InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit holds Pennsylvania’s loan servicing claims can proceed
On July 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may pursue claims against a student loan servicer under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) despite a concurrent action brought against the servicer by the CFPB. The appellate court also held that the Commonwealth’s claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are not preempted by the federal Higher Education Act (HEA). The decision results from a lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth claiming the servicer, among other things, originated risky, high-cost student loans, steered borrowers into forbearance, failed to properly inform borrowers about income-driven repayment options, made misrepresentations related to cosigner release, and misapplied borrower payments. Because the CFPB filed a lawsuit alleging similar claims against the servicer nearly nine months prior to the Commonwealth’s suit, the servicer argued that under the applicable provision of the CFPA, the Commonwealth could not file a concurrent suit. The district court disagreed and denied the servicer’s motion to dismiss.
In addressing whether a concurrent suit is permitted, the appellate court noted, “that the clear statutory language of the [CFPA] permits concurrent state claims, for nothing in the statutory framework suggests otherwise.” With respect to whether the applicable provision of the HEA expressly and impliedly preempts the Commonwealth’s suit, the 3rd Circuit stated that the statute only expressly preempts claims “based on failures to disclose information as required by the statute,” and not claims “based on affirmative misrepresentations.” Thus, because the Commonwealth’s claims were based on alleged affirmative misrepresentations and misconduct, it affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Commonwealth’s case may proceed. The 3rd Circuit highlighted, however, a circuit split over whether the HEA impliedly preempts state-law claims, pointing to the 9th Circuit’s holding that “allowing state law causes of action to proceed would conflict with the purpose of uniformity.” The 3rd Circuit’s decision joins those issued by the 7th and 11th Circuits, which both rejected the argument that uniformity was an intended purpose of the HEA.
The CFPB and the defendants filed with the district court in May dueling motions for summary judgment in the concurrent CFPB action, but the court has yet to issue a ruling on those motions.
State AGs ask court to vacate Department of Education’s 2019 “Institutional Accountability” regulations
On July 15, a coalition of state attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the Department of Education, asking the court to vacate the Department’s 2019 final Institutional Accountability regulations (2019 Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2019 Rule—which took effect July 1, 2020—revises protections for student borrowers who were significantly misled or defrauded by their higher education institutions, and establishes standards for “adjudicating borrower defenses to repayment claims for Federal student loans first disbursed on or after July 1, 2020.” Loans disbursed prior to July 1, 2020 remain subject to defenses under prior regulations issued in 2016 (2016 Rule). Earlier this year, H.J. Res. 76, which provided for congressional disapproval of the 2019 Rule (covered by InfoBytes here), was vetoed by President Trump.
The AGs allege in their complaint that the Department’s 2019 Rule, among other things, “completely eliminate[s] violations of applicable state consumer protection law as a viable defense to repayment of federal student loans” and “impose[s] additional requirements on a viable misrepresentation defense that are so onerous that they make this defense impossible for a student borrower to assert successfully.” Moreover, the AGs contend that the Department has “failed to meet its congressional mandate to specify actual borrower defenses” by promulgating a rule that serves only to prevent borrowers from obtaining relief. On these grounds, the AGs claim the 2019 Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The AGs highlight several aspects of the 2019 Rule that support its claims, including that the elimination of the 2016 Rule’s limitations on the use of class action waivers and mandatory predispute arbitration agreements is arbitrary and capricious. According to the AGs, the Department’s “conclusion that requiring schools to disclose their use of mandatory predispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers will adequately protect borrowers is also contrary to substantial evidence and [the Department’s] own prior conclusions.”
District court shuts down operation claiming debt relief for students
On July 20, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a final judgment permanently banning defendants in a student loan debt relief operation from telemarketing or providing debt relief services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019 the FTC charged the defendants with violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) for allegedly, among other things, (i) charging borrowers illegal advance fees; (ii) falsely claiming they would service and pay down borrowers’ student loans; and (iii) obtaining borrowers’ credentials in order to change consumers’ contact information and prevent communications from loan servicers.
