InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Ed. Dept. discharges additional $3.9 billion
On August 16, the Department of Education announced that 208,000 borrowers who attended a large for-profit post-secondary education institution will receive full student loan discharges totaling $3.9 billion. The announcement builds on previous actions taken by the Department that have resulted in the approval of $1.9 billion in discharges for another 130,000 borrowers, including borrower defense findings that the institution “engaged in widespread and pervasive misrepresentations related to the ability of students to get a job or transfer credits” and lied about certain program accreditation. State attorneys general around the country, the CFPB, and Veterans Education Success also provided significant assistance in the Department’s findings. The Department referred in its announcement to a 2014 CFPB action, which alleged that the institution pressured students into taking out high-cost private loans even though it allegedly knew that most students would ultimately default. The Bureau ultimately announced a judgment barring the institution from offering or providing student loans, and obtained judgments against several entities accused of providing substantial assistance to the institution (covered by InfoBytes here). “While today’s action affects federal loans, and while past CFPB actions have addressed many of the private loans peddled by [the institution],” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in remarks following the announcement, he stressed that the Bureau “will continue our work with the Department of Education and other regulators to open up the books on in-house institutional lending programs—these are private loans pushed directly by schools—to ensure that they are not strongarming their students with illegal practices.”
The Department also announced that it has notified another for-profit institution that it is required to pay millions of dollars for approved borrower defense to repayment discharges. The institution can present arguments as to why it should not be required to pay or request a hearing before the Department’s Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Department said.
3rd Circuit adopts new “reasonable reader” standard for evaluating accuracy of credit reports
On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in a matter consolidated on appeal concerning claims of alleged violations of the FCRA brought by several student loan borrowers. According to the opinion, each of the three borrowers defaulted on their student loan payments. The original lenders closed the accounts and transferred the loans to other lenders after the borrowers were more than 120 days late in their payments. The borrowers claimed that a “pay status” notation included in each of their credit reports, which read “Account 120 Days Past Due Date,” was inaccurate and could create the misleading impression that the borrowers were currently four months behind on payments when they did not owe a balance to the previous creditors. The consumer reporting agency (CRA) responsible for the credit reports at issue countered that the notations accurately reflected the historical status of the closed accounts. The borrowers appealed, arguing that the district court misapplied the “reasonable creditor” standard and that the credit reports did not meet the FCRA’s “maximum possible accuracy” requirement.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the CRA’s interpretation, holding that the credit reports “contain multiple conspicuous statements reflecting that the accounts are closed and Appellants have no financial obligations to their previous creditors.” As such, “[t]hese statements are not in conflict with the Pay Status notations, because a reasonable interpretation of the reports in their entirety is that the pay status of a closed account is historical information,” the appellate court wrote. However, while the 3rd Circuit affirmed previous rulings dismissing the cases issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it concluded that the “reasonable creditor” standard that the district court applied did not accurately reflect how the FCRA contemplates a range of permissible users, such as employers, investors, and insurers, and not just creditors. To account for this, the 3rd Circuit adopted a new standard for evaluating whether credit reports are inaccurate or misleading when read in their entirety by a “reasonable reader,” and applied that test in its precedential opinion. “A court applying the reasonable reader standard to determine the accuracy of an entry in a report must make such a determination by reading the entry not in isolation, but rather by reading the report in its entirety,” the appellate court said.
District Court grants final approval to forgive $6 billion in student loans
On November 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a class action settlement to forgive certain federal student loan borrower debt. According to the motion for preliminary approval, the plaintiffs are federal student loan borrowers who filed borrower defense (BD) applications with the Department of Education, requesting that the Department discharge their federal student loans because of misconduct committed by their schools. They brought the case to challenge the Department’s delay in making decisions on BD applications. The motion noted that the plaintiffs alleged, “the Department’s inaction was due to a deliberate and uniform policy abandoning BD decision making, a choice that caused a mounting backlog.” In a supplemental complaint filed after discovery, plaintiffs further alleged that the Department “adopted an unlawful policy that presumptively denied BD applications regardless of their merit, and then, pursuant to this policy, sent tens of thousands of legally insufficient denial notices (the ‘Form Denial Notices’) to borrowers, including some of the Named Plaintiffs.” The class consists of approximately 264,000 people who have a BD application pending as of June 22, 2022. The “automatic relief group” consists of applicants who attended one of more than 150 colleges for which the Department found common evidence of institutional misconduct. The motion also noted “it has determined that every class member whose relevant loan debt is associated with those schools should be provided presumptive relief under the settlement due to strong indicia regarding substantial misconduct by the listed schools, whether credibly alleged or in some instances proven, and the high rate of class members with applications related to the listed schools.” Under the terms of the settlement, $6 billion in loans will be canceled for the borrowers.
