InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal banking agencies release policy statement on interagency notification of enforcement actions
On June 12, the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC (collectively, “Federal Banking Agencies” or “FBAs”) published in the Federal Register a policy statement on interagency notification of formal enforcement actions to assure ongoing coordination after the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council rescinded its 1997 revised policy statement on “Interagency Coordination of Formal Corrective Action by the Federal Bank Regulatory Agencies.” According to the new policy statement, when making a determination to bring a formal enforcement action, an FBA should evaluate whether a potential enforcement action involves the interests of another FBA and if so, should notify the agency prior to notifying the financial institution about the pending action. The notice to the FBA should contain enough information for the agency to take necessary action to examine or investigate the financial institution. The statement clarifies that the policy is not intended to substitute or replace the informal communication that routinely occurs between FBAs in advance of an enforcement action.
Court approves $12 million settlement between FTC and student debt relief company
On June 8, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved an order requiring an owner and his multiple student debt relief companies (defendants) to pay almost $12 million to settle allegations that the defendants violated the FTC Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) when marketing and selling student debt relief services. As part of a coordinated effort between the FTC and state law enforcement called Operation Game of Loans, the FTC filed a complaint in September 2017 alleging the defendants, among other things, charged upfront and monthly fees to enroll students in free government programs to manage student loan debt, but did not perform any services. Additionally, the FTC alleged that the defendants marketed themselves as associated with the Department of Education and called consumers listed on the Do Not Call Registry. Under the settlement order, in addition to the nearly $12 million fine, the defendants are permanently banned from: (i) advertising, marketing, promoting, offering, or selling debt relief or credit repair products or services, or assisting others in such activities; (ii) misrepresenting or assisting others in misrepresenting information relating to any products or services and, specifically, financial products or services; (iii) making any misleading or unsubstantiated representation or assisting others in making any such representation about the benefits, performance, or result of any financial product or service; and (iv) engaging in any unlawful telemarketing practices. The defendants neither admit nor deny any of the FTC’s allegations.
FTC reports on certain 2017 enforcement activities to the CFPB
On May 17, in response to a request from the CFPB, the FTC transmitted a letter summarizing its 2017 enforcement activities related to Regulation Z (TILA), Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act), and Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfer Act) for the CFPB’s use in preparing its 2017 Annual Report to Congress. The FTC highlighted numerous activities related to the enforcement of the pertinent regulations, including:
- Payday Lending. The FTC acknowledged the continued litigation against two Kansas-based operations and their owner for allegedly selling lists of counterfeit payday loan debt portfolios to debt collectors in violation of the FTC Act, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
- Military Protection. The FTC identified the July 2017 military consumer financial workshop and the launch of the new Military Task Force (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here) among the activities the agency engaged in related to protecting the finances of current and former members of the military. The FTC also noted continued participation in the interagency group working with the Department of Defense on amendments to its rule implementing the Military Lending Act.
- “Negative Option.” For actions under the Regulation E/EFTA, the FTC highlighted numerous “negative option” enforcement actions, in which the consumer agrees to receive goods or services from a company for a free trial option, but if the consumer does not cancel before the trial period ends, the consumer will incur recurring charges for continued goods or services. Among the actions highlighted is a case in which the FTC imposed a $179 million judgment (suspended upon the payment of $6.4 million) settling allegations that the online marketers’ offers of “free” and “risk free” monthly programs for certain weight loss and other products were deceptive.
- Auto Loans. The letter highlighted, among others, the FTC action against a Southern California-based group of auto dealerships that allegedly violated a prior consent order with the FTC by misrepresenting the cost to finance or lease a vehicle, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
District Court holds that FTC investigation and initiation of enforcement proceedings do not qualify as final agency actions subject to judicial review
On May 29, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the FTC’s motion to dismiss a declaratory-judgment action filed by several California-based companies that provide student loan processing services, along with their CEO/primary shareholder (plaintiffs). In August 2017, having allegedly learned that the FTC “was in the final process of gathering information to file a lawsuit against one or more of [the] [p]laintiffs on the purported and factually unsupportable basis that the [c]ompanies made misrepresentations to consumers” and violated the TSR’s debt relief service provision, the plaintiffs filed for instant declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking a declaration that the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s (TSR) debt relief provisions did not apply to them or, alternatively, that they were in compliance with the provisions. In February 2018, the FTC filed an enforcement action against the plaintiffs alleging that their collection of fees in advance of providing services violated the FTC Act and the TSR, and seeking injunctive and equitable relief. The FTC also moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
According to the order granting the FTC’s motion, the court agreed with the FTC that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—not the Declaratory Judgment Act—is the exclusive, proper vehicle to obtain judicial review of a federal agency’s action. The court then held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the two prerequisites for judicial review under the APA, that (i) the agency’s actions constitute as a “final” agency action, and (ii) there exists no other adequate remedy in court. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the FTC’s “investigation into the lawfulness of the [plaintiffs’] actions and initiation of enforcement proceedings” qualified as a “final” agency action subject, and that the plaintiffs’ alternative “adequate remedy” was to be had in the enforcement action brought against them by the FTC, where they would be able to present all of the same defenses and arguments they sought to advance in their declaratory judgment action.
