Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On May 11, the U.S. Senate passed S.J. Res. 15 by a vote of 52 - 47 to invoke the Congressional Review Act and provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the OCC’s “True Lender Rule.” Issued last year, the final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In applauding the passage of the resolution, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who introduced S.J. Res. 15, stated that “strik[ing] down the ‘Rent-A-Bank’ rule will help prevent predatory lenders from ripping off consumers by charging loan-shark rates under deceptive terms.” He noted that the legislation has support from a broad array of stakeholder and consumer protection groups, including a bipartisan group of state attorneys generals and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, as previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) countered, however, that “[w]ithout the rule, the secondary market for these loans would be disrupted, which, again, disproportionately harms lower-income borrowers.” He further added that “[v]oting in favor of the CRA is a direct assault on fintech. It will make it harder for Congress to legislate here. It will make it harder for regulators to issue guidance and rules that promote fintech. Courts will see it as Congress buying into the notion that fintechs are ‘predatory’ lending. And it will scare away state legislatures from promoting fintech.”
S.J. Res. 15 now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.
On June 29, the U.S. House of Representatives approved resolution H.J. 90, along party lines, which would reverse the OCC’s final rule (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Gregory Meeks (D-NY) introduced the resolution, with Waters criticizing the OCC’s decision to move forward with the rule “despite the Federal Reserve and the FDIC—the other regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing CRA—declining to join in the rulemaking.” While the resolution is unlikely to pass the Senate, the White House released a Statement of Administration Policy, which opposes the resolution and states that the President’s advisors will recommend he veto the action.
On June 11, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, Gregory Meeks (D-NY), introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to reverse the OCC’s final rule to modernize the regulatory framework implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The OCC’s final rule (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), while technically effective October 1, provides for at least a 27-month transition period for compliance based on a bank’s size and business model. However, Waters criticized the OCC’s decision to move forward with the rule “despite the Federal Reserve and the FDIC—the other regulatory agencies responsible for enforcing CRA—declining to join in the rulemaking.” Waters argued that the final rule “will result in disinvestment in many low- and moderate-income communities,” with Meeks stating that the OCC’s decision to “put forward a rushed, incomplete rule. . .will harm the very communities the CRA is meant to support.”
On April 11, acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Russel Vought, sent a memorandum to the heads of all executive agencies announcing that on May 11, agencies will be required to submit all regulatory guidance materials to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to publication. The memo asserts that the Congressional Review Act (CRA) “applies to more than just notice-and-comment rules; it also encompasses a wide range of other regulatory actions, including, inter alia, guidance documents, general statements of policy and interpretive rules” and therefore, agencies should not publish a regulatory action in the Federal Register without first submitting the document to OIRA to determine whether it is considered a “major rule” under the CRA. The CRA defines a “major rule” as one having (i) an annual effect on the economy of at least $100 million; (ii) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or federal and state governments; or (iii) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, and U.S.-based enterprises. Should OIRA consider the regulatory action to be a “major rule,” the rule will be submitted to Congress with OIRA’s report and will not become effective sooner than 60 days after its submission. The memo instructs agencies to provide OIRA a quantitative analysis, which includes costs, benefits, and transfer impacts relative to a baseline, “when reasonably possible.” Additionally, the agency’s analysis should include whether the regulatory action would impose a disproportionate cost on a particular group or place a significant burden on the economy.
Trump signs legislation repealing CFPB auto guidance, Mulvaney praises action; CFPB to reexamine ECOA requirements
On May 21, President Trump signed resolution S.J. Res. 57, which repeals CFPB Bulletin 2013-02 on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The president’s signature completes the disapproval process under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which began after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a letter in December 2017 to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) stating that “the Bulletin is a general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA. The Senate passed the disapproval measure in April and the House approved it in the beginning of May. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.)
The repeal responds to concerns that the bulletin improperly attempted to regulate auto dealers, which the Dodd-Frank Act excluded from the Bureau’s authority. In a statement after the president’s signing, CFPB acting Director Mick Mulvaney praised the action and thanked the president and Congress for “reaffirming that the Bureau lacks the power to act outside of federal statutes.” He also stated that the repeal “clarifies that a number of Bureau guidance documents may be considered rules for purposes of the CRA, and therefore the Bureau must submit them for review by Congress. The Bureau welcomes such review, and will confer with Congressional staff and federal agency partners to identify appropriate documents for submission.”
Additionally, acting Director Mulvaney announced plans to reexamine the requirements of ECOA, “[g]iven a recent Supreme Court decision distinguishing between antidiscrimination statutes that refer to the consequences of actions and those that refer only to the intent of the actor.” Although the decision is not identified, it is likely the June 2015 Supreme Court decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., which concluded that disparate impact claims are permitted under the Fair Housing Act but acknowledged some limitations on its application. (Covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert.)
On May 8, the House voted to repeal, under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), CFPB Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Senate approved the resolution on April 18 and the White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy supporting the Senate resolution; it is expected that President Trump will sign the measure soon.
If the measure is successful, this would be the first time that Congress has used the CRA to repeal a regulatory issuance outside the statute’s general 60-day period. In December 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a letter to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) stating that “the Bulletin is a general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA, which allowed for the Senate to introduce the resolution measure years after the CFPB released the Bulletin.
