InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York reduces judgment interest on debts
On December 31, the New York governor signed S5724A, which amends the civil practice law and rules relating to the rate of interest applicable to money judgments arising out of consumer debt. Specifically, the bill provides that the interest rate that can be charged on unpaid money judgments is 2 percent and applies to judgments involving consumer debt, which is defined as “any obligation or alleged obligation of any natural person to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family or household purposes […], including, but not limited to, a consumer credit transaction, as defined in [section 105(f) of the civil practice law and rules].” The bill is effective April 30.
New York AG settlement cancels debt
On December 29, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with a New York-based off-campus private student housing provider (respondent) for allegedly deceiving hundreds of students, primarily at a New York state college, since 2019. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the respondent, among other things: (i) routinely collected interested students’ information; (ii) persuaded students to sign leases without first determining certain qualifications; (iii) denied students access to housing; (vi) alleged students owed thousands in rent; and (v) referred students to debt collectors. The respondent also allegedly charged students excess rent and fees and disclosed to some students that they could get out of their lease if they found another student to take it over, but then unlawfully charged a $300 “delegation” fee. The respondent allegedly at times permitted some students to prepay rent if it believed they did not meet certain qualification criteria, in violation of state rent laws, and charged certain students excessive late fees for each month of rent that was not timely paid. The terms of the settlement cancels more than $200,000 in improper debts, recovers $65,958 in restitution, and imposes a $50,000 civil penalty on the respondent. The settlement also prohibits the respondent from committing fraudulent and predatory practices in the future.
New York establishes task force for private student loan refinance
On December 22, the New York governor signed SB 2767, which established a private student loan refinance task force. Among other things, the bill created the task force to study and report on ways lending institutions offering private student loans to graduates of institutions of higher education can be encouraged to create student loan refinancing programs. According to the bill, the private student loan refinance task force is instructed to issue a report of its findings and recommendations to the New York governor, the temporary president of the senate, and the speaker of the assembly. The bill is effective immediately and will expire on January 1, 2023.
New York AG warns mortgage servicers of obligation to help homeowners affected by Covid-19
On December 13, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter warning mortgage servicers operating in the state of their obligation to help homeowners impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The letter, which was also sent to mortgage industry trade associations, reiterated that mortgage servicers are expected to comply with New York law and federal regulations and guidelines when providing long-term relief to affected homeowners. James also announced “that the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) Mortgage Enforcement Unit (MEU) will be helping to oversee the distribution of New York state’s Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) announced last week by New York Governor Kathy Hochul.” According to the letter, HAF funds “may be used to pay off arrears or reduce mortgage principal so that homeowners can qualify for an affordable loan modification.” However, James stressed that these funds “must supplement rather than replace the mortgage industry’s own efforts,” adding that mortgage servicers must “play their part by offering homeowners all available loss mitigation options before that homeowner seeks an outside HAF grant, in order to help the program save as many homes as possible.” MEU will contact the mortgage industry, including New York legal services and housing counseling agencies, to provide additional information on the HAF application process. MEU will also be responsible for reviewing HAF applications to determine whether homeowners have been presented all available and affordable loan modification options.
James’ announcement stated that mortgages servicers are also expected to comply with streamlined modification programs offered by various federal agencies, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and must also “provide comparable relief (pursuant to New York state Banking Law § 9-x and New York’s mortgage servicing regulations) to homeowners whose mortgages are owned by private investors through private label securities or by banks in their own portfolios.” Mortgage servicers should also prepare for surges in requests for assistance, and will be held responsible for staffing shortages and poor customer communications, James warned. She noted in her letter that the OAG is “currently investigating whether certain servicers of privately-owned mortgages have failed to offer homeowners the forbearance relief and post-forbearance modifications required by New York Banking Law § 9-x,” and emphasized that the OAG “will continue to monitor compliance and initiate enforcement actions against individual mortgage servicers as needed to protect New York homeowners.”
ARRC recommends SOFR fallbacks for one-week, two-month LIBOR contracts
On December 3, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) under the New York and Alabama LIBOR Relevant Recommending Body, released a statement recommending forms of the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) and associated spread adjustments to replace references to 1-week and 2-month USD LIBOR in certain contracts affected by New York and Alabama state LIBOR legislation. The statement comes “with just one month until no new LIBOR and the cessation of these two USD LIBOR tenors,” noting that these recommendations are “important for the legacy contracts that rely on those tenors.” Under the states’ LIBOR legislation, ARRC serves as the “Relevant Recommending Body,” while SOFR is the recommended rate and alternative to USD LIBOR.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, ARRC announced its recommendation of CME Group’s forward-looking SOFR term rates, following the completion of key changes in trading conventions on July 26 under the SOFR First initiative. According to the recently released statement, ARRC recommends applying SOFR only to the narrow set of LIBOR-based contracts that are affected by the states’ LIBOR legislation, which are generally contracts with no fallbacks or fallbacks that reference LIBOR. For contracts with fallbacks that give a party discretion to decide on a replacement rate, the state laws also provide a safe harbor if that party chooses the SOFR-based rate and conforming changes recommended by ARRC. ARRC also published a set of frequently asked questions regarding the application of New York state law.