FTC settles with North Carolina-based debt collection business and its principals
On June 4, the FTC announced settlements with a North Carolina-based debt collection business and its principals resolving allegations that the business violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations regarding debt owed on payday loans or other debts and threatening legal action. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the business allegedly used a variety of “trade names” that sound like law firms to threaten individuals if they failed to pay debt they did not actually owe or that the defendants had no right to collect. The terms of the settlement call for a $2.7 million judgment against the business and one of the principals, as well as a $1.8 million judgment against the remaining principal, with all parties jointly and severally liable for approximately $1.6 million. The judgments will be partially suspended after defendants surrender certain assets. The settlements also prohibit all defendants from debt collection activities as well as from buying or selling debt in the future.
FTC settles with two student loan debt relief companies
On May 31, as part of a coordinated effort between the FTC and state law enforcement called Operation Game of Loans, the FTC announced settlements with two student loan debt relief companies. According to the FTC, the settlements resolve claims that the companies violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by illegally charging consumers upfront fees and falsely promising to reduce or eliminate their student loan debt. The first settlement is the result of a lawsuit filed by the FTC in 2017, alleging that the company would enroll consumers in debt relief programs with an upfront fee and subsequent monthly payments, but would not fulfill promises to apply the payments to the consumers’ student loans. In addition to a $17 million fine, which will be partially suspended if the defendants turn over substantially all assets worth more than $4 million, the settlement bars the defendants from debt relief and credit repair activities in the future.
The second settlement also results from a 2017 complaint by the FTC alleging that a Los Angeles-based company defrauded consumers through programs offering mortgage assistance and student debt relief. According to the FTC, the company falsely promised distressed homeowners assistance in preventing foreclosure and promised student borrowers reduced monthly payments or loan forgiveness purportedly through the Department of Education. The $9 million settlement, which will be partially suspended once defendants turn over all assets worth $54,000 because of their inability to pay, also bans defendants from participating in debt relief and telemarketing activities in the future.
For more InfoBytes coverage on Operation Game of Loans see here.
CFPB Succession: Bureau asks court to stay payday rule litigation; Mulvaney: Bureau may resume PII collection; working on a fintech regulatory “sandbox”; will consider scale and frequency of violations in future actions
On May 31, the CFPB filed a joint motion with two payday loan trade groups, requesting a stay of litigation pending the Bureau’s reconsideration of its final rule on payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other high-cost installment loans (Rule) and requesting a stay of the compliance date—currently set for August 19, 2019 for most substantive sections—of the Rule until 445 days after final judgment in the litigation. The motion argues that the stay is necessary for the duration of the rulemaking process because “the rulemaking process may result in repeal or revisions of the [Rule] and thereby moot or otherwise resolve this litigation.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, on April 9, the payday loan trade groups filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas asking the court to set aside the Rule because, among other reasons, the CFPB is unconstitutional and the Bureau’s rulemaking failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The Bureau announced its intention to reconsider the Rule in January, and reiterated that intent in its Spring 2018 rulemaking agenda.
Additionally, acting Director of the CFPB, Mick Mulvaney, reportedly lifted the ban on the Bureau’s collection of personally identifiable information after an independent review concluded that “externally facing Bureau systems appear to be well-secured.” The ban was initially announced in December 2017, soon after Mulvaney began his acting role.
On May 29, Mulvaney stated in response to a question at a luncheon hosted by the Women in Housing & Finance that the CFPB is working closely with the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on developing a regulatory “sandbox” for fintech companies—which would provide targeted regulatory relief for companies to test new consumer financial products. While he did not provide many details on the project, he did note the Bureau was reviewing similar state actions for guidance (as previously covered by InfoBytes, Arizona was the first state to create a regulatory sandbox for fintech innovation). Additionally, in response to another question, Mulvaney noted that the Bureau may begin to take into account the scale and frequency of violations when determining whether to take action against a company; a practice, according to Mulvaney, that was not done under previous leadership. When referring to his authority to decide when to pursue an action, he stated, “I think if [a company is] doing something less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the time, maybe…it's evidence of a lack of criminal intent, and maybe there's a good place ... for me to execute some prosecutorial discretion."
