Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On June 17, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letters FIL-32-2019 and FIL-33-2019 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Arkansas and South Dakota affected by severe weather. FIL-32-2019 covers severe storms and flooding caused significant property damage in areas of Arkansas from May 21 through the present and FIL-33-2019 covers severe winter storm, snowstorm, and flooding caused significant property damage in areas of South Dakota from March 13 through April 26.
The FDIC is encouraging institutions to consider, among other things, extending repayment terms and restructuring existing loans to borrowers affected by the severe weather. Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief guidance here.
On June 10, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-30-2019 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Oklahoma affected by severe weather from May 7 through the present. The FDIC is encouraging institutions to consider, among other things, extending repayment terms and restructuring existing loans to borrowers affected by the severe weather. Additionally, the FDIC notes that institutions may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.
On June 3, a consumer filed a class action complaint against a national bank alleging that the bank charges interest on credit card accounts even when consumers’ balances are paid in full by the billing cycle due date, in breach of the bank’s cardholder agreement. The complaint alleges that the cardholder agreement and monthly billing statements disclose to consumers that interest will not be charged on new purchases if those new purchases are paid off by the billing cycle’s due date, but that in practice the grace period is eliminated for new purchases “[i]f a consumer leaves even $1 on her account balance after a billing period due date.” The complaint alleges that the bank’s practice of only providing a grace period on new purchases for consumers “who have paid off their balances in full for two prior months” directly contradicts the cardholder agreement and consumer disclosures. In addition to breach of contract, the consumer alleges a violation of Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The consumer is seeking certification of a class of similarly situated consumers; damages and restitution; and injunctive relief.
On May 30, the CFPB released the latest quarterly consumer credit trends report, which examines the fluctuations in consumers’ credit scores and the timing of consumers’ applications for credit. The report analyzes consumers whose credit scores showed large increases or decreases between 2009 and 2017. Key findings of the report include, (i) consumers with large credit score changes, in either direction, tend to be younger and have considerably lower credit scores on average; (ii) application rates drop sharply as credit scores reach their minimums, and then, after hitting bottom application rates trend steadily upward; and (iii) patterns in application rates generally hold regardless of the levels of minimum and maximum credit scores.
The report notes that while the Bureau did not perform “a full accounting of the underlying mechanism” that leads to the observed patterns, there are a few possible explanations, including (i) consumers are more aware of their credit scores due to the wider availability of them, which would influence timing of applications; (ii) hard inquiries and results from hard inquiries may contribute to the observed peaks and troughs in the scores; (iii) marketing practices by card issuers may contribute to increased applications after a consumer’s credit score qualifies the consumer for a prescreened offer.
On May 6, the Indiana governor signed HB 1136, which amends the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) to, among other things, revise provisions related to authorized delinquency charges on consumer credit sales and consumer loans. Specifically, the amendments authorize a creditor to collect a delinquency charge of not more than (i) $5 for installments not paid in full within 10 days after the scheduled due date if installments are due every 14 days or less; (ii) $25 for installments not paid in full within 10 days after the scheduled due date if installments are due every 15 days or more; or (iii) $25 on single installments due at least 30 days after the consumer loan is made if the installment is not paid within 10 days after its scheduled due date. Furthermore, creditors are prohibited from collecting—whether directly or indirectly—a delinquency charge on any payment that (i) is paid within 10 days following its scheduled due date; and (ii) “is otherwise a full payment of the payment due for the applicable installment period. . .if the only delinquency with respect to a consumer credit sale, refinancing, or consolidation is attributable to a delinquency charge assessed on an earlier installment.” In addition, HB 1136 amends the maximum transaction fee for revolving loan accounts to the greater of 2 percent of the transaction amount or $10. The amendments take effect July 1.
New York legislature introduces bills to protect small businesses, regulate merchant cash advance transactions
On May 1, S5470 was introduced in the New York State Senate and is now sitting with the Committee on Banks, which would establish consumer-style disclosure requirements for certain commercial transactions. Similar to the legislation enacted in California last September, previously covered in InfoBytes here, the bill requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction “the total cost of the financing, expressed as a dollar cost, including any and all fees, expenses and charges that are to be paid by the recipient and that cannot be avoided by the recipient, including any interest expense.” For open and closed-end commercial financing transactions, the bill requires that the disclosures must include, among other things, (i) the amount financed or the maximum credit line; (ii) the total cost of the financing; (iii) the annual percentage rate; (iv) payment amounts; (v) a description of all other potential fees and charges; and (vi) prepayment charges. The bill sets out analogous, but separate, disclosure requirements for accounts receivable purchase transactions, such as merchant cash advance and factoring transactions.