On April 18, the Senate voted to strike down, under the Congressional Review Act, the CFPB’s Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The vote follows a December 2017 letter issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa) stating that the Bulletin is a “general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, GAO reasoned that the CRA’s definition of a “rule” includes both traditional rules, which typically require notice to the public and an opportunity to comment, and general statements of policy, which do not. GAO concluded that the Bulletin meets this definition “since it applies to all indirect auto lenders; it has future effect; and it is designed to prescribe the Bureau’s policy in enforcing fair lending laws.” The measure has been sent to the House and is expected to be voted on soon. On April 17, the White House issued a Statement of Administrative Policy which supported the Senate resolution nullifying the guidance, stating that if the resolution were to be presented to the president, his advisors would recommend he sign it. If the measure is successful, this would be the first time that Congress has used the CRA to repeal a regulatory issuance outside the statute’s general 60-day period.
On March 22, Senator Moran, R-Kan, with 15 GOP co-sponsors introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to block the CFPB’s Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The resolution follows a December 2017 letter issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) stating that the Bulletin is a “general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
On the same day, Senator Graham, R-SC, introduced a resolution to overturn the CFPB’s final rule addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other extensions of credit. A similar resolution was introduced in the House in December 2017 by a group of bipartisan lawmakers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, while acting Director Mick Mulvaney has suggested he would not seek his own repeal of the Bureau’s rule but may “reconsider” it, he has expressed his support for the Congressional measures to block the rule. Additionally, according to media reports, the CFPB has recently dropped a case against an online payday loan company and Mulvaney is currently reviewing whether to continue three other investigations into lenders of similar products.
State AGs file protective petition to stop rollback of net neutrality rules; Senate Democrats announce plans to reverse FCC rule
On January 16, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general filed a protective petition for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the United States to block the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order released last December to rollback the 2015 Open Internet Order rules (known as “Net Neutrality” rules). As previously covered in InfoBytes, the rollback removes the restrictions barring providers from slowing down or speeding up web traffic based on business relationships, and places the enforcement authority of the new regulatory framework with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In the petition, the states allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, and claim that the FCC's actions with respect to Net Neutrality were “arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.” According to a press release issued by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman:
The FCC’s new rule fails to justify the Commission’s departure from its long-standing policy and practice of defending net neutrality, while misinterpreting and disregarding critical record evidence on industry practices and harm to consumers and businesses. . . Moreover, the rule wrongly reclassifies broadband internet as a Title I information service, rather than a Title II telecommunications service, based on an erroneous and unreasonable interpretation of the Telecommunications Act. Finally, the rule improperly and unlawfully includes sweeping preemption of state and local laws.
Separately that same day, Senate Democrats announced plans to formally introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to reverse the FCC’s vote and restore the Net Neutrality rules. Once the rule is submitted to both houses of Congress, the resolution will be formally introduced, published in the Federal Register, and voted upon within 60 legislative days.
On January 10, Judge Timothy Kelley denied CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English’s request for a preliminary injunction to prevent OMB Director Mick Mulvaney from serving as the acting director of the CFPB. In his opinion, Judge Kelley emphasized that English failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because, among other reasons, “[t]he best reading of the two statutes [at issue] is that Dodd-Frank requires that the Deputy Director ‘shall’ serve as acting Director, but that under the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act] the President ‘may’ override that default rule.” Additionally, in finding that English failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, Judge Kelley stated that “[t]he CFPB is not and will not be shuttered; it continues to operate with Mulvaney functioning as acting director” with “the backing of the CFPB’s General Counsel and senior management.” He concluded his opinion by stating:
There is little question that there is a public interest in clarity here, but it is hard to see how granting English an injunction would bring about more of it…. The President has designated Mulvaney the CFPB’s acting Director, the CFPB has recognized him as the acting Director, and it is operating with him as the acting Director. Granting English an injunction would not bring about more clarity; it would only serve to muddy the waters.
The decision follows a hearing on December 22, 2017, where Judge Kelley heard arguments from both parties, as previously covered by InfoBytes. While English’s requests have now been denied twice, as expected, she has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which is also currently considering the challenge to the CFPB’s constitutionality by PHH Corporation.
In addition to the English litigation, Mulvaney and President Trump face similar arguments in a complaint brought by a credit union in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, as previously covered by InfoBytes here. On December 22, 2017, the defendants responded to the complaint with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the credit union does not have standing to sue, will not succeed on the merits, and will not suffer irreparable harm from the appointment. In its reply, the credit union added an additional argument that the CFPB’s decision to slow HMDA enforcement will remove the compliance incentive and HMDA data “will cease being reliable” to show compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The credit union asserts that banks deposit at their institution to meet CRA objectives but may cease to do so without an incentive to comply with HMDA. A hearing is scheduled for January 12.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a statement that supervisory examinations of 2018 HMDA data will be “diagnostic” to help “identify compliance weaknesses, and will credit good-faith compliance efforts” and that it does not intend to impose penalties with respect to errors reported in the 2018 data.
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “How the new administration sets the tone for 2021” at the American Conference Institute Legal, Regulatory and Compliance Forum on Fintech & Emerging Payment Systems
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk to discuss UDAAP in consumer finance at an American Bar Association webinar
- Jeffrey P. Naimon to discuss "What to expect: The new administration and regulatory changes" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “The future of fair lending” at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Steven R. vonBerg to discuss "LO comp challenges" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Major litigation" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss “The False Claims Act today” at the Federal Bar Association Qui Tam Section Roundtable