InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
3rd Circuit holds Pennsylvania’s loan servicing claims can proceed
On July 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may pursue claims against a student loan servicer under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) despite a concurrent action brought against the servicer by the CFPB. The appellate court also held that the Commonwealth’s claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are not preempted by the federal Higher Education Act (HEA). The decision results from a lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth claiming the servicer, among other things, originated risky, high-cost student loans, steered borrowers into forbearance, failed to properly inform borrowers about income-driven repayment options, made misrepresentations related to cosigner release, and misapplied borrower payments. Because the CFPB filed a lawsuit alleging similar claims against the servicer nearly nine months prior to the Commonwealth’s suit, the servicer argued that under the applicable provision of the CFPA, the Commonwealth could not file a concurrent suit. The district court disagreed and denied the servicer’s motion to dismiss.
In addressing whether a concurrent suit is permitted, the appellate court noted, “that the clear statutory language of the [CFPA] permits concurrent state claims, for nothing in the statutory framework suggests otherwise.” With respect to whether the applicable provision of the HEA expressly and impliedly preempts the Commonwealth’s suit, the 3rd Circuit stated that the statute only expressly preempts claims “based on failures to disclose information as required by the statute,” and not claims “based on affirmative misrepresentations.” Thus, because the Commonwealth’s claims were based on alleged affirmative misrepresentations and misconduct, it affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Commonwealth’s case may proceed. The 3rd Circuit highlighted, however, a circuit split over whether the HEA impliedly preempts state-law claims, pointing to the 9th Circuit’s holding that “allowing state law causes of action to proceed would conflict with the purpose of uniformity.” The 3rd Circuit’s decision joins those issued by the 7th and 11th Circuits, which both rejected the argument that uniformity was an intended purpose of the HEA.
The CFPB and the defendants filed with the district court in May dueling motions for summary judgment in the concurrent CFPB action, but the court has yet to issue a ruling on those motions.
Senators question CFPB on student loan servicer examinations
On May 20, several senators, including Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger requesting information regarding the Bureau’s examination of companies that service student loans guaranteed by the federal government. The senators noted that they are “encouraged to learn that the CFPB recently began its first examination of a servicer of federally-held student loans since 2017,” but they stated that, given the Department’s “record [of] obstructing CFPB oversight and enforcement, [they] are skeptical of the Department’s role in this joint examination and would strongly oppose limitations, restrictions, or other interference with the CFPB’s ability to conduct complete and thorough examinations.” Among other things, the senators also expressed concerns that the Bureau and the Department have not yet finalized the Supervisory Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which would allow the Bureau to access student borrower loan data that the senators claim is necessary for the Bureau to conduct future examinations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies signed an MOU to share student loan complaint data last February. The senators requested clarification on measures the Bureau is taking to carry out its statutory mandate to oversee the federal student loan market, including (i) how many examinations the Bureau has planned for 2020; (ii) what progress, if any, has been made on reestablishing the supervisory MOU; (iii) how the Bureau is monitoring student loan servicers’ compliance with the CARES Act, including pausing payments, interest, and collection; and (iv) whether the Bureau has identified any trends in borrower complaints since the Covid-19 pandemic began. The senators asked that the Bureau respond to the questions by June 3.
Maryland regulator reminds student loan servicers of obligation to report suspended payments as current
On May 18, the Office of the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation issued an advisory to student loan servicers and credit reporting agency registrants to remind them of their furnishing obligations under the federal CARES Act to ensure that suspended payments are not reported as delinquent. The advisory notes that it has come to the office’s attention that a student loan servicer of a significant amount of federal student loan debt was not accurately furnishing information and reminds servicers that under Maryland’s Student Loan Servicing Bill of Rights, it is a violation of Maryland law to knowing or recklessly provide inaccurate information or refuse to correct it.
Student loan servicer settles public service loan relief suit
On April 24, a proposed class of borrowers and a national student loan servicer agreed to settle a lawsuit, which alleged the servicer failed to inform the borrowers of a loan forgiveness program for public service employees. The proposed settlement, which was granted final court approval in October, settles the one remaining deceptive acts and practices claim under a section of the New York General Business Law after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the rest of the borrowers’ claims last July. The court noted in its order that it did not agree with the servicer’s argument that the claims were preempted by the federal Higher Education Act (HEA), stating that the borrowers “do not seek to impose state law ‘disclosure requirements’ on federal student loans,” but instead “seek to hold [the servicer] liable for affirmative misrepresentations made in the course of performing its duties under various contracts.” According to the court’s order, language under the HEA “does not express the ‘clear and manifest purpose of Congress’ to preempt such claims.”
While the servicer denies any allegations of wrongful conduct and damages, it has agreed to, among other things, put in place enhancements to identify borrowers who may qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness and “distribute comprehensive and accurate information about how to qualify, which are meaningful business practice enhancements.” The servicer will also fund a $2.25 million education and counseling program for student loan borrowers in public service.
