Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On October 20, the New Jersey Attorney General and the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs filed a complaint alleging a student loan servicer engaged in unlawful practices when collecting on loans owned by borrowers residing in the state. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the servicer (i) steered borrowers into forbearance programs instead of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans; (ii) failed to inform borrowers about IDR recertification deadlines and the effects of not timely submitting a recertification application; (iii) encouraged borrowers to obtain a cosigner for their student loans and then misrepresented the requirements for obtaining a cosigner release; and (iv) misled delinquent borrowers about the amount of their delinquency, by including the next month’s payment in the “present amount due.” The complaint alleges two violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and seeks equitable injunctive relief, borrower restitution, disgorgement, statutory penalties, and costs and fees.
On October 9, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation adopted regulations implementing provisions of the Student Loan Servicing Right Act related to licensing fees, operations, and supervision. Among other things, the provisions (i) establish license, examination, and hearing fees, as well as assessment costs; (ii) require servicers to file notice within 10 business days of any application changes; (iii) require servicers to maintain websites and toll-free telephone services for borrowers and cosigners to access information on existing loans; (iv) require servicers to provide borrowers with information on alternative repayment and loan forgiveness options; (v) outline requirements related to the maintenance of account information, payment processing, cosigner payments, and books and records; (vi) provide record retention requirements; and (vii) address the preparation of independent audit reports and examination ratings. The regulations are effective immediately.
On September 15, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (Department) began accepting applications for the NJ Student Loan Servicer license through the NMLS. The license is governed by the Student Loan Servicing Act, which was enacted in July 2019, and establishes the Office of the Student Loan Ombudsman within the Department and provides licensing requirements for student loan servicers (covered by InfoBytes here). A recently released bulletin by the Department describes the process for licensing and details persons exempt from the licensing requirements, including federal or state chartered banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions, as well as their wholly owned subsidiaries. The Bulletin notes that all non-exempt student loan servicers must submit all requirements for a license by December 31 and may continue to operate in New Jersey while their applications are pending.
On September 25, the California governor signed AB 376, which provides new requirements for student loan servicers. Among other things, these requirements require servicers to (i) timely post, process, and credit payments within certain timeframes; (ii) apply overpayments “consistent with the best financial interest of a student loan borrower,” and apply partial payments so that late fees and negative credit reporting are minimized; (iii) diligently oversee service providers; and (iv) provide specialized training for personnel responsible for offering advice to “military borrowers, borrowers in public service, borrowers with disabilities, and older borrowers.” The bill also prohibits student loan servicers from, among other things, engaging in unfair or deceptive practices or abusive acts and practices. Additionally, the bill will allow a borrower “who suffers damages as a result of a person’s failure to comply with these provisions as well as all applicable federal laws relating to student loan servicing to bring an action for actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief, including treble damages in certain circumstances.” The bill also provides for an opportunity to cure alleged violations. The bill further stipulates that, starting July 1, 2021, the Commission of Business Oversight will be authorized to compile information on student loan servicers’ business conduct and various activities in order to monitor and assess consumer risk.
On September 15, the CFPB filed a complaint and proposed stipulated judgment against a trust, along with three banks acting in their capacity as trustees to the trust, for allegedly providing substantial assistance to a now defunct for-profit educational institution in engaging in unfair acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau asserted that the trust owned and managed private loans for students attending the defunct institution, even though the trust “allegedly knew or was reckless in not knowing that many student borrowers did not understand the terms and conditions of those loans, could not afford them, or in some cases did not even know they had them.” The Bureau alleged that the defunct institution induced students to take out loans through several unfair practices, including “using aggressive tactics, and in some cases, gaining unauthorized access to student accounts to sign students up for loans without permission.” These loans, the Bureau contended, carried default rates well above what was expected for student loans. According to the Bureau, the trust was allegedly actively involved in the servicing, managing, and collection of these student loans.
If approved by the court, the Bureau’s proposed settlement would require the trust to (i) cease collection efforts on all outstanding loans owned and managed by the trust; (ii) discharge all outstanding loans owned and managed by the trust; (iii) ask all consumer reporting agencies to delete information related to the trust’s loans; and (iv) notify all affected consumers of these actions. The Bureau estimated that the total amount of loan forgiveness is roughly $330 million.
This settlement is the third reached by the Bureau in relation to the defunct institution’s private loan programs. In 2019, the defunct institution reached a settlement with the Bureau (covered by InfoBytes here), which required the payment of a $60 million judgment. Additionally, the Bureau entered into another settlement in 2019 with a different company that managed student loans for the defunct institution’s students, which required the loan management company to comply with similar requirements as the trust (covered by InfoBytes here).