The court’s order granted the FTC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants received revenues of at least $31.1 million derived unlawfully from payments received from borrowers due to the defendants’ violations of the FTC Act and TSR. Of these revenues, only about $3.1 million had been paid by the defendants to borrowers’ federal student loan servicers, the order stated, although the court noted that the defendants allegedly refunded about $408,089 to consumers. The court imposed a roughly $27.6 million judgment against the defendants as equitable monetary relief, and permanently banned the defendants from offering similar services in the future, including misrepresenting, or assisting others in misrepresenting, any facts materials to a consumer’s decision to purchase financial products or services.
CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Week roundup
As part of the CFPB’s Consumer Financial Protection Week, the Bureau released several reports and tools, including a recently published study analyzing the impact of credit builder loans (CBLs) on consumer credit scores. The study, Targeting Credit Builder Loans: Insights from a Credit Builder Loan Evaluation (accompanied by a practitioner’s guide and research on CBLs), provides insight for community-based organizations and financial institutions on expanding financial inclusion through the use of CBLs, which are designed to assist individuals with no credit records or poor credit histories to build or repair their credit. According to the Bureau, the central feature of a CBL is that a borrower makes payments before receiving funds. When a CBL is opened by a borrower, the lender moves its own funds into a locked escrow account and the borrower makes installment payments, including interest and fees, typically over a period of six to 24 months. These payments appear on the borrower’s credit report, and the lender deposits the principal payments into the borrower’s savings account “after each payment or in entirety when the borrower completes the program.” According to the Bureau, a typical CBL ranges from $300 to $1,000. The Bureau’s study examined 1,531 credit union members who were offered CBLs. The research revealed that a CBL increased the likelihood of having a credit score by 24 percent for borrowers without an existing loan, and that borrowers without existing debt saw their credit scores rise by 60 points more than borrowers carrying existing debt. Additionally, the Bureau found an association between having a CBL and an increase in a borrower’s savings balance. The Bureau cautioned, however, that the study’s findings also indicated that CBLs appeared to cause a decrease in credit scores for borrowers with existing debt, suggesting that these borrowers experienced difficulty making payments on both their CBL and their existing debt obligations.
The Bureau also released the results from the Making Ends Meet survey, which provides insight into how U.S. consumers cope with financial shortfalls. The survey, conducted prior to the Covid-19 pandemic in May 2019, offers a nationally representative assessment of consumers with credit records. Among its findings, the report noted that 52 percent of survey respondents said they could cover expenses for two months or less without their main source of income, while 20 percent could cover expenses for only two weeks or less.
A report exploring the credit records of young servicemembers that compares servicemembers’ credit profiles to the credit profiles of civilians was also recently published, along with an online tool to help students make informed decisions about paying for college.
CFPB takes action against student debt-relief operation
On July 13, the CFPB filed a complaint in federal district court against a nationwide student loan debt-relief business—consisting of two companies, their owners, and four attorneys—for allegedly charging thousands of customers approximately $11.8 million in upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 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 attorney agreement typically provided for “a fee, typically 40 [percent] of the outstanding debt, to be paid by monthly installments, along with a processing fee that costs an additional $10 per month.” The business allegedly charged the fees before the consumer 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.
On August 17, the court approved stipulated final judgments with four of the defendants (one company owner and three of the attorneys, here, here, and here). The company owner is permanently banned from providing debt-relief services or engaging in telemarketing of any consumer financial product or service, and is required to pay $25,000 in partial satisfaction of a suspended $11.8 million in redress. Similarly, the three attorneys are each banned from providing debt-relief services and required to pay $5,000, $21,567, and $30,000 each in partial satisfaction of various redress amounts. Additionally, the judgments impose a civil money penalty of $1 against each defendant.
CFPB proposes settlement with student debt-relief operation
On July 8, the CFPB announced a proposed settlement with a Florida-based student debt-relief company and three of its owners and officers (collectively, “defendants”), which would resolve allegations that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by charging advance fees for services to renegotiate, settle, reduce, or alter the terms of federal student loans. According to the complaint, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on the same day as the proposed order, the Bureau alleges that from 2016 through October 2019, the defendants used telemarketing campaigns to solicit over 7,300 consumers to pay up to $699 in fees to have their federal student loan monthly payments reduced or eliminated through government-offered programs. The Bureau alleges that—not only are government programs (such as loan consolidation, income-based repayment, or certain loan-forgiveness options) available without charge—the defendants violated the TSR by charging and receiving upfront fees from consumers for their services before the terms of the student debt had been altered or settled.
