InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court enters nearly $90 million default judgment against student debt-relief defendants
On December 15, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a default judgment and order against two companies (collectively, “default defendants”) for their role in a student loan debt-relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the student loan debt relief operation (defendants) for allegedly deceiving thousands of student-loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. 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 that 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. In September, the court entered final judgments against four of the defendants (covered by InfoBytes here), which included a suspended monetary judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
The new default order enters a $55 million judgment against one of the defaulting defendants and requires the defaulting defendant to pay a $30 million civil money penalty with $50,000 of that sum going directly to each of the states. Additionally, the court entered a judgment of over $165,000 to the other defaulting defendant and total civil money penalties of $2.5 million, with $10,000 going to each of the states directly and an additional $1.25 million to California. The judgment also, among other things, permanently bans the defaulting defendants from telemarketing any consumer financial product or service and from selling any debt-relief service.
Court enters judgments against multiple defendants in CFPB debt-relief action
On December 15, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered final judgment against two defendants (defendants) and a default judgment against another defendant (defaulting defendant) in an action brought by the CFPB alleging the defendants (and others not subject to these judgments) charged thousands of customers approximately $11.8 million in upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defendants, one other company, its two owners, and four attorneys, alleging the companies would market its debt-relief services to customers over the phone, encouraging those with private loans to sign up with an attorney to reduce or eliminate their student debt. The businesses allegedly charged the fees before the customer had made at least one payment on the altered debts, in violation of the TSR’s prohibition on requesting or receiving advance fees for debt-relief service or, for certain defendants, the TSR’s prohibition on providing substantial assistance to someone charging the illegal fees. In August, the court approved stipulated final judgments with one of the owners of the other company and three of the attorneys. In December, the court entered a default judgment against the other company and another owner (previous InfoBytes coverage available here).
The final judgment permanently bans the defendants from engaging in any debt-relief service or telemarketing of any consumer financial product or service. Additionally, the court entered a suspended judgment of over $11 million in redress, which will be satisfied by a payment of $5,000 (due to an inability to pay) and each defendant is required to pay a civil money penalty of $1 to the Bureau. Liability for nearly $5 million was entered by default judgment against the defaulting defendant and a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $5 million.
Court enters $41 million default judgment against student debt-relief operators
On December 3, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California entered a default judgment against a student debt-relief company and one of its owners (collectively, “defaulting defendants”) in an action brought by the CFPB alleging the defaulting defendants (and others not subject to the judgment) charged thousands of customers approximately $11.8 million in upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defaulting defendants, one other company, its owner, and four attorneys, alleging the companies would market its debt-relief services to customers over the phone, encouraging those with private loans to sign up with an attorney to reduce or eliminate their student debt. The businesses allegedly charged the fees before the customer had made at least one payment on the altered debts, in violation of the TSR’s prohibition on requesting or receiving advance fees for debt-relief service or, for certain defendants, the TSR’s prohibition on providing substantial assistance to someone charging the illegal fees. In August, the court approved stipulated final judgments with the other company owner (available here) and three of the attorneys (available here, here, and here).
The court entered into a default judgment against the defendants after they failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Bureau’s complaint. The judgment requires the defaulting defendants to pay over $11 million in consumer redress with separate $15 million civil money penalties entered against the company and the owner. Additionally, the defaulting defendants are permanently banned from providing debt-relief services or engaging in telemarketing of any consumer financial product or service.
FTC reaches $62 million settlement with student loan debt relief operation
On November 19, the FTC entered into a settlement with defendants accused of engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling student loan debt relief services. As part of its enforcement initiative, Operation Game of Loans (covered by InfoBytes here), the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, charging illegal up-front fees to enroll consumers in debt relief programs, accepting monthly payments that were not applied towards student loans, and collecting monthly fees that consumers believed were being applied to their loans but instead were going towards unrelated “financial education” programs (see previous InfoBytes coverage here). Under the terms of the order, the defendants are permanently banned from providing secured and unsecured debt relief products and services, and are prohibited from (i) engaging in unlawful telemarketing practices and violating the TSR; (ii) misrepresenting financial products and services; (iii) making unsubstantiated claims; and (iii) collecting, or assigning any right to collect, payments from consumers for products sold by the defendants. The defendants are also ordered to pay $62 million in monetary relief.
Maryland AG obtains $2.6 million in student debt relief
On November 16, the Maryland attorney general announced that it obtained over $2.6 million in debt relief from a third-party debt buyer for approximately 1,200 former students of a defunct Maryland-based for-profit college. In its press release, the AG alleged that the for-profit college offered “low-quality programs at a price significantly higher than comparable programs at Maryland’s public institutions.” According to the AG, due to the college’s high tuition, students had little choice but to take out loans issued by the college itself. After the college permanently closed, a court-appointed receiver sold the rights to collect the loans to a third-party debt buyer. The AG took the position that, because the college abruptly closed and failed to provide its students with the services promised, the loans should have been canceled rather than sold. To resolve the dispute, the AG and the third-party debt buyer entered into a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the third-party debt buyer agreed to cease collection on any of the outstanding loans and to refund approximately 75 percent of the payments collected from the students after it bought the loan portfolio. Furthermore, the debt buyer agreed to remove trade lines relating to the loans from the student’s credit reports.
CFPB releases education ombudsman’s annual report
On October 28, the CFPB Private Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on consumer complaints submitted between September 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020. The report is based on approximately 7,000 complaints received by the Bureau relating to federal and private student loans. Of these complaints, roughly 1,700 were related to debt collection, while approximately 500 mentioned Covid-19. The Bureau’s press release notes that the continued decrease in both federal and private student loan complaints may be attributed to factors such as “borrower education and outreach by federal and state agencies and regulators; borrower education and outreach by consumer advocates; and continued maturation of some industry participants’ compliance management systems, complaint monitoring systems, and their internal consumer advocate and ombudsman offices.” Topics discussed within the report include (i) an analysis of socio-economic and racial gaps in the student loan market; (ii) supervisory examinations and prioritized assessments of federal student loan servicers; (iii) enforcement actions taken against student loan debt relief companies and a student loan trust; (iv) borrower education and outreach; and (v) the impact of Covid-19 on student loan borrowers, including CARES Act relief for federally held federal student loans. The report also discusses a Memorandum of Understanding reached with the Department of Education at the beginning of the year, which clarifies the roles and responsibilities for each agency and permits the sharing of student loan complaint data and other information and recommendations (covered by InfoBytes here).
The report provides several recommendations, including that policymakers—when addressing near-term and long-term repayment issues—“may wish to consider simplifying the various loan repayment plans and the various forgiveness, discharge, and cancellation programs,” as well as examine ways to (i) enhance data sharing between federal agencies; (ii) enroll debtors who file for bankruptcy in income driven repayment plans; (iii) revisit the undue hardship bankruptcy test; (iv) assess socio-economic and racial gaps in student loan debt load and degree attainment; and (v) pursue student loan debt relief scams.
New Jersey charges student loan servicer with deceptive collection practices
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.
Illinois adopts regulations for student loan servicers
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.
New Jersey now accepting student loan servicer licenses through NMLS
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.
California enacts student loan servicing requirements
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.