InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Georgia Carves Overdraft, Other Fees Out Of Usury Limit Applicable To State Banks
On April 15, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 824, which amends state law to clarify that certain banking fees are not “interest” subject to the state’s usury cap applicable to state-chartered institutions. Specifically, the bill carves out from the definition of “interest” the following: overdraft and nonsufficient funds, delinquency or default charges, returned payment charges, stop payment charges, or automated teller machine charges, and any other charge agreed upon in a written agreement governing a deposit, share, or other account. The legislation was crafted to codify and expand a declaratory order issued by the state banking commissioner following a March 2013 Georgia Court of Appeals holding that Georgia law in some situations could allow overdraft fees to be considered interest. Plaintiffs in the case had sued a state bank claiming that its overdraft fees amounted to an interest rate that far exceeded the state’s usury cap. The changes made by HB 824 took effect immediately.
EDNY Judge Substantially Narrows Claims In Consolidated Overdraft Class Actions
On March 5, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that the named plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims in a multidistrict class action alleging illegal overdraft practices by a national bank. In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee Litigation, No. 13-md-2451, 2014 WL 868827 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2014). The three consolidated actions are similar to numerous actions filed against national banks across the country in which bank customers have alleged, generally, that banks manipulated debit card transactions to increase the number of overdraft fees charged to customers by re-ordering daily transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, resulting in a higher number of individual overdraft transactions. On the bank’s motion to dismiss in this case, the court held that the named plaintiffs never lived or conducted business in 10 of the 12 states where the allegations arose and therefore lacked standing under the applicable state statutes giving rise to the claims. The court added that if the plaintiffs sought to add representatives from the other states, it would be difficult for the court to adjudicate the claims given the discrepancies between state laws. The court dismissed numerous claims under the laws of the two remaining states (California and New York), but allowed the plaintiffs breach of implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing claims under both New York and California law, and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law, to proceed.
CFPB Director Defends Mortgage Rules, Discusses Plans In Other Markets
On January 28, the House Financial Services Committee held a lengthy hearing with CFPB Director Richard Cordray in connection with the CFPB’s November 2013 Semi-Annual Report to Congress, which covers the period April 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013. The hearing came a day after the Committee launched a CFPB-like “Tell Your Story” feature through which it is seeking information from consumers and business owners about how the CFPB has impacted them or their customers. The Committee has provided an online submission form and also will take stories by telephone. Mr. Cordray’s prepared statement provided a general recap of the CFPB’s recent activities and focused on the mortgage rules and their implementation. It also specifically highlighted the CFPB’s concerns with the student loan servicing market.
The question and answer session centered on the implementation and impact of the CFPB’s mortgage rules, as well as the CFPB’s activities with regard to auto finance, HMDA, credit reporting, student lending, and other topics. Committee members also questioned Mr. Cordray on the CFPB’s collection and use of consumer data, particularly credit card account data, and the costs of the CFPB’s building construction/rehabilitation.
Mortgage Rule Implementation / Impact
Generally, Director Cordray pushed back against charges that the mortgage rules, in particular the ATR/QM rule, are inflexible and will limit credit availability. He urged members to wait for data before judging the impacts, and he suggested that much of the concerns being raised are “unreasoned and irrational,” resulting from smaller institutions that are unaware of the CFPB’s adjustments to the QM rule. He stated that he has personally called many small banks and has learned they are just not aware of the rule’s flexibility. He repeatedly stated that the rules can be amended, and that the CFPB will be closely monitoring market data.
The impact of the mortgage rules on the availability of credit for manufactured homes was a major topic throughout the hearing, On the substance of the issue, which was raised by Reps. Pearce (R-NM), Fincher (R-TN), Clay (D-MO), Sewell (D-AL), and others, Director Cordray explained that in his understanding, the concerns from the manufactured housing industry began with earlier changes in the HOEPA rule that resulted in a retreat from manufacture home lending. He stated that industry overreacted and now lenders are coming back into the market. Mr. Cordray has met personally with many lenders on this issue and will continue to do so while monitoring the market for actual impacts, as opposed to the “doomsday scenarios that are easy to speculate on in a room like this.” Still, he committed to work on this issue with manufacturers and lenders, as well as committee members.
