InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
D.C. Circuit Grants PHH Request to Respond to Solicitor General's Brief
Over the objections of the CFPB, the D.C. Circuit today granted the request of PHH Corp. to file a supplemental brief responding to arguments in support of en banc review that were raised for the first time in a brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General on the December 22, 2016. PHH’s supplemental brief is due on or before January 27, 2017. For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB’s petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
Two GOP Senators Urge Incoming Administration to Remove Director Cordray
On January 9, two GOP lawmakers sent a letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence urging the incoming administration to remove CFPB Director Richard Cordray “promptly after [President Trump’s] inauguration.” Stating that “[i]t’s time to fire King Richard,” Sen. Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Mike Lee cited the D.C. Circuit’s October 2016 decision in CFPB v. PHH to argue that, once in office, President Trump has the constitutional authority to remove Director Cordray immediately. In pushing for Director Cordray’s ouster, the Senators noted, among other things, the CFPB’s decision to move ahead in the lame-duck session with regulations of arbitration clauses and payday loans, which they consider costly and “radically opposed to the Trump administration’s pro-growth agenda.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, a majority of a panel of U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia concluded in October 2016 that the CFPB’s governance structure was unconstitutional, and, as a corrective measure, authorized the President to fire the Bureau’s sole Director at will—a ruling for which the Bureau now seeks rehearing en banc. In addressing this pending appeal, the Senators’ January 9 letter suggests in a footnote that, if the rehearing moves forward, the Justice Department should refrain from defending the CFPB.
PHH v CFPB Update: PHH and U.S. Solicitor General Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review
On December 22, PHH filed its brief opposing the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. PHH argued that the case is not worthy of review by the full D.C. Circuit because, although the majority of the panel determined that the CFPB’s structure violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, that “conclusion, which horrifies the CFPB, simply means that an agency of the Executive Branch will be answerable to the Chief Executive.” With respect to the panel’s unanimous decision that the CFPB incorrectly interpreted RESPA, PHH argued that en banc review is inappropriate because, among other reasons, the D.C. Circuit could not side with the CFPB without “creat[ing] a circuit split with every other court to have considered the proper scope of RESPA.”
At the invitation of the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Solicitor General also filed its brief later the same day. While the Solicitor General supported the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the constitutional question, it also suggested that, consistent with Judge Henderson’s dissent from the panel opinion, the full D.C. Circuit could simply vacate the CFPB’s order against PHH on the grounds that the Bureau misinterpreted RESPA. Doing so, the Solicitor General notes, would be consistent with the “well-established principle … that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” This ruling would vacate the panel majority’s conclusion that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional, although the Solicitor General noted that PHH could renew its constitutional challenge if the CFPB continues to pursue the case on remand.
With respect to the separation of powers question itself, the Solicitor General argued that en banc review is warranted because the majority departed from the analysis used by the Supreme Court to decide such questions. Specifically, the Solicitor General suggests that the panel majority erred by concluding “that an agency with a single head poses a greater threat to individual liberty than an agency headed by a multi-member body that exercises the same powers,” noting that the President’s authority over the multi-member FTC was similarly limited and the FTC enjoyed similar powers at the time the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.
Finally, after the filing of the Solicitor General’s brief, PHH requested permission to file an additional brief on the grounds that the Solicitor General had raised arguments not presented in the CFPB’s petition.
For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB's petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
PHH Response Due Date Pushed Back as Solicitor General Permitted to Respond to CFPB's Petition in PHH Corp. v. CFPB by December 22
As discussed previously, the D.C. Circuit ordered PHH to respond to the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. In an Unopposed Motion for Leave to file the United States' Response, filed December 1, the Office of the Solicitor General sought permission to file its own responsive briefing on or before December 22. In an Order issued December 1, the D.C. Circuit granted the Solicitor General’s request, but also moved back the due date for PHH’s responsive papers so that both responses are now due on December 22.