States request extension of PSLF forgiveness waiver
On July 29, a coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to President Biden and Department of Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, requesting the extension of the deadline for individuals to file claims under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2021, the Department announced several significant changes to its PSLF program, including that approximately 22,000 borrowers with consolidated loans (including loans previously ineligible) may be immediately eligible to have their loans forgiven automatically, and another 27,000 borrowers could have their balances forgiven if they are able to certify additional periods of public service employment. According to the AGs, “it is critically important to extend the waiver at least until new PSLF regulations take effect and to grandfather in waiver benefits for borrowers who miss administrative deadlines.” The AGs also asked the Biden administration to count all forbearance periods toward loan forgiveness, rather than making exceptions for servicemembers and longer periods of forbearance for everyone else. The letter stated that “[f]ailure to automatically count periods of forbearance toward loan forgiveness ignores pervasive and well-established servicing problems and inappropriately shifts the burden to borrowers to identify and prove that they were victims of servicer misconduct.” The AGs urged the Biden administration “to exercise its authority to synchronize the One-Time Adjustment and Limited PSLF Waiver into a unified adjustment policy.” The letter specifically stated that the “simplest way of doing so may be to incorporate certain critical aspects of the waiver into the One-Time Adjustment, including that qualifying employment at the time of forgiveness is not necessary and that consolidations (whether of FFEL or Direct Loans) occurring prior to the completion of the One-Time Adjustment do not negate past qualifying employment periods for PSLF.”
Oregon approves final student loan servicer regulations
Recently, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Division of Finance and Securities Regulation (the Department), filed agency-approved student loan servicer licensing regulations with the Oregon Office of the Secretary of State. The regulations implement SB 485 (enacted last July and covered by InfoBytes here), which established provisions for student loan servicers related in part to licensing requirements, including the requirement that an applicant for a student loan servicer license should submit applications via the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS).The act also implemented related consumer protections for borrowers.
The new regulations establish specific application requirements, including provisions related to subcontractors performing servicing activities on behalf of the student loan servicer. The regulations also provide for automatic licensure for applicants that service student loans under a contract with the Department of Education. Additionally, the regulations address (i) procedures for licensing branch locations; (ii) licensing renewals and fees; (iii) liquidity standards; (iv) bond requirements; (v) various annual reporting requirements; (vi) assessment payments and examination fees; (vii) rules for using an assumed business name; (viii) financial responsibility criteria; (ix) student loan servicer duties and responsibilities in addition to prohibited acts; and (x) licensing exemptions. The regulations also establish the Department director’s supervisory authority and outline disclosure requirements for significant developments or changes to a licensee’s record. The regulations became effective July 1.
NYDFS releases best practices for promoting PSLF program and time-limited waiver
On July 13, NYDFS called on all federal student loan servicers to increase awareness of and enroll borrowers in public service loan forgiveness programs before a temporary waiver expires on October 31. NYDFS’s letter reminded servicers that under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, full-time government and certain non-profit employees may be eligible to have federal direct loans forgiven after making 120 qualifying monthly payments. Last October, the Department of Education announced temporary PSLF changes due to the Covid-19 pandemic. These changes provided qualifying borrowers a time-limited PSLF waiver, which allows all payments to count towards PSLF regardless of loan program or payment plan (covered by InfoBytes here). Expressing concerns that many borrowers may not learn of this opportunity before it expires in October, NYDFS encouraged servicers to adopt eight best practices to promote awareness of the PSLF Program and the waiver. These include “enhanced trainings for customer service staff, proactive communications with borrowers, and increased promotion of the PSLF program on servicer websites and on borrower account pages,” NYDFS said in its announcement.
The letter follows a December 2021 NYDFS request sent to federal student loan servicers asking for updates on steps taken to address the waived rules. NYDFS also reminded servicers that it “will diligently enforce all servicer legal requirements concerning the PSLF program and will consider the extent to which servicers engaged in proactive measures to promote the PSLF Waiver in future supervisory examinations.”
