InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB says it is on track to meet data collection deadlines
On August 24, the CFPB filed another status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. Details on the Bureau’s first status update can be found here.
Among other things, the Bureau noted in the status report that (i) on July 22, it released a “survey of lenders to obtain estimates of the onetime costs that lenders would incur to prepare to collect data required by Section 1071”; and (ii) on August 11, it provided the SBA and the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a draft Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) outline regarding proposals under consideration and alternatives considered. The status report emphasizes that the Bureau is “on track” to release a SBREFA outline by September 15 and convene a SBREFA panel by October 15, as required by the settlement.
CFPB requests input on ways to prevent credit discrimination
On July 28, the CFPB issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on ways to create a regulatory environment that expands credit access and ensures consumers and communities are protected from discrimination with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction. The RFI seeks comments to “identify opportunities to prevent credit discrimination, encourage responsible innovation, promote fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, address potential regulatory uncertainty, and develop viable solutions to regulatory compliance challenges under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B.” The RFI is in lieu of a symposium previously planned for this fall on topics related to ECOA. Information received will assist the Bureau in exploring ways to address regulatory compliance challenges, prevent unlawful discrimination, and foster innovation. Among other things, the Bureau seeks comments on ways to provide clarity under ECOA and/or Regulation B related to: (i) disparate impact analysis; (ii) meeting the credit needs of borrowers with limited English proficiency; (iii) special purpose credit programs; (iv) affirmative advertising to disadvantaged groups; (v) small business lending, particularly minority and women-owned firms; (vi) the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of a sexual orientation or gender identity; (vii) the scope of federal preemption of state law; (viii) situations in which “creditors seek to ascertain the continuance of public assistance benefits in underwriting decisions”; (ix) credit underwriting decisions based in part on models using artificial intelligence or machine learning; and (viii) adverse action notices. Comments on the RFI are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The same day, Director Kathy Kraninger published a blog post outlining Bureau priorities for ensuring a more inclusive financial system. In addition to the RFI, Kraninger discussed (i) the usefulness of the consumer complaint system in identifying cases of discrimination and fair lending violations; (ii) examinations and enforcement actions; (iii) the Bureau’s request for legislative authority to compensate whistleblowers; and (iv) education efforts focusing on consumers’ rights in the financial marketplace, including those related to disparities in student loan outcomes.
DOJ, national bank settle Fair Housing Act discrimination claims
On July 23, the DOJ and U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York filed a complaint and proposed settlement agreement with a national bank to settle charges that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against people with disabilities in violation of the Fair Housing Act. According to the complaint, policies put in place by the bank beginning in January 2010 allegedly denied mortgage and home equity loans to adults with disabilities living under guardianships or conservatorships. The complaint further claims that the bank, in certain circumstances, denied mortgage loans to applicants who “made explicit requests” for the bank to “reconsider its denial” and accept court orders specifically permitting the guardian or conservator to act on behalf of the disabled individual. These policies were changed in 2016 for mortgage loans and in 2017 for home equity loans, the DOJ noted. The bank, however, denied the allegations, asserting that it did not, and does not, unlawfully discriminate on any prohibited basis, and that during the time period in question, it made “mortgage loans to persons with handicaps and disabilities without restrictions, including some adult applicants who had legal guardians or conservatorships.” Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the bank has agreed to pay $4,000 to each affected loan applicant, with a total expected payout of approximately $300,000. The bank is also required to (i) maintain the revised loan underwriting policies; (ii) train employees on the new policies; and (iii) monitor loan processing and underwriting activities to ensure Fair Housing Act compliance.
HUD unveils new rule to replace 2015 AFFH rule
On July 23, HUD announced plans to ultimately terminate the 2015 version of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, while proposing a new final rule titled “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice.” The new final rule includes a detailed history of the expansion of the AFFH concept and details concerns with the 2015 rule. According to HUD, the AFFH rule is, among other things, overly burdensome, costly, and ineffective. However, several senators argued against HUD’s originally proposed replacement (covered by InfoBytes here), contending that the proposed rule would reverse efforts to make access to housing fair and equitable and “relies on the faulty premise that simply increasing housing supply can address the problems of housing discrimination and segregation.” HUD stated that after reviewing comments on the proposed changes, the agency ultimately determined them to be “unworkable and ultimately a waste of time for localities to comply with,” and noted that it had instead established programs to bring capital into underserved communities where affordable housing is present but opportunities are not. The new final rule broadly defines “fair housing” to be “housing that, among other attributes, is affordable, safe, decent, free of unlawful discrimination, and accessible under civil rights laws,” and defines “affirmatively furthering fair housing” as “any action rationally related to promoting” any of the attributes of fair housing. Specifically, a grantee’s certification that it has affirmatively furthered fair housing would be deemed sufficient provided it proposed taking action to further fair housing policy during the relevant period. The new final rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Senators question OCC on fair lending
On July 20, a group of eighteen senators wrote to the acting Comptroller of the OCC, Brian Brooks, regarding reports that senior officials at the agency “have undermined OCC examiners’ efforts to investigate and pursue violations of civil rights laws,” including the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and ECOA. The letter cites to reports of at least three instances where examiners allegedly found discriminatory lending patterns present, yet OCC leadership failed to pursue action against the institutions.
