InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rule Published in Federal Register
Last week, the CFPB’s final rule amending the mortgage servicing provisions of Regulations X and Z was published in the Federal Register. The amendments were previously covered in BuckleySandler’s August 9 Special Alert. The majority of the final rule will take effect on October 19, 2017, exactly one year after its Federal Register publication date. Certain provisions related to successors in interest and bankruptcy periodic statements will become effective on April 19, 2018. The CFPB’s interpretive rule under the FDCPA addressing industry concerns and conflicts with the servicing rules in Regulations X and Z was simultaneously published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2016.
Special Alert: Summary of CFPB's final prepaid rule
I. Overview of the CFPB's Final Prepaid Rule
On October 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a final rule (Prepaid Rule) amending Regulations E and Z to extend consumer protections to prepaid card accounts. The new protections include pre-acquisition disclosures, error resolution rights, and periodic statements. In addition, prepaid card accounts that include a separate credit feature are subject to some of Regulation Z’s credit card provisions, including an ability-to-repay requirement. Prepaid card issuers are also required to submit to the Bureau and to post to their websites any new and revised prepaid card account agreements. In this alert we summarize key provisions of the Prepaid Rule except those provisions that apply only to payroll and government benefits prepaid cards, which will be covered in a separate alert.
II. Effective Date
The Prepaid Rule’s effective date is October 1, 2017, however, the effective date for posting prepaid card account agreements is October 1, 2018. Heeding concerns about burden, the Bureau stated that the Prepaid Rule does not require financial institutions to pull and replace prepaid account access devices or packaging materials that were manufactured, printed, or otherwise produced in the normal course of business prior to October 1, 2017. Instead, financial institutions must provide consumers with notice of certain changes in terms and updated initial disclosures, in certain circumstances.
Click here to read 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.
- Manley Williams, (202) 349-8060
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Amendments to Mortgage Servicing Rules
On Thursday, the CFPB issued its long-awaited final amendments to the mortgage servicing provisions of Regulations X and Z. The Bureau had sought comment on the proposed rule in December 2014, more than 18 months ago. Spanning 900 pages, the final rule makes significant changes that will impact servicers even as it clarifies several points of confusion with the existing regulations. Most significantly, the amendments extend existing protections to successors in interest and borrowers who have previously been evaluated for loss mitigation under the rules, brought their loans current, and then experienced new delinquencies. The amendments also require servicers to provide modified periodic statements to borrowers in bankruptcy. In coordination with the final amendments, the Bureau published an interpretive rule under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) to address industry concerns about conflicts with the servicing rules.
A summary of the key amendments is provided below. Unless otherwise stated below, the amendments take effect 12 months from the date of publication of the rule in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. If recent experience is any guide, we anticipate that publication in the Federal Register may be delayed for as long as a month, given the length of the final rule, commentary, and preamble.
Click here to view 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.
- Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098
- 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
- Kathryn L. Ryan, (202) 349-8008
- Christopher M. Witeck, (202) 349-8051
Agencies Announce 2016 Consumer Credit, Lease Transaction Thresholds
On November 25, the Federal Reserve and the CFPB announced that the dollar thresholds in Regulation Z and Regulation M for exempt consumer credit and lease transactions will not change in 2016. Based on the annual percentage decrease in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) as of June 1, 2015, TILA and Consumer Leasing Act generally will apply to consumer credit transactions and consumer leases of $54,600 or less beginning January 1, 2016 – the same thresholds that applied in 2015. Regardless of the loan amount, private education loans and loans secured by real property remain subject to TILA. The agencies published notices of thresholds in Regulation Z and Regulation M in the Federal Register on November 27, 2015.
CFPB Orders Mortgage Lender to Pay $250,000 Penalty for Deceptive Advertising
On April 9, the CFPB announced a consent order with a California-based mortgage lender, requiring the lender to pay a $250,000 civil money penalty for advertising that allegedly led customers to believe the company was affiliated with the U.S. government. According to the consent order, the advertisements used the names and logos of the VA and FHA, described loan products as part of a “distinctive program offered by the U.S. government,” and instructed consumers to call the “VA Interest Rate Reduction Department” at a phone number belonging to the mortgage lender, thus implying that the mailings were sent by government agencies. The CFPB further alleged that the advertisements misrepresented interest rates and estimated monthly payments, including whether the interest rate was fixed or variable, and that consumers who called the company were sometimes told that the lender was endorsed by the VA or FHA. The CFPB determined that the advertisements were deceptive and misleading in violation of the CFPA and the Mortgage Acts and Practices Rule (MAP Rule or Regulation N). The CFPB also alleged violations of TILA and Regulation Z for failing to include certain disclosures in the advertisements. In addition to the civil money penalty, the consent order requires the lender to submit a compliance plan to the CFPB and comply with additional record keeping, reporting, and compliance monitoring requirements.