New York reaches $1.2 million settlement with debt collectors
On November 16, the New York attorney general announced a settlement with an illegal debt collection scheme operation and its operator (collectively, “respondents”) to resolve allegations that the respondents used illegal tactics to collect consumer debt, which included false threats of criminal action, wage garnishment, driver’s license suspension, and lawsuits. According to the AG, the operator started his debt collection career collecting debts with a network of New York-based debt collectors that settled with the CFPB and New York AG in 2019 to resolve allegations that the defendants engaged in improper debt collection tactics in violation of the CFPA, the FDCPA, and various New York laws. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Using different names, the operator allegedly continued to use deceptive and illegal threats to collect on consumer debts. In addition, the AG claimed the operator was a debt broker, “selling debts to and placing debts for collection with other collectors that engaged in egregious violations of the law.”
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the respondents, among other things, must pay $1.2 million to the office of the AG in restitution and penalties and must dissolve all of the associated debt collection companies. The respondents are also permanently banned from engaging in consumer debt collection, consumer debt brokering, consumer lending, debt settlement, credit repair services, and payment processing.
District Court grants defendant’s motion in FCRA, FDCPA case
On November 10, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted a defendant debt agency’s motion for judgment resolving FCRA and FDCPA allegations. A father allegedly co-signed an apartment lease for his daughter (collectively, “plaintiffs”), which included a provision that allowed the plaintiffs to terminate the lease if another individual took over the lease. The plaintiffs allegedly did not move in but identified two replacement tenants to take over the lease. The owner of the apartment allegedly signed separate leases with the identified replacement tenants and “thwarted [plaintiffs’] efforts to have someone take over [the] [l]ease.” The owner placed the debt with the defendant for collection, who reported the debt to three credit reporting agencies. The plaintiffs disputed the debt, but the defendant confirmed the accuracy of the information. The plaintiffs sued, alleging the defendant violated the FCRA for not conducting a proper investigation of the dispute, and the FDCPA for attempting to collect the allegedly invalid debt, which allegedly negatively impacted the plaintiffs’ credit scores, their ability to obtain a car loan, and efforts to apply for an apartment.
With respect to the FCRA claim, the district court found that the plaintiffs’ allegation regarding an inaccurate debt “turns on an unresolved legal question, a section 1681s-2(b) claim that a furnisher failed to conduct a reasonable investigation of disputed credit information cannot stand.” Additionally, since the claim was “tethered to a legal dispute,” the district court found that it cannot form the basis of an FCRA claim. With respect to the FDCPA allegations, the district court dismissed the claim finding that the plaintiffs did not adequately state a claim because the plaintiffs’ claim was based on “nothing more than their conclusory and self-serving allegations that they do not owe the [d]ebt.”
New York expands consumer protections
On November 8, the New York governor signed several pieces of legislation relating to consumer protection. Among those, S.153 enacts The Consumer Credit Fairness Act, which expands consumer protections against abusive debt collection by, as explained by NYDFS acting Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris, “address[ing] known predatory debt collection practices, barring an abusive common tactic engaged by predatory debt collectors which is to sue on time-barred consumer debts for which they lack even the most basic of documentation.” Certain parts of the Consumer Credit Fairness Act are effective immediately. S.4823, effective 30 days after being signed into law, prohibits utility companies from engaging in harassment, oppression, or abuse when coordinating with a residential customer. According to the press release, this legislation responds “to various unscrupulous practices that utility corporations engage in, such as creating a ‘payment agreement’ with customers that encourage customers to take large down payments in exchange for utilities such as energy not being shut down.” S.1199 requires the Public Service Commission to have at least one member who is an expert in consumer advocacy. It will also go into effect 30 days after being signed into law.
New York enacts robocall measures
On November 8, the New York governor signed measures to help prevent robocalls and increase consumer protections. The measures build upon federal actions to combat robocalls and “will enable telecom companies to prevent these calls from coming in in the first place, as well as empower our state government to ensure that voice service providers are validating who is making these calls so enforcement action can be taken against bad actors,” Governor Kathy Hochul stated.
S.6267a requires telecommunication companies to block certain calls, including those from (i) numbers that are not valid North American numbering plan numbers; (ii) numbers that are not allocated to a provider by the North American numbering plan administrator or the pooling administrator; and (iii) unused numbers that are allocated to a provider. According to the governor’s press release, the act codifies into state law the provisions of an FCC 2017 rule that took effect in June 2021 and allows telecommunications companies to proactively block calls from certain numbers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) These types of numbers, the release states, “are indicative of ‘spoofing’ schemes in which the true caller identity is masked behind a fake, invalid number.” The act takes effect immediately.
The second act, S.4281a, requires voice services providers to authenticate calls using the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020, the FCC, pursuant to the TRACED Act, adopted new rules requiring providers to implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework by June 2021. Under New York’s new measure, providers have up to 12 months to implement this framework or an “alternative technology that provides comparable or superior capability to verify and authenticate caller identification in the internet protocol networks of voice service providers.” Violators face a fine of up to $100,000 for each offense per day that the framework is not in place. This act is also effective immediately.
New York requires private employers to provide electronic monitoring notice
On November 8, the New York governor signed S.2628, which requires employers to notify their employees in writing upon hiring of their intention to monitor or intercept telephone or email conversations or transmissions, or monitor the use or access of other electronic devices. Employers must receive acknowledgement from the employee either in writing or electronically and are also required to post the notice of electronic monitoring in a conspicuous area where it can be viewed by employees. The act applies to any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or association with a place of business in New York, but does not include the state or political subdivisions of the state. Also exempt are processes “designed to manage the type or volume of incoming or outgoing electronic mail or telephone voice mail or internet usage, that are not targeted to monitor or intercept the electronic mail or telephone voice mail or internet usage of a particular individual, and that are performed solely for the purpose of computer system maintenance and/or protection.” The attorney general is authorized to enforce the act and fine employers found to be in violation of the provisions. The act takes effect in 180 days.