Importantly, the bill does not apply to (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) a technology service provider; and (v) a lender who makes no more than one applicable transaction in New York in a 12-month period or any person that makes commercial financing transactions in New York that are incidental to the lender’s business in a 12-month period.
Additionally, the New York legislature is also considering a number of other bills that would affect commercial financing transactions:
- A03637, would amend the state’s banking law to deem asset-based lending transactions (defined as, “a transaction in which advances are made which are contingent on the recipient forwarding payments received from one or more third parties for goods such recipient has supplied or services such recipient has rendered to that third party or parties.”) to be loans for all purposes. On its face, this legislation would subject typical merchant cash advance and factoring transactions, which New York courts have in many recent court cases deemed to be non-loan transactions, to lending law restrictions, which would include potential licensure requirements and usury restrictions.
- A03636, would amend the state’s business law to prohibit the inclusion of a confession of judgment (COJ) in a contract or agreement for a financial product or service provided by an entity regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services for the purpose of consumer or investor protection, which is specifically defined by the bill as: (i) any product or service for which registration or licensing is required or for which the offeror or provider is required to be registered or licensed by state law; (ii) any product or service as to which provisions for consumer or investor protection are specifically set forth for such product or service by state statute or regulation; and (iii) securities, commodities and real property subject to the provisions of article 23A of the general business law. COJs are contractual clauses in which a debtor waives in advance his or her right to be notified of a court hearing, or to present his or her side of the case, which are prohibited under federal law for consumer contracts by the FTC Credit Practices Rule (16 C.F.R. pt. 444). In conjunction with potential licensure required under AO3637 above, the passage of both pieces of legislation in New York could result in the prohibition of COJ clauses in merchant cash advance agreements, a common feature of such agreements and generally permitted under New York law.
- A03638, would extend the majority of the state’s consumer protections with respect to loans made to small businesses (defined by the bill as, a “small business shall be deemed to be one which is resident in this state, independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field and employs one hundred or less persons.”). Specifically, the bill would amend the state’s general obligations law to extend all rights and privileges granted under the title to small businesses and would also amend Section 173 and Section 380-e of the state’s banking law to extend all the rights and privileges granted by the section to small businesses.
Relatedly, the FTC recently held a forum on small business marketplace lending practices, see detailed InfoBytes coverage on the forum here.
On May 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that the City of Miami plausibly alleged that two national banks’ lending practices violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and led to defaults, foreclosures, and vacancies, and eventually reduced property values and corresponding property tax revenues. The court did so by finding “some direct relation” between the City’s tax revenue injuries and the Bank’s alleged violations of the FHA. The case returned to the 11th Circuit after having been appealed to and resolved in part in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017, where the Court held that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the FHA against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices (previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert). According to the appellate court opinion, the Court “declined to ‘draw the precise boundaries of proximate cause under the FHA and to determine on which side of the line the City’s financial injuries fall,’” leaving to the lower courts the issue of how the principles of proximate cause function when applied to the FHA and the facts of the complaints.
The appellate court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s claims against the banks in their entirety, with the 11th Circuit finding “a logical and direct bond between discriminatory lending as a pattern and practice applied to neighborhoods throughout the City and the reduction in property values.” However, the appellate court concluded that the City’s allegations fell short of establishing a direct relationship between the alleged misconduct and the City’s purported increase in its municipal services expenditures, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court “has told us that foreseeability alone is not enough.” The appellate court emphasized that at the motion to dismiss stage it was only addressing the plausibility that the alleged conduct violated the FHA, and remanded the case back to the district court.
On May 2, the FTC announced it completed its review of the Holder Rule (the Rule)—formally called the “Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses”—which is applicable when consumers purchase personal goods or services with money loaned by a merchant or a lender that works with a merchant. The Rule, aimed at preventing businesses from using financing mechanisms to collect debts from consumers in situations where the merchant failed to deliver the goods or services or engaged in fraud or other misconduct, preserves consumers’ right to assert the same legal claims and defenses against anyone who purchases the credit contract as they would have against the seller who originally provided the credit. In 2015, as part of a systematic review of all its rules and guides, the FTC sought public comment on the Rule and received 19 comments in response. All comments urged retaining the Rule, and after review, the Commission determined there was a continuing need for the Rule and the record did not warrant a rulemaking to modify the Rule. As reflected in the notice published in the Federal Register, the FTC’s action confirming the Rule took effect May 2 and is applicable as of April 23.