OCC Revises Guidance Regarding Consumer Protection Requirements to Overdraft Lines and Protection Services
As previously reported in our March 11 Special Alert Update, on March 6, 2015, the OCC issued its revised “Deposit-Related Credit” booklet (“DRC booklet”) of the Comptroller’s Handbook, which replaced the “Deposit-Related Consumer Credit” booklet issued on February 11, 2015 (previously covered in this Special Alert). While the new booklet covers the same products – check credit (overdraft lines of credit, cash reserves, and special drafts), overdraft protection services, and deposit advances – the OCC made significant amendments to scale back the provisions of the prior version. Specifically, the new DRC booklet no longer contains supervisory principles that could be read to require that banks provide substantive consumer protections that are not currently required by the applicable consumer protection regulations. For example, the DRC booklet no longer requires that banks:
- only enroll customers into an overdraft protection service if they have affirmatively requested that product;
- ensure the ability to repay for all applicants enrolled in an overdraft protection service; and
- ensure that any fees charged in connection with an overdraft protection service are reasonably related to the program’s costs and associated risks.
In making these changes, the OCC requires supervisors to assess DRC products more in line with existing consumer protection laws. The OCC states as much in OCC Bulletin 2015-17, which announced the DRC booklet. There, the OCC acknowledges that the DRC booklet “is intended as a summary restatement of existing laws, regulations, and policies [and] ... [n]othing in this booklet should be interpreted as changing existing OCC policy.”
Special Alert Update: OCC Revises Guidance Regarding Consumer Protection Requirements to Overdraft Lines and Protection Services
On March 6, 2015, the OCC issued its revised “Deposit-Related Credit” booklet (“DRC booklet”) of the Comptroller’s Handbook, which replaced the “Deposit-Related Consumer Credit” booklet issued on February 11, 2015 (previously covered in this Special Alert). While the new booklet covers the same products – check credit (overdraft lines of credit, cash reserves, and special drafts), overdraft protection services, and deposit advances – the OCC made significant amendments to scale back the provisions of the prior version. Specifically, the new DRC booklet no longer contains supervisory principles that could be read to require that banks provide substantive consumer protections that are not currently required by the applicable consumer protection regulations. For example, the DRC booklet no longer requires that banks:
- only enroll customers into an overdraft protection service if they have affirmatively requested that product;
- ensure the ability to repay for all applicants enrolled in an overdraft protection service; and
- ensure that any fees charged in connection with an overdraft protection service are reasonably related to the program’s costs and associated risks.
In making these changes, the OCC requires supervisors to assess DRC products more in line with existing consumer protection laws. The OCC states as much in OCC Bulletin 2015-17, which announced the DRC booklet. There, the OCC acknowledges that the DRC booklet “is intended as a summary restatement of existing laws, regulations, and policies [and] ... [n]othing in this booklet should be interpreted as changing existing OCC policy.”
Special Alert: OCC Guidance Applies Consumer Protection Requirements to Overdraft Lines and Protection Services
UPDATE: On February 20, the OCC announced that it would be removing the “Deposited-Related Consumer Credit” booklet, originally issued on February 11, from its website. The OCC’s February 11 booklet seemingly required banks to change overdraft protection services, however the agency has since stated that the booklet was not intended to establish new policy. According to the OCC’s website, the agency will “[revise] the booklet to clarify and restate the existing law, rules, and policy.” When the OCC releases its amended version of the booklet, we will update the February 16 Special Alert to reflect the agency’s modifications.
On February 11, 2015, the OCC issued the “Deposit-Related Consumer Credit” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, which replaced the “Check Credit” booklet. The booklet provides updated guidance and examination procedures that the OCC will use to assess a bank’s deposit-related consumer credit (DRCC) products, which include check credit (overdraft lines of credit, cash reserves, and special drafts), overdraft protection services, and deposit advances. In many respects, it tracks the CFPB’s proposed prepaid rule, which would apply the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z to a broad range of credit features associated with prepaid products.
The OCC sets forth certain supervisory principles that apply to all DRCC products, which appear to meld consumer protection and safety and soundness concerns. These principles require that banks provide substantive consumer protections in connection with certain DRCC products that are not currently required by the applicable consumer protection regulations. Specifically, the supervisory principles include the following:
- Opt-In and Regulation E: Banks should not automatically enroll any customer in DRCC products, and should only enroll customers who affirmatively have so requested. In contrast, the opt-in requirement applies, under Regulation E, only to overdraft services in connection with ATM and one-time debit card transactions.