Overall, Mulvaney’s remarks were consistent with previous comments about the direction of the Bureau, including his intention to end the practice of “regulation by enforcement” and his desire to move the CFPB under the Congressional appropriations process. He noted that he is still in the process of reviewing the public disclosure of consumer complaints and whether or not the Consumer Complaint Database will continue to be publicly available. Additionally, he was unable to provide a status update on the Bureau’s future debt collection rule (the Spring 2018 rulemaking agenda lists the rule in a “Proposed Rule Stage” and has the deadline for a notice of proposed rulemaking set for February 2019, see InfoBytes coverage here). Lastly, he reiterated the Bureau’s recent announcement that it is reviewing applications of the disparate impact doctrine under ECOA, stating that he is “reviewing all of [the Bureau’s] rules regarding ECOA, not just in auto lending” because Dodd-Frank requires that the Bureau “enforce federal consumer financial law consistently without regard to the status of the person.”
FDIC releases April enforcement actions, including flood insurance and BSA/AML violations
On May 25, the FDIC released a list of 35 administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. Civil money penalties were assessed against several individuals and one bank. The FDIC assessed a $5,000 civil money penalty against a New Jersey-based bank, citing violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act for allegedly failing to ensure 20 properties were adequately covered by flood insurance for the term of the loan. Additionally, the FDIC issued two consent orders, one against a South Dakota-based bank for unsafe or unsound banking practices or violations of law or regulation. The FDIC ordered the bank to, among other things, (i) retain qualified management; (ii) develop an independent external loan review program; and (iii) develop a plan to address the weaknesses in the bank’s audit and internal controls. The second consent order alleges violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) rules by a Maryland-based bank. The bank is ordered to, among other things, (i) perform an enhanced risk assessment of the bank’s operations; (ii) revise and implement internal controls for BSA/AML compliance; and (iii) take necessary steps to correct or eliminate all cited violations.
Also on the list are 11 Section 19 orders, which allow applicants to participate in the affairs of an insured depository institution after having demonstrated “satisfactory evidence of rehabilitation,” and four terminations of consent orders.
There are no administrative hearings scheduled for June 2018. The FDIC database containing all 35 enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
District court sanctions banker for violating consent order issued by CFPB and Maryland Attorney General
On May 21, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part a motion for sanctions brought by the CFPB and the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office (plaintiffs) against a banker (defendant) previously held in civil contempt for violating a final judgment order prohibiting him from participating in the mortgage industry. As previously covered in InfoBytes, in April 2015, a joint enforcement action alleging participation in a mortgage-kickback scheme in violation of RESPA and state law was bought against the defendant, five other individuals, and a Maryland title company. According to the 2018 sanctions order, a stipulated final judgment and order between the parties was approved in November 2015, which, among other things, limited the defendant—who neither admitted nor denied the allegations—from participating in the mortgage industry for two years but did not prohibit him “from acting solely as a personnel or human-resources manager for a mortgage business operated by a FDIC insured banking institution. . . .”
However, in August 2017, the court held the defendant in civil contempt for failing to comply with the order when it was discovered that the defendant (i) owned and operated mortgage businesses in violation of the order, while claiming to be employed as a human resources professional at one of the businesses; (ii) operated bank branches in Maryland and California; (iii) failed to upload the final judgment and order into the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR); and (iv) failed to comply with stipulated reporting requirements. The plaintiffs’ proposed sanctions sought to disgorge all of the defendant’s income from 2015 until the date of compliance and impose a lifetime ban from the industry. In issuing the sanctions, the court ordered that all contemptuous income since the final judgment should be disgorged and extended the original two-year ban another two years—minus the exemption for employment as an HR professional. The defendant is further required to post the sanctions order on the NMLSR within 60 days.
Court enters default judgment in favor of CFPB against debt relief companies
On May 22, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a default judgment, in favor of the CFPB, against two debt relief companies, their service provider, and their owners (defendants) for allegedly misleading consumers about their debt validation program. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in October 2017 against the defendants for allegedly violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by, among other things, purportedly claiming to be affiliated with the federal government and misrepresenting the abilities of their services. In granting the CFPB’s request for default judgment, the court held that the defendants failed to defend the action and ordered they pay almost $5 million in restitution, as well as $16 million in civil money penalties. In addition to the fines, the defendants are prohibited from engaging in telemarketing, debt relief and credit repair activities in the future.