On August 12, the court entered a stipulated final judgment and order, which permanently bans the defendants from providing debt-relief services and imposes a suspended $3.8 million in consumer redress, upon the owners and officers each paying between $5,000 and $10,000 individually. Additionally, each defendant is required to pay $1 in civil money penalties.
ARRC releases updated fallback language in the event of LIBOR transition
On June 30, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) released updated recommended fallback language for U.S. dollar LIBOR denominated syndicated loans and new variable rate private student loans. ARRC noted that the private student loan language is intended to minimize risk and market disruption in the event of LIBOR’s anticipated cessation at the end of 2021. ARRC also released conventions for how market participants can voluntarily use the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) in new student loan products. With respect to syndicated loans, ARRC noted that the updated fallback language recommends “the use of simple daily SOFR in arrears,” which, among other things, includes “a more permissive early opt-in trigger” to “allow parties involved in the loan to switch over to an alternative rate like SOFR before LIBOR is officially discontinued or determined to be unrepresentative.” Additionally, ARRC announced new details regarding its recommendation of spread adjustments for cash products that reference LIBOR. Market participants may voluntarily use ARRC’s recommended methodology to produce spread adjustments “where a spread-adjusted [SOFR] can be selected as a fallback.”
New York AG settles with student debt relief defendants
On June 25, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a stipulated final judgment and order to resolve allegations concerning an allegedly fraudulent and deceptive student loan debt relief scheme. According to the New York attorney general, the defendants allegedly sold debt-relief services to student loan borrowers that violated several New York laws, including the state’s usury, banking, credit repair, and telemarketing laws, as well as the Credit Repair Organizations Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and TILA. The order imposes a $5.5 million judgment against the majority of the defendants, which will be partially suspended after certain defendants pay $250,000. The AG’s case against one of the defendants, however, will continue. The order also prohibits the defendants from engaging in unlawful acts or deceptive practices such as false advertising, and, among other things, imposes compliance and reporting requirements and permanently bans the defendants from offering, providing, or selling any debt relief products and services or collecting payments from consumers related to these products and services.
Maryland Department of Labor issues financial relief guide for Marylanders
On June 19, the Maryland Department of Labor’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation issued the Covid-19 Health Crisis: Financial Relief Guide for Marylanders. Among other things, the guide contains information and resources regarding relief programs for consumers relating to economic impact payments, mortgage payments and foreclosure, rental evictions, student loans, automobile and personal loans, collections and garnishment, credit reporting, and insurance coverage and payments.
New York AG announced proposed settlement with student debt relief companies
On May 22, the New York attorney general (NYAG) announced a proposed settlement with three student loan debt relief companies and two of the companies’ executive officers (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants participated in a broader scheme that fraudulently, deceptively, and illegally marketed, sold, and financed student debt relief services to consumers nationwide. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the September 2018 complaint alleged that a total of nine student loan debt relief companies, along with their financing company, and the two individuals violated several federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, New York General Business Law, the state’s usury cap on interest rates, disclosure requirements under TILA, and the Federal Credit Repair Organization Act. Specifically, the NYAG asserted, among other things, that the defendants (i) sent direct mail solicitations to consumers that deceptively appeared to be from a governmental agency or an entity affiliated with a government agency; (ii) charged consumers over $1,000 for services that were available for free; (iii) requested upfront payments in violation of federal and state credit repair and debt relief laws; and (iv) charged usurious interest rates.
If approved by the court, the proposed consent judgment would require the five defendants to pay $250,000 of a $5.5 million total judgment, due to their inability to pay. Additionally, the defendants are also permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief product or service—or from assisting others in doing the same. Additionally, the defendants must request that any credit reporting agency to which the defendants reported consumer information in connection with the student loan debt relief services remove the information from those consumers’ credit files. The defendants also agreed not to sell, transfer, or benefit from the personal information collected from borrowers.
The NYAG previously settled with two other defendants in February, covered by InfoBytes here.