On May 2, the CFPB announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Utah-based credit repair telemarketers and their affiliates (defendants) for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the CFPB alleges the defendants charged consumers a fee for telemarketed credit repair services when they signed up for the services, and then monthly thereafter, without (i) waiting for the timeframe in which they represented their services would be provided to expire; and (ii) demonstrating that the promised results have been achieved, in the form of a consumer report issued more than six months after those results were achieved, as required by the TSR. Additionally, the CFPB alleges that certain defendants made false and misleading claims constituting deceptive acts under the CFPA. Specifically, the CFPB alleges those defendants marketed that guaranteed, or high-likelihood, loans or rent-to-own housing offers would be available through affiliates after signing up for credit repair services when in actuality, the products were not available. The CFPB is seeking restitution, civil money penalties, and injunctive relief against the defendants.
On April 29, the New Jersey governor approved several bills related to mortgage lending in the state. According to a press release issued by the governor, the package of nine bills addresses the state’s foreclosure crisis and includes the following:
- A 4997, known as the Mortgage Services Licensing Act, requires persons who act as mortgage servicers—either directly or indirectly—to obtain a license from the New Jersey Commissioner of Banking and Insurance for each office where business is conducted. The Act provides certain licensing exemptions, including federally insured banks and credit unions and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, those already licensed under the state’s Residential Mortgage Lending Act (the Act) who meet certain criteria, and the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency. However, the Act stipulates that sections 9 – 12, which discuss, among other things, record-keeping requirements, late fee restrictions, and required disclosures, apply to all persons, including exempt persons, acting as mortgage servicers in the state. Among other provisions, the Act (i) outlines licensing application requirements, procedures, and expiration terms; (ii) requires licensed mortgage servicers to file annual reports about loan servicing in the state; (iii) stipulates that licenses are non-transferable; (iv) mandates mortgage servicers to file a surety bond, fidelity bond, and evidence of coverage with the Commissioner; (v) requires compliance with all applicable federal laws including RESPA and TILA; (vi) requires mortgage servicers to keep a current schedule of service-related activity fees; and (vii) prohibits mortgage servicers from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in connection with loan servicing. Moreover, the Act grants the Commission with supervision, investigation, and examination authority. The Act takes effect in 90 days.
- A 5001 “reduces the statute of limitations in residential mortgage foreclosures from 20 years to six years from the date on which the debtor defaulted, in situations in which the date of default is used as the method to determine when the statute of limitations has expired.” A 5001 takes effect immediately and applies to all residential mortgages executed on or after the effective date.
- S 3416 states that provisions of the New Jersey Residential Mortgage Lending Act now apply to certain out-of-state persons involved in residential mortgage lending in the state “provided they are otherwise required to be licensed pursuant to the provisions of the [A]ct. . . .” S 3416 takes effect immediately.
- S 3411, among other things, (i) requires a notice of intention to foreclose on a residential mortgage to be filed within 180 days prior to commencing foreclosure, stating that if a foreclosure proceeding has not yet commenced, “the lender shall send a new written notice at least 30 days, but not more than 180 days, in advance of that action”; and (ii) limits the number of permitted reinstatements of dismissed mortgage foreclosure actions to three, with certain exceptions. S 3411 takes effect August 1, which is the first day of the fourth month following enactment.
- Buckley Webcast: Hot topics in debt collection — An analysis of recent federal FDCPA litigation
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "How to succeed in law school" at the SEO Law DC Panel Discussions
- 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
- Sasha Leonhardt and John B. Williams to discuss "Privacy" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Summer Regulatory Compliance School
- Warren W. Traiger to discuss "CRA modernization" at the National Association of Industrial Bankers and the Utah Association of Financial Services Annual Convention
- Benjamin W. Hutten to discuss "Requirements for banking inherently high-risk relationships" at the Georgia Bankers Association BSA Experience Program
- Henry Asbill to discuss "Ethical guidance in conducting internal investigations – The intersection of Yates an Upjohn" at the American Bar Association Southeastern White Collar Crime Institute
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "RESPA Section 8/referrals: How do you stay compliant?" at the New England Mortgage Bankers Conference
- 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