Earlier in the week, on November 30, two groups filed amicus briefs in support of the CFPB’s petition together along with motions requesting an invitation from the court. The first brief was submitted by a group of leading consumer protection organizations, while the second brief was filed by a group of 21 current and former members of Congress.
Full D.C. Circuit Orders PHH to Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review, Invites U.S. Solicitor General to Provide Views
On November 23, the full D.C. Circuit ordered PHH to respond to the CFPB's petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The CFPB’s November 18 petition challenged, among other things, the conclusion by the majority of the panel that the CFPB's structure was unconstitutional and that, to remedy this defect, the Director must be removable at will by the President. PHH’s response, which is due by December 8, would not have been permitted without the court’s order. Similarly, the CFPB is not permitted to file a reply unless ordered by the court. Importantly, the en banc court also “invited” the U.S. Solicitor General “to file a response to the petition” to “express[] the views of the United States.” Although there is no deadline for this response, the invitation allows the Solicitor General to respond before the change in administration, which may be significant because the Dodd-Frank Act does not allow the CFPB to petition the Supreme Court for review without the approval of the Attorney General (12 USC § 5564(e)).
For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision and the CFPB's petition for rehearing.
CFPB Requests Rehearing of Decision Threatening Agency's Structure
Earlier today, the CFPB filed its much-anticipated response in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, requesting reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit. As discussed in our special alert, on October 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In addition, a majority of the panel held that, to resolve a constitutional defect in the CFPB’s structure, the Director was removable by the President at will, meaning that President Trump could remove Director Cordray upon taking office. However, the panel’s decision is stayed until seven days after the court rules on the CFPB’s request.
Rather than proceeding directly to the Supreme Court, the CFPB proceeded as expected by requesting rehearing en banc by the full D.C. Circuit, which is generally disfavored and granted only for matters of “exceptional importance.” Perhaps most significantly, the Bureau’s petition does not request rehearing of the panel’s conclusion that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to administrative as well as judicial actions brought under that statute.
The CFPB’s petition argues that the panel’s constitutional ruling on the CFPB’s structure should be reheard because it “sets up what may be the most important separation-of-powers case in a generation.” Specifically, the Bureau argues that the panel’s determination that a multi-member commission is an essential component of an independent agency runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent and “unduly limits Congress’s flexibility to respond to the various crises of human affairs … by creating independent administrative agencies headed by a single director.” The Bureau further states that the panel’s reasoning “may affect not only the Bureau but also other agencies headed by a single director removable only for cause,” such as the Social Security Administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Office of Special Counsel.
The Bureau also asks the D.C. Circuit to rehear the panel’s determination that RESPA permits lenders and mortgage insurers to enter into tying arrangements under which the lender refers mortgage insurance businesses to the insurer in exchange for the insurer purchasing reinsurance from the lender’s affiliate. In support of this request, the Bureau argues that “the panel’s decision misinterpreted [RESPA] in a manner that so fundamentally defeats the statutory purpose [of prohibiting kickbacks] as to warrant rehearing en banc.” Specifically, the Bureau states that “[t]he panel’s reading of the statute would permit any mortgage lender to condition referrals on the purchase of goods or services in any related or unrelated business line. Such schemes flout the core purposes of RESPA.”
Under the D.C. Circuit’s rules, PHH is not permitted to file a response to the CFPB’s petition unless ordered by the court to do so. However, the court will not modify the panel’s opinion without allowing PHH to respond to the petition. There is no deadline for action by the court.
Special Alert: D.C. Circuit Panel Rejects CFPB's RESPA Interpretation and Alters its Structure in PHH Corp. v. CFPB
On October 11, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion vacating a $109 million penalty imposed on PHH Corporation under the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), concluding that the CFPB misinterpreted the statute and violated due process by reversing the interpretation of the prior regulator and applying its own interpretation retroactively. Furthermore, the panel rejected the CFPB’s contention that no statute of limitations applied to its administrative actions and concluded that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to any actions brought under RESPA.