Several committee members, including Reps. Sherman (D-CA), and Huizenga (R-MI) raised the issue of the requirement that title insurance from affiliated companies must be counted in the QM three percent cap. Mr. Cordray repeated that the CFPB believes Congress made a determination to include affiliate title protections in numerous places in the Dodd-Frank Act. That said, the CFPB is looking at the data on the impacts and meeting with stakeholders. Rep. Huizenga was most forceful, stating that while the CFPB has sought to limit the impact of the three percent cap, it is not enough. He raised again his bill, HR 1077, Rep. Meeks’ HR 3211, and ongoing work with Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Manchin (D-WV). He cited a survey conducted by the Real Estate Settlement Providers Council that found the inclusion of title charges causes 60 percent of loans under $60,000 to fail as qualified mortgages, and such loans actually become high-cost HOEPA loans. The survey also found that 45 percent of affiliated loans between $60,000 and $125,000 failed to qualify as qualified mortgages, and that 97 percent of the loans that failed as QMs were under $200,000 simply due to the inclusion of title insurance. Director Cordray did not have time to respond in full, but indicated the CFPB is waiting to see data on the actual impact.
Rep. Capito focused on the QM rule impact on Habitat for Humanity and other 501(c)(3) entities. Director Cordray stated that he spoke with the Habitat CEO prior to the hearing and believes the CFPB can address all of that organization’s concerns through rule amendments. He added that the CFPB already amended the rule to address Habitat’s first set of concerns, and that its latest concerns are new.
HMDA Rule Amendments & Small Business Fair Lending Rule
As she has done several times in the past, Rep. Velazquez (D-NY) raised the status of rulemaking required by Dodd-Frank Act section 1071 regarding small and minority/women-owned business lending. As he has in the past, Director Cordray explained that the CFPB is having difficulty addressing this rule given it is the only area in which the CFPB is required to address business lending. He added that the CFPB has determined that as it moves forward with the rule to amend HMDA data collection, which is underway now, the Bureau will attempt to fold the small business lending element into that process. He stated that the CFPB is working with the Federal Reserve Board on “overhauling that whole [HMDA] database” and “it feels to me that the right spot for this, and we've talked to a number of folks both from industry and consumer side on this, is to make [the small business lending requirements] part of the later stages of that, so it's coming, but not immediate.”
Auto Finance
Rep. Bachus (R-AL) asked Director Cordray to specify appropriate dealer compensation alternatives. Mr. Cordray responded that the CFPB does not know all the mechanisms yet that would be satisfactory. It is “open to auto lenders and others bringing those to [the CFPB’s] attention, but [the CFPB] did say flat fees are one possibility. A flat percentage of the loan might be a possibility. Some combination of that with different durations of the loan, different levels, and potentially other things that [the CFPB has not] thought of but others in the industry may think of and bring to [its] attention. So [the CFPB is] open-minded on that.”
Reps. Scott (D-GA) and Barr (R-KY) also were critical of the CFPB’s auto finance guidance and suggested the CFPB should have met with industry stakeholders in advance or should have conducted a rulemaking. Mr. Scott asserted that auto credit is tighter and more expensive now. Mr. Cordray defended the guidance, as he has in the past, as a restatement of existing law. He does not believe the guidance has impacted or will impact the health of the auto market.
Rep. Beatty (D-OH) raised a recent proposal from the National Association of Auto Dealers on alternative dealer compensation models. Mr. Cordray acknowledged having seen it, and said that as long as all parties agree that the CFPB is respecting its jurisdictional lines in the auto context, the Bureau is willing to sit down with dealers and others to work on a “broader solution.”