On September 11, the New York attorney general announced one of the nation’s largest debt collectors will pay $600,000 in restitution to student loan borrowers and will make significant changes to its debt collection practices in order to resolve allegations that it made false, misleading, and deceptive statements in lawsuits and in communications with borrowers. According to the AG, the debt collector, among other things, (i) filed complaints that falsely identified trusts, which hold the defaulted loans, as the borrower’s “original creditor,” when in fact, the trusts are the assignees of the original financial institutions that originated the loans; (ii) filed various misleading sworn affidavits; (iii) filed complaints that represented borrowers applied for loans from a “servicing agent” when, in fact, borrowers never dealt with the entity; (iv) filed lawsuits beyond the applicable three-year statute of limitations; and (v) threatened legal action against borrowers even though the trusts “could not or would not sue because the statute of limitations for suing on the debt had expired.”
The assurance of discontinuance requires the debt collector to stop identifying the trusts as the original creditor and to cease using misleading language in communications with borrowers. In addition, the debt collector must (i) provide enhanced staff training; (ii) stop filing lawsuits beyond the statute of limitations, and voluntarily dismiss all wrongfully-filed lawsuits; (iii) voluntarily release “all pending garnishments, levies, liens, restraining notices, attachments, or any other judgment enforcement mechanism” obtained as a result of judgments obtained in wrongfully-filed lawsuits where the statute of limitations has expired; (v) take steps to vacate any judgment obtained in any of these wrongfully-filed lawsuits; and (vi) pay restitution to certain borrowers or to the state to be disbursed as appropriate.
On September 8, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment against two additional defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. Four defendants settled in August, with a total suspended judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay and total payments of $90,000 to Minnesota, North Carolina, and California, and $1 each to the CFPB, in civil money penalties.
The new final judgment holds the two relief defendants liable for nearly $7 million in redress; however, the judgment is suspended based on an inability to pay. The defendants are not subject to any civil money penalties, but are required to relinquish certain assets and submit to certain reporting requirements.
On September 9, the FTC announced an $835,000 settlement with the operators of a student loan debt relief operation, resolving allegations against five individuals (collectively, “defendants”) whom the FTC claims engaged in deceptive marketing and charged illegal upfront fees. According to the November 2019 complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the defendants and several others, the defendants allegedly used telemarketing calls, as well as media advertisements, to enroll consumers in student debt relief services in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The defendants allegedly misrepresented that they were affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and misrepresented “material aspects of their debt relief services,” including by promising to enroll consumers in repayment programs to reduce or eliminate payments and balances. Additionally, the defendants charged illegal upfront fees, and often placed the consumers’ loans into temporary forbearance or deferments with their student loan servicers, without the consumer’s authorization.
The settlement order includes a monetary judgment of over $43 million, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The defendants “will be required to surrender at least $835,000 and additional assets, which will be used for consumer redress.” Additionally, the defendants are prohibited from providing student debt relief services in the future and they must cooperate in the FTC’s pursuit of the case against the remaining defendants.
On August 26 and 28, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered two final judgments (see here and here) against four of the defendants in an action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney alleging a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserts the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments.
The finalized settlements suspend a total judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay, and requires the two defendants who settled on August 26, to pay a total of $75,000 to Minnesota, North Carolina, and California, and $1 each to the CFPB, in civil money penalties, and the two defendants who settled on August 28, to pay a total of $15,000 to the respective states and $1 to the CFPB in civil money penalties. In addition to the monetary penalties, the defendants are required to relinquish certain assets and submit to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All four defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations, as part of the settlements.
On August 21, the U.S. Department of Education announced the implementation of the presidential memorandum extending a forbearance plan on federal student loans through the end of the year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the memorandum directed the Department of Education to take action to continue to provide “deferments to borrowers as necessary to continue the temporary cessation of payments and the waiver of all interest on student loans held by the Department of Education until December 31, 2020.” According to the announcement, until December 31, in addition to suspended payments and the waiver of all interest, there will be (i) no collections on defaulted federal loans; and (ii) borrowers will receive a refund of any continued employer garnishment related to defaulted federal loans. Additionally, non-payments by borrowers working full-time for qualified Public Service Loan Forgiveness employers will continue to receive credit towards their 120 payments.
- H Joshua Kotin to discuss "Being fair, responsible, & profitable" at the QuestSoft Lending Compliance & Risk Management Virtual Conference
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "NMLS mortgage call report – Where’s NMLS 2.0?" at the QuestSoft Lending Compliance & Risk Management Virtual Conference
- Thomas A. Sporkin to discuss "Managing internal investigations and advanced government defense" at the Securities Enforcement Forum
- Jeffrey P. Naimon to discuss "2021 - A new beginning/what's to come" at the QuestSoft Lending Compliance & Risk Management Virtual Conference
- H Joshua Kotin to discuss "Mortgage servicing in a recession: Early intervention, loss mitigation and more" at the NAFCU Virtual Regulatory Compliance Seminar
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss "Independent monitoring in the United States" at the World Compliance Association Peru Chapter IV International Conference on Compliance and the Fight Against Corruption
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Cyber security, incident response, crisis management" at the Legal & Diversity Summit
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "The future of fair lending" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Major litigation" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "Pandemic fallout – Navigating practical operational challenges" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Consumer financial services" at the Practising Law Institute Banking Law Institute
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "BSA/AML - Covid impact and regulatory/guidance roundup" at an NAFCU webinar