In addition, a majority of the panel held that the CFPB’s status as an independent agency headed by a single Director violates the separation of powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. However, rather than shutting down the CFPB and voiding all of its regulations and prior actions, the majority chose to remedy the defect by making the CFPB’s Director subject to removal at will by the President. In effect, this makes the CFPB an executive agency (like the Department of the Treasury) rather than, as envisioned by the Dodd-Frank Act, an independent agency (like the Federal Trade Commission). (One member of the panel, Judge Henderson, dissented from this portion of the opinion on the grounds that it was not necessary to reach the constitutional issue because the panel was already reversing the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA.)
The panel remanded the case to the CFPB to determine whether, within the three-year statute of limitations, the payments to PHH’s affiliate exceeded the fair market value of the services provided in violation of RESPA. The CFPB is expected to petition for en banc reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit or to seek direct review by the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, final resolution of this matter may be delayed by a year or more.
Click here to read the full Special Alert.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Jon David D. Langlois, (202) 349-8045
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Sasha Leonhardt, (202) 349-7971
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917
- Steven vonBerg, (202) 524-7893
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Regarding CFPB's Interpretation of RESPA
On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held oral arguments in the case PHH Corporation v. CFPB. The primary issue in the case is whether the CFPB is constitutionally and statutorily authorized to assess a $109 million penalty against the petitioner, a nonbank mortgage lender (Lender), for allegedly violating Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by referring customers to certain mortgage insurance companies that purchased mortgage reinsurance at fair market value from an affiliate of the Lender. According to CFPB Director Richard Cordray, this practice was a violation of Section 8’s prohibition on kickbacks for referrals, because the mortgage insurers allegedly only purchased mortgage reinsurance in order to receive customer referrals from the Lender.
In appealing the CFPB’s action, counsel for the Lender argued that the CFPB is attempting to effectively rewrite Section 8 to prohibit activities expressly permitted by the statute’s implementing regulation, Regulation X, as well as prior agency guidance and the plain language of the statute itself. According to the Lender, its mortgage reinsurance practices had long been understood to be legal, were widespread throughout the country, and aligned with existing HUD guidance. The Lender further argued that Section 8(c)(2) permits entities to refer business so long as the referrals are not compensated, and any payments are equal to the market value cost of services actually provided. In the Lender’s case, counsel argued that the mortgage reinsurance premiums could not have been compensation for referrals, because mortgage reinsurance premiums received by the Lender’s affiliate were equal to the fair market value of mortgage reinsurance services actually rendered. The Lender further argued that the CFPB improperly ignored RESPA’s statutorily-prescribed statute of limitations (SOL) of three years when, under Section 15, RESPA clearly applies the SOL to “any action” – which, in the Lender’s view, would include an administrative action. Finally, the Lender argued that the CFPB’s structure and funding under the Dodd-Frank Act was unconstitutional in that it violated the requirement for separation of powers by, among other things, (i) restricting the President’s removal power to “for cause” removal; (ii) concentrating power in one individual; and (iii) funding the CFPB outside of the Congressional appropriations process.
Counsel for the CFPB responded that, during the period in question, mortgage insurance companies only purchased reinsurance from affiliates of lenders who referred them business. According to the CFPB, this type of quid pro quo arrangement is a violation of Section 8 even if the reinsurance premiums were equal to the fair market value of a service rendered. Counsel for the CFPB said that, notwithstanding the fact that the Lender’s conduct was common throughout the financial services industry, it had never expressly been blessed by prior agency guidance, and resulted in the type of market distortion that RESPA was designed to prevent. The CFPB also defended its position that its administrative actions are not subject to an SOL by noting that the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which authorizes the CFPB to take enforcement actions against regulated entities, does not include an SOL for such actions. In response to the challenge to the constitutionality of its structure, the CFPB pointed to the diversity of agency structures throughout the executive branch, including single-headed agencies and agencies that do not rely on Congress for appropriations funding.
The panel consisted of Judges Kavanaugh, Randolph, and Henderson; Judge Henderson was not present.
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4