Credit Reporting
Rep. Velazquez (D-NY) asked for an update on the CFPB’s efforts to regulate consumer credit reporting agencies. Director Cordray described the CFPB’s efforts to, for the first time, provide federal supervision of the major credit reporting agencies. He stated that those agencies are not used to such supervision and that, in his view, it has been an adjustment for them. The CFPB has had examination teams into each of the three largest credit reporting agencies and is discussing “various issues” with them and areas of concern. He informed the committee that as a result of the CFPB’s efforts the credit reporting agencies, for the first time, are forwarding the documentation that consumers send them about problems and potential errors in their credit reports to the furnishers to be evaluated. The CFPB still is concerned about errors and error resolution.
Prepaid & Overdraft
In response to an inquiry from Rep. Maloney (D-NY), Mr. Cordray stated that the CFPB is continuing to work on the prepaid card proposed rule to address “a hole in the fabric” of consumer protection. He said the rule likely will address disclosures and add new protections. On overdraft, he acknowledged the CFPB is not as far along—the agency is still studying the market.
Payday & Internet Lending
Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO) stated the FDIC and DOJ have admitted to working to shut down online lending. He confirmed that the Oversight Committee is considering investigating DOJ on Operation Choke Point (its payment processor investigations). He asked Director Cordray to support, perhaps with a letter of some sort, legitimate online lending businesses and processors. Mr. Cordray agreed that there is plenty of appropriate online lending, but declined to offer specific help absent further context.
Rep. Murphy (D-FL) later suggested that the CFPB look at the “good regulation and great enforcement” in Florida. Director Cordray responded that the CFPB is looking at “a number of states that have developed different provisions on short-term, small-dollar payday lending” including Florida, Colorado, and Washington.
Rep. Heck (D-WA) inquired as to the status of proposed Military Lending Act regulations. Director Cordray explained that the CFPB has been “actively engaged” on writing new rules with the Department of Defense, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the OCC, Treasury Department, and the FTC. It stated that it has been difficult to get multiple agencies to work together, and asked Congress to “keep our feet to the fire and make it clear that you want to see that quickly.”
Mobile Payments & Emerging Products/Providers
Rep. Ellison (D-MN) asked about the CFPB’s views on emerging financial service providers, citing recent reports about T-Mobile’s efforts. Mr. Cordray stated that the CFPB is watching very closely and trying to keep up with the rapidly changing products and markets. He stated that it will present challenges to the current regulatory structure, particularly when phone companies are involved, and that the CFPB will need to coordinate with other regulators and probably will need legislation from Congress. Rep. Heck asked the CFPB to conduct a front-end in-depth analysis of consumer protection issues across various emerging mobile payments platforms. Mr. Cordray did not commit.
Student Lending
Rep. Peters (D-MI) raised his FAIR Student Credit Act bill, HR 2561. The bill, which is co-sponsored by Reps. Bachus (R-AL), Capito (R-WV), and seven other Republicans and 11 Democrats, would amend FCRA with respect to the responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies. It would provide for the removal of a previously reported default regarding a qualified education loan from a consumer report if the consumer of the loan meets the requirements of a loan rehabilitation program, where the number of consecutive on-time monthly payments are equal to the number of payments specified in a default reduction program under the Higher Education Act of 1965. The bill would limit such rehabilitation benefits to once per loan. Rep. Peters indicated the Committee will consider the legislation, and that he has met with lenders who stated they could start offering rehabilitation immediately after the bill is enacted. Director Cordray stated that without having read the bill, it sounded promising, and that he would ask Rohit Chopra to work with the Congressman.