Virginia outlines student loan servicer requirements
On April 22, the Virginia legislature enacted SB 77, which requires entities servicing student loans in the Commonwealth to be licensed by the State Corporation Commission (SCC). Notably, banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and financial institutions regulated under 12 U.S.C. § 2002 are exempt from the licensing requirements. In addition to outlining specific licensing requirements, SB 77 states that non-exempt student loan servicers must also refrain from, among other things, (i) engaging in any unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan by misrepresenting the amount, nature, or terms of any loan fees or payments, the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, or the borrower’s loan obligations; (ii) misapplying loan payments to an outstanding balance; (iii) failing to report both the favorable and unfavorable payment history of a borrower to a nationally recognized consumer credit bureau at least once a year provided the loan servicer regularly reports such information; (iv) failing to communicate with a borrower’s authorized representative; and (v) making false statements or omitting material facts in connection with information provided to the SCC or another government authority. Student loan servicers must also comply with other requirements, such as evaluating qualified borrowers for income-driven repayment programs, and responding to borrowers’ written inquiries within 30 days.
Additionally, SB 77 creates a private cause of action available to “[a]ny person who suffers damage as a result of the failure of a qualified education loan servicer to comply” with the bill’s requirements or with applicable federal student loan servicing laws and regulations. The bill further provides that violations are subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 and are considered prohibited practices under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. SB 77 has a delayed effective date of July 1, 2021; however, the SCC will begin accepting applications starting on or before March 1, 2021.
California DBO sues student loan servicer to compel production of borrower records
On April 2, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced a lawsuit against one of the nation’s largest student loan servicers seeking an order requiring the production of documents related to the servicer’s administration of the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant program. According to the press release, DBO began an examination in January under the California Student Loan Servicing Act (Act) to determine whether the licensed servicer is improperly converting California teachers’ TEACH grants into loans with back interest. In its complaint, DBO states that the servicer’s refusal to produce records concerning its “handling of the TEACH program reconsideration process” is based on arguments that California law is preempted by the federal Higher Education Act, and that student borrower records are “legally owned” by the Department of Education and cannot be released under the federal Privacy Act of 1974. Because of the servicer’s refusal to produce the records, DBO claims that the servicer “has failed to satisfy its statutory duties,” and has “unduly restrained” DBO’s ability to both oversee the administration of student loan servicing in the state and protect California student loan borrowers. DBO seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, as well as a declaratory judgment against the servicer to compel compliance with the Act.
New York regulator urges student loan servicers to support troubled borrowers
On April 7, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued guidance to state-regulated student loan servicers urging them to “do their part” to alleviate hardships caused by Covid-19. The department stated that student loan servicers “should,” for a period of 90 days, waive late fees, provide forbearance, refrain from sending defaulted loans to debt collectors, and report any missed payments subject to forbearance as “current” to credit reporting agencies.
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issues guidance to student loan servicers
On March 30, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking (Division), issued guidance encouraging Illinois-licensed student loan servicers to make prudent efforts to meet the financial needs of all student loan borrowers affected directly or indirectly by the Covid-19 pandemic. The guidance reiterates the importance of provisions in the Illinois Student Loan Servicing Rights Act that prohibit servicers from engaging in any unfair or deceptive practices and misapplying payments made by borrowers. Servicers are reminded that they are obligated to lay out all available options to borrowers, including income-based repayment, deferment, forbearance, and relieving borrowers of interest. In addition to adhering to the credit reporting provisions set forth under the CARES Act, the Division also encourages student loan servicers to use the disaster status code in conjunction with a deferment when reporting to the consumer credit reporting agencies to minimize any negative credit reporting impact to consumers due to the Covid-19 crisis.
Department of Education provides Covid-19 relief by pausing loan collections, issuing refunds
On March 25, U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that in order to provide additional relief for student loan borrowers, the Department will take a number of actions which include the following:
- Stop collection activities and wage garnishments for at least 60 days, effective March 13;
- Stop requests to the Department of Treasury to withhold funds from “defaulted borrowers' federal income tax refunds, Social Security payments, and other federal payments”;
- Refund almost $2 billion to over 830,000 borrowers from funds previously withheld as of March 13;
- Direct private collection agencies to “halt all proactive collection activities, including making phone calls to borrowers and issuing collection letters and billing statements,” however, “[p]rivate collection agencies are permitted to provide assistance upon the borrower's request”;
- Begin to “monitor employers' compliance with the request to stop wage garnishment.” Those “[b]orrowers whose wages continue to be garnished after March 13 should contact their employers' human resources department.”
Borrowers with defaulted loans who would like to “continu[e] a prior payment arrangement, consolidat[e] their loans, or begin[] a loan rehabilitation arrangement with their private collection agency, should contact the Department's Default Resolution Group at 1-800-621-3115 (TTY for the deaf or hearing-impaired 1-877-825-9923).”
For more information, borrowers may visit StudentAid.gov/coronavirus.
California Department of Business Oversight issues guidance to permit licensees to work from home
On March 22, the California Department of Business Oversight (Department) issued guidance to escrow agents, finance lenders and servicers, student loan servicers, residential mortgage lenders and servicers, and mortgage loan originators in light of Covid-19 permitting employees of licensees to conduct activities from home that normally would require a branch license, provided that appropriate measures are taken to protect consumers and their data. Further, the Department will not criticize student loan servicers or licensees sponsoring MLOs who permit their respective employees to work from home, provided that certain data security and other conditions are met. Escrow Law licensees may also follow this guidance, however the licensees must still comply with the Fidelity Corporation or the licensee’s surety bond. Additionally, licensees are encouraged to assist consumers including through, among other things, offering payment accommodations.