- Ability to Repay and Regulation Z: Banks should ensure ability to repay for all applicants enrolled in DRCC products, meaning that the associated underwriting practices should analyze the applicant’s income or assets and debt obligations. In contrast, under Regulation Z, this ability-to-pay requirement applies to credit card accounts, not DRCC products like overdraft lines of credit accessed by a debit card or account number or overdraft protection services. If the final CFPB prepaid rules are substantially similar to the proposed rules, then certain credit features associated with prepaid cards will also require compliance with the ability-to-pay rule.
- Fee Limits: Banks must ensure that any fees charged in connection with DRCC products are reasonably related to the program’s costs and associated risks. In contrast, under Regulation Z, the requirement that penalty fees represent a reasonable proportion of the total costs incurred as a result of the violation applies to credit cards, not DRCC products.
The OCC also expects banks to monitor the volume of revenue that DRCC products generate, and to evaluate whether the bank unduly relies on fees generated by a DRCC product. Bank management should also guard against “an over reliance on fee income from any single product.”
In addition, the OCC expects banks to monitor customer behavior and any outlier usage of DRCC products to avoid what the guidance frames as operational, compliance, reputational, and credit risk. For example, the OCC posits that repeated extensions of credit may constitute “loan flipping” and subject the bank to credit risk. Additional supervisory principles address disclosures, program availability and eligibility, consumer usage, credit terms and repayment methods, and credit reporting.
The OCC’s risk management expectations may also have tangible effects on a bank’s current operating practices, including higher capital requirements insofar as DRCC portfolios may have subprime credit characteristics. In this regard, the OCC’s requirement that banks report DRCC products in regulatory reports as loans may also have practical effects on banks.
It is worth noting that, two years ago, the OCC published proposed guidance relating to deposit advance products in the Federal Register, which allowed for public comment and time to prepare for any new compliance and supervisory expectations. The OCC published final guidance in the Federal Register in November 2013 (previously covered here) and OCC Bulletin 2013-40. This time, the OCC has dispensed with the opportunity for public comment and appears to require immediate compliance, notwithstanding that many of the expectations outlined with respect to certain DRCC products are radically new—including for overdraft protection services, as to which the OCC previously stated that “[b]anks generally do not underwrite overdraft protection services on an individual basis when enrolling the consumer.”
* * *
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.
- Valerie L. Hletko, (202) 349-8054
- Andrew W. Grant, (202) 349-8056
CFPB Holds Field Hearing On Prepaid Products, Proposes New Rule
On November 13, the CFPB held a field hearing in Delaware to discuss its proposed rule regarding prepaid products. The proposal, which would amend Regulation E and Regulation Z, requires prepaid companies to provide certain protections under federal law.
In his opening remarks, Director Cordray noted that the many prepaid card consumers are some of the most economically vulnerable among us and that such cards have few, if any, protections under federal consumer financial law. Cordray outlined the reasons the Bureau’s proposed rule would “fill key gaps” for consumers. First, the proposed rule would provide consumers free and easy access to account information. Second, the proposed rule would mandate that financial institutions work with consumers to investigate any errors on registered cards. Third, the proposed rule would protect consumers against fraud and theft. Fourth, the rule includes “Know Before You Owe” prepaid disclosures, which would highlight key costs associated with the cards. Fifth, where prepaid card providers also extend credit to consumers such offers would be treated the same as credit cards under the law.
Seventh Circuit Holds Retailer's Credit Card Upgrade Program Did Not Violate TILA
On March 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a retailer’s credit card upgrade program that replaced existing customers’ limited use store charge cards with unsolicited general use credit cards did not violate TILA, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action. Acosta v. Target Corp., No. 13-2706, 2014 WL 1045202 (7th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014). Under the upgrade program, the retailer automatically issued new general purpose cards to existing store card customers and closed the old account upon either the activation of the new account or rejection by the consumer of the new card. The class representatives claimed that the program constituted an offer to change the underlying account relationship and violated TILA’s prohibition on the mailing of unsolicited credit cards. The court held that the program fell within TILA’s exemption for substitute cards based on the common understanding of “substitution” and the Federal Reserve Board staff’s Regulation Z commentary. The court also rejected the cardholders’ argument that they were fraudulently induced to accept the new card. The court determined that the retailer disclosed the reasons for a change in the APR and did not raise the rate unless payments were missed, and sufficiently disclosed the potential for a change in credit limit. The court also held that the retailer’s omission of the fact that cardholders could take steps to retain their store card account was not fraudulent, and added that to hold otherwise would require the retailer “to disclose any condition that could theoretically be negotiated with the card issuer.” The court also affirmed the dismissal of the cardholders’ breach of contract and tortious interference claims.