N.D. Cal. Holds Debit Cards Are "Services" For Purposes Of The CRLA
On October 25, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially denied a bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to dispose of class claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on allegations that the bank reordered debit card transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees collected in connection with such transactions and misled customers regarding this practice in account agreements and monthly checking account statements. Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank, No. 11-06700, 2013 WL 5781608 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013). Departing from the conclusion reached by two other district courts, the court held that the bank’s debit cards constituted a “service” for purposes of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CRLA), which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices so long as the challenged conduct is part of a transaction involving the intended sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer. Two prior district courts had concluded that overdrafts and overdraft fees were not services sold or leased under the CLRA, but the Hawthorne court reached the opposite conclusion relying on the fact that (i) the CLRA is liberally construed and generally applicable to financial institutions and (ii) its determination that classifying debt cards as a service for consumers was consistent with the convenience benefits consumers receive from such cards. The court granted the bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to a number of plaintiffs’ other claims, including violation of the unfair prong of the UCL, breach of the implied covenant good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
CFPB Report Questions Overdraft Practices
On June 11, the CFPB released a white paper with initial findings from its study of bank and credit union overdraft practices. The paper reports that (i) customers who opt-in to overdraft programs pay higher fees and are more likely to have their accounts involuntarily closed, (ii) overdraft practices and costs / closures related to overdraft programs vary widely by institution, and (iii) some policies and practices are not disclosed or are disclosed in a technical manner. The CFPB highlights bank revenue generated by overdraft fees, stating that such fees represent approximately 60 percent of the fee revenue generated by consumer checking accounts, and identifies specific practices the CFPB believes raise questions about whether customers can anticipate or compare the cost of overdrafting, including funds availability and order posting practices. The report is based on a review of institution-level data, and the CFPB plans to review account-level data in order to better understand how differences in bank practices affect customers.
California Federal District Court Reinstates Order in Overdraft Class Action
On May 14, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reinstated a prior order enjoining a national bank from engaging in false or misleading representations relating to certain overdraft practices and requiring the bank to pay approximately $203 million in restitution. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 07-05923, 2013 WL 2048030 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013). After trial the district court enjoined the bank’s practice of ordering withdrawals from “high-to-low” and ordered the restitution for a class of bank customers who alleged that the bank’s ordering practice was designed to maximize the number of customer overdrafts and related fees and, as such, violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). In December 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the trial court’s order, holding that (i) the bank’s ordering practice is a pricing decision the bank can pursue under federal law, (ii) the National Bank Act preempts the unfair business practices prong of the UCL, and (iii) both the imposition of affirmative disclosure requirements and liability based on failure to disclose are preempted. The appeals court preserved the customers’ claim of affirmative misrepresentations under the fraud prong of the UCL. On remand, the district court held that even though, after the Ninth Circuit’s holding, liability cannot be predicated on the posting method, the result is the same because the harm from the bank’s affirmative misrepresentations is the same. The court explained that it is not penalizing the bank for a federally protected practice, but rather because it violated the fraud prong of the UCL by affirmatively misleading customers about the practice. Further, although the Ninth Circuit order prohibits injunctive relief that requires the bank to use a specific system of posting or make specific disclosures, the court enjoined the bank from making or disseminating any false or misleading representations relating to the posting order of debit card purchases, checks, and ACH transactions.
OCC, FDIC Announce Overdraft Enforcement Actions
On April 30, the OCC and the FDIC announced parallel enforcement actions against a national bank and an affiliated state bank to resolve allegations that the institutions violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in their marketing and implementation of overdraft protection programs, checking rewards programs, and stop-payment processes for preauthorized recurring electronic fund transfers. The OCC claims that (i) bank employees failed to disclose technical limitations of the standard overdraft protection practices opt-out, (ii) the bank’s overdraft opt-in notice described fees that the bank did not actually charge, (iii) the bank failed to disclose that it would not transfer funds from a savings account to cover overdrafts in linked checking accounts if the savings account did not have funds to cover the entire overdrawn balance on a given day, even if the available funds would have covered one or more overdrawn items, (iv) the bank failed to disclose technical limitations of its preauthorized recurring electronic fund transfers that prevented it from stopping certain transfers upon customer request, and (v) the bank failed to disclose posting date requirements for its checking reward program. The OCC orders require the bank to pay approximately $2.5 million in restitution and a $5 million civil money penalty. In addition, the bank must (i) appoint an independent compliance committee, (ii) update its compliance risk management systems with appropriate policies and procedures, and (iii) adjust its written compliance risk management policy. The FDIC order requires the state bank to refund customers roughly $1.4 million and pay a $5 million civil penalty.
