection laws, rules, and regulations to which the bank should adhere, an independent audit program, a comprehensive training program for bank personnel in the consumer protection laws, rules, and regulations as appropriate, and policies to manage risks in the credit process. It also separately requires revisions to the third-party risk management program addressing due diligence and monitoring of third parties, including monitoring for compliance with consumer protection-related laws and regulations.
White House launches SAVE Plan
On August 22, the White House announced the SAVE Plan, an income-driven repayment plan, intended to calculate payments based on a borrower’s income and family size rather than the loan balance and provide forgiveness for balances after a certain number of years since repayment. It is estimated that over 20 million borrowers could benefit from this plan and that it will have particular critical benefits for low- and middle-income borrowers, community college students, and borrowers who work in public service. In order to encourage participation by borrowers, the Department of Education is partnering with grassroots organizations on an outreach campaign. This plan builds on broader actions taken by the current administration to deliver relief to borrowers and make college more affordable.
FTC, DOJ issue permanent injunction and civil penalty for violations of CAN-SPAM Act
On August 22, the DOJ and the FTC jointly announced a permanent injunction and civil penalty of $650,000 against a company that offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services for alleged violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the CAN-SPAM Rule, and the FTC Act. The case, which was filed in the District Court for the Central District of California, asserts that millions of commercial emails sent to consumers did not give the recipients requisite notice of the option to opt-out of future such emails, in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act and Rule. The order enjoined the company from sending commercial emails that do not provide notice of the recipient’s ability to opt-out of future emails, it also enjoins the company from otherwise violating the CAN-SPAM Act, and subjects it to a civil penalty judgment of $650,000.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful business opportunity scheme
On August 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued a temporary restraining order against a business opportunity operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation made claims in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 by, among other things; (i) making false claims that they offered a “venture capital-backed” and “artificial intelligence-integrated” e-commerce business opportunity for consumers to buy into; (ii) falsely promoting themselves as e-commerce experts and self-made millionaires who have assisted others in generating tens of millions of dollars; (iii) relying on false business projections, including that customers would make a “$4k-$6k consistently monthly net profit”; (iv) false claims about the use of AI tools to maximize revenues; and (v) false endorsements, including false claims of success on social media by an affiliate marketer. The court’s temporary restraining order prohibited the operation from conducting business, froze its assets, appointed a temporary receiver, and required the operation to turn over business records to the FTC. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and additional relief as determined by the court. The FTC also highlighted that its ability to provide these refunds would not be possible if the action hadn't predated the 2021 Supreme Court ruling (covered by InfoBytes here) that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to seek monetary relief in federal court. The FTC used the opportunity to encourage Congress to restore its ability to seek monetary relief in federal court.