Louisiana enacts student loan servicer provisions, establishes requirements for private education lenders
On June 18, the Louisiana governor signed HB 610, which defines terms and outlines provisions related to student loan servicers. Among other things, the act prohibits servicers from misleading student loan borrowers or engaging in any unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practice. Servicers are also prohibited from making misrepresentations or omitting information related to fees, payments, repayment options, loan terms and conditions, or borrower obligations. Moreover, servicers may not “[a]llocate a nonconforming payment in a manner other than as directed by the student loan borrower” under certain circumstances. The act also outlines duties related the furnishing of information to consumer reporting agencies, providing that a servicer may not (i) submit inaccurate information to a consumer reporting agency; (ii) refuse to correct inaccurately furnished information; (iii) fail to report a borrower’s favorable payment history at least once a year; (iv) refuse to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; and (v) make false statements or omit material facts connected to a state or local agency investigation. Additionally, the act specifies responsibilities related to responding to written inquires and complaints from consumers.
The same day, the governor also signed HB 789, which establishes a private student loan registry and outlines provisions related to private education lenders. The act stipulates that all private education lenders operating in the state must register with the commissioner, which may include the payment of fees and registration through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry. However, the act allows the commissioner to prescribe an alternative registration process and fee structure for postsecondary education providers. These registration requirements are not applicable to banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, or credit unions operating pursuant to authority granted by the commissioner. Private education lenders will also be required to comply with certain reporting requirements, including providing information related to the schools where the lender has made loans to students residing in the state, the total number and dollar amount of loans made annually, interest rate ranges, borrower default rates, copies of promissory notes and contracts, and cosigner loan statistics, among others.
Both acts take effect August 1.
CFPB settles with student-loan debt relief company
On June 9, the CFPB filed a stipulated final judgment and order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California resolving allegations that the operator of a student-loan debt relief company engaged in unfair debiting of consumer accounts, in violation of the CFPA. According to the complaint, in 2016, the defendant founded a student debt relief company, which “did not solicit new consumers, but instead obtained student-loan account and billing information for hundreds of former [student debt relief operation] consumers without the knowledge or consent of those consumers.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2016, the CFPB filed a consent order against a San Diego-based student debt relief operation for alleged violations of the CFPA, the TSR, and Regulation P by deceiving borrowers into paying fees for federal loan benefits and misrepresenting to consumers that it was affiliated with the Department of Education. The CFPB alleged that the defendant led a debt collection scheme by withdrawing $39 per month, and collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in total fees from student borrowers’ bank accounts, without authorization, after previously obtaining their names and account information from the former student loan debt relief business. According to the CFPB, “under this scheme, [the defendant’s] company had unlawfully debited more than $240,000 from hundreds of student borrowers’ accounts.” Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant is permanently banned from engaging in debt relief services and must pay a $175,000 penalty to the CFPB.
Ed. Dept. discharges additional $5 billion
On June 1, the Department of Education announced the “largest single loan discharge the Department has made in history,” which includes discharging all remaining federal student loans borrowed to attend any campus owned or operated by a specific large for-profit post-secondary education company from its founding in 1995 through April 2015. The action will result in 560,000 borrowers receiving $5.8 billion in full loan discharges. According to the Department, the post-secondary education company engaged in “widespread and pervasive misrepresentations,” including guarantees that students would find a job. Additionally, the company “made pervasive misstatements to prospective students about the ability to transfer credits and falsified their public job placement rates.” The Department noted that the California AG’s investigation alleged that the company engaged in deceptive and false advertising and recruitment practices, as well as lied to its students about job placement. The Department noted it has approved $25 billion in loan relief to individuals since President Biden took office.
On June 2, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra released a statement regarding the discharge, referring to the company as a “ notorious repeat offender that defrauded its students and the public over many years.” Chopra also noted that the CFPB and state attorneys general actively pursued the company for its misconduct. Chopra pointed to when the Bureau “filed a lawsuit in 2014, obtained a default judgment and secured $480 million in private student loan cancellation in 2015, and won another $183 million in loan cancellation in 2017.” Chopra further noted that “[i]n 2016, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris won a $1.1 billion judgment against [the company].”
District Court issues judgment against student debt relief operation
On May 24, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against an individual defendant who participated in a deceptive debt-relief enterprise operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, 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 for allegedly deceiving thousands of student-loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. In the third amended complaint, the Bureau and the states alleged that since at least 2015 the debt relief operation violated the CFPA, TSR, FDCPA, 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 Bureau and the states claimed that the debt relief operation engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting, among other things: (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness for borrowers; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments. Moreover, the debt relief operation allegedly failed to inform borrowers that it was their practice to request that the loans be placed in forbearance and also submitted false information to student loan servicers to qualify borrowers for lower payments. Under the terms of the final judgment, the individual defendant must pay a $483,662 civil money penalty to the Bureau.