Ninth Circuit Vacates Restitution Order in Overdraft Ordering Case, Allows State Fraud Claims to Proceed
On December 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a national bank’s practice of posting payments to checking accounts in a particular order is a federally authorized pricing decision, and that federal law preempts the application of state law to dictate a national bank’s order of posting. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 10-16959, 2012 WL 6684748 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2012). In this case, after trial the district court enjoined the bank’s practice of ordering withdrawals from “high-to-low” and ordered the bank to pay $203 million in restitution. The court agreed with customers who had sued the bank on behalf of a class that the bank’s ordering practice was designed to maximize the number of customer overdrafts and related fees and as such violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). On appeal, the court held that the bank’s ordering practice is a pricing decision the bank can pursue under federal law, and that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts the unfair business practices prong of the UCL. The court also held that both the imposition of affirmative disclosure requirements and liability based on failure to disclose are preempted. However, the court held that the NBA does not preempt the customers’ claim of affirmative misrepresentations under the fraudulent prong of the UCL. The court also considered as an issue of first impression the effect of the Supreme Court’s intervening ruling in Concepcion on a judgment on appeal after trial. The court declined to grant arbitration, reasoning that the bank’s post-judgment arbitration request was contrary to its conduct throughout the litigation, and that granting the request would prejudice the plaintiff and frustrate the purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act. The court vacated the district court’s injunction and its $203 million restitution order, and directed the district court to determine appropriate relief on the state fraud claims.
Federal Banking Regulators Issue Supplemental Statement Regarding Borrower and Institution Relief Following Hurricane Sandy
On November 14, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the National Credit Union Administration, and the FDIC supplemented a prior statement on the impact of Hurricane Sandy on customers and the operations of financial institutions. The supplemental guidance identifies activities that could be considered “reasonable and prudent” steps to assist affected customers, including, for example (i) waiving certain fees and penalties, including ATM and overdraft fees, (ii) easing credit limits and terms for new loans, and (iii) offering payment accommodations. The regulators also provide post-storm guidance regarding loan modifications, the Community Reinvestment Act, and customer identification. The guidance largely mirrors guidance issued by the FDIC on November 9, 2012 in Financial Institution Letter FIL-47-2012.
Supreme Court Passes on Appeals of Overdraft Litigation Decisions
On October 9, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petitions for writ of certiorari filed by plaintiffs in two cases challenging the overdraft billing practices of certain banks. Hough v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 12-1139, 2012 WL 3097294 (Oct. 9, 2012); Buffington v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 12-146, 2012 WL 3134482 (Oct. 9, 2012). In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued two separate, but substantively similar, opinions regarding arbitration agreements at issue in the overdraft litigation. Hough v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 11-14317, 2012 WL 686311 (11th Cir. Mar. 5, 2012); Buffington v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., No. 11-14316, 2012 WL 660974 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2012). In both cases, based on the Supreme Court’s holding in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Eleventh Circuit vacated district court rulings that the banks’ arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Georgia law because they contained a class action waiver. After further proceedings on remand yielded a second appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that, under Georgia law, an agreement is not unconscionable because it lacks mutuality of remedy. It also rejected the district court’s holding that the clauses were procedurally unconscionable because the contract did not meet the Georgia standard that an agreement must be so one-sided that “’no sane man not acting under a delusion would make [it] and … no honest man would’ participate in the transaction.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to review the Eleventh Circuit decisions will now require the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the banks.