The senators argue that failing to pursue fair lending violations “not only harms borrowers and their communities, but also undermines meaningful bank evaluations under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).” The senators list a series of questions regarding the OCC’s supervision of the FHA and ECOA since 2017, including information covering the number of fair lending citations that the OCC has issued, as well the number of fair lending referrals the OCC has made to the DOJ. The letter sets a response deadline of July 31.
Special Alert: CFPB takes first-ever agency redlining action against nonbank lender
On July 15, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a complaint against a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company alleging fair lending violations predicated, in part, on statements made by the company’s owner and other employees during radio shows and podcasts from 2014 through 2017. The complaint, filed in federal court in Illinois, marks the first instance in which a federal regulator has taken a public enforcement action against a nondepository institution based on allegations of redlining.
According to the CFPB, the mortgage company violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by engaging in discriminatory marketing and applicant outreach practices that allegedly:
DOJ settles with Maryland car dealership for ECOA violations
On July 2, the DOJ announced a settlement with a Maryland used car dealership and its owner and manager (collectively, “defendants”) resolving allegations that the defendants violated ECOA by offering terms of credit based on race to consumers seeking to purchase and finance used cars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the DOJ announced it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that between September 2017 and April 2018, compliance testing done by the DOJ concluded that the defendants’ “actions, policies, and practices discriminate against applicants on the basis of race with respect to credit transactions. . .by offering more favorable terms to white testers than to African American testers with similar credit characteristics.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that African American testers were, among other things, (i) told they needed higher down payment amounts than white testers for the same car; (ii) quoted higher bi-weekly payments for “buy here, pay here” financing than white testers for the same car; and (iii) not offered to fund down payments in two installments, as compared to white testers.
The consent order, which is subject to court approval and does not assess a monetary penalty, requires the dealership to, among other things, (i) develop written policies designed to prevent discrimination and ensure compliance with ECOA, including standardizing procedures for all credit applicants to reduce individual discretion in determining terms and conditions of credit; (ii) post and display a non-discrimination notice; (iii) attend ECOA training; and (iv) engage in on-going compliance monitoring and recordkeeping and reporting requirements with the DOJ.
Lawmakers urge HUD and FHFA to amend forbearance policies that reduce access to mortgage credit
On June 25, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development and Insurance, Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Congressman Juan Vargas (D-CA) sent a letter to HUD and FHFA calling for amendments to policies which penalize loans that go into forbearance prior to being insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or purchased by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (GSEs). According to the lawmakers, policies put into place prior to the Covid-19 pandemic by HUD and FHFA prohibited loans in forbearance from FHA endorsement or from being purchased by the GSEs. While the agencies amended the policies to allow for FHA insurance and GSE purchases due to the current economic crisis (covered by InfoBytes here and here), the lawmakers claim that lenders are required to pay “significant fees” and “increased costs” for these loans, which results in lenders (i) retaining mortgages that they had no intention, or may not have the capacity to maintain; (ii) paying a steep penalty to the GSEs; or (iii) agreeing to retain additional risk in the case of FHA. As a result, lenders have started limiting loans and access to credit or requiring “credit overlays” that are “disproportionately affecting borrowers of color and other underserved borrowers.” The lawmakers also assert that if a lender retains a loan to avoid a penalty, the loan does not become federally-backed and is consequently ineligible for protections afforded by the CARES Act and other federal regulations. The lawmakers ask that the agencies amend their policies to instead “spread the costs associated with those risks across a broader single-family portfolio,” which will lead to “near-negligible costs” on individual loans and “appropriately balance the need to manage risks to the taxpayer while serving [the] agencies’ missions of promoting access to credit.”
HUD works with online search platform to improve FHA compliance
On June 11, HUD announced that it worked with an online search platform to better align the platform’s advertising policies with the requirements of the Fair Housing Act (Act)—specifically, the Act’s prohibition on discriminatory advertising in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of housing, with HUD noting that the prohibition “includes restricting who sees housing-related ads on these bases.” HUD states that the online search platform adopted a policy that prohibits “advertisers from engaging in certain discriminatory practices when placing housing-related ads using [the platform]’s advertising services” and has indicated that it will continue to work with HUD to uphold the principles of the Act in the online and targeted advertising space. The announcement notes that HUD will continue to review online advertising platforms to ensure compliance with the Act.
CFPB status report provides Section 1071 implementation updates
On May 26, the CFPB filed its first status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. Under the settlement’s terms, the Bureau agreed to outline a proposal for collecting data and studying discrimination in small-business lending by September 15, and to create a Small Business Advocacy Review panel by October 15 in order to prepare a report on the proposal. The Bureau is also required to submit status reports, which must detail the Bureau’s progress and address whether it is on track to meet all relevant deadlines to the plaintiffs and the court every 90 days until the final rule is issued.
Updates on the following items are provided within the first status report: (i) the Bureau is continuing to work to resolve legal and policy issues in order to implement Section 1071; (ii) Bureau staff have begun drafting sections of the outline and started preliminary internal work to select small entity representatives who will consult with the panel; (iii) a survey seeking information from lenders on one-time costs for preparing and collecting data required by Section 1071 (covered by InfoBytes here) was postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but the Bureau believes it can conduct the process without these results if necessary; (iv) the Bureau believes it is on track to meet the September and October deadlines, but notes that the Covid-19 pandemic may “introduce uncertainty with respect to the Bureau’s future ability to meet these deadlines,” and may also impact the Bureau’s ability to recruit small entity representatives to participate in the process; and (iv) the Bureau will notify the plaintiffs should it believe that a deadline extension is needed.