InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB and New York say auto lender misled consumers
On January 4, the CFPB and New York attorney general filed a complaint against a Michigan-based auto finance company accused of allegedly misrepresenting the cost of credit and deceiving low-income consumers into taking out high-interest loans on used vehicles. (See also AG’s press release here.) The joint complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendant based the price of a loan (and then artificially inflated the principal amount) and the payment to the dealer on the projected amount that may be collected from the consumer during the life of the loan (without factoring in whether consumers could actually afford the loan).
The Bureau and AG further argued that the true cost of credit is hidden in inflated principal balances in order to evade state interest rate caps. An investigation conducted by the AG found that while the defendant’s loan agreements in New York claimed an APR of 22.99 percent or 23.99 percent (just below the 25 percent usury cap), the defendant actually charged on average more than 38 percent (and on many occasions charged an APR in excess of 100 percent). These high-interest loans, the AG claimed, often caused consumers to accrue additional fees and become delinquent on their loans.
The complaint also alleged the defendant failed to consider consumers’ ability to repay their loans in full, engaged in aggressive debt collection tactics, and created financial incentives for dealers to add on extra products, such as vehicle service contracts. Add-on products generated roughly $250 million in revenue for the defendant in 2020, the complaint said, adding that these alleged deceptive lending practices lowered consumers’ credit scores and cost borrowers millions of dollars. The complaint further maintained that the defendant packaged the consumer loans into securities that were sold to investors on the premise that the underlying loans complied with applicable law. These alleged false representations, the complaint said, constituted securities fraud under New York’s Martin Act.
The complaint — which also alleges violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against deceptive and abusive acts or practices, New York usury limits, and other state consumer and investor protection laws — seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, monetary relief, disgorgement, and civil money penalties of $1,000,000 for each day of violations.
The defendant was previously targeted for violating consumer protection laws in 2021 by the Massachusetts attorney general, who announced a $27.2 million settlement to resolve allegations of predatory lending and deceptive debt collection practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Crypto platform reaches $100 million settlement to resolve alleged compliance failures
On January 4, NYDFS issued a consent order against a cryptocurrency trading platform for engaging in alleged violations of New York virtual currency, anti-money laundering, transaction monitoring, and cybersecurity regulations. According to the consent order, in 2020, NYDFS found significant deficiencies across the respondent’s compliance program, including its Know-Your Customer/Customer Due Diligence (KYC/CDD) procedures, Transaction Monitoring System (TMS), OFAC screening program, and AML risk assessments. As a result of these findings, the respondent agreed to improve its BSA/AML and OFAC compliance programs, including engaging an independent consultant to develop a remediation plan and improve its compliance program.
In 2021, NYDFS launched an investigation to determine whether the respondent’s compliance deficiencies had resulted in any legal violations. The investigation found “substantial lapses in [the respondent’s] KYC/CDD program, its TMS, and in its AML and OFAC sanctions controls systems, as well as issues concerning [the respondent’s] retention of books and records, and with respect to meeting certain of its reporting obligations to the Department.” NYDFS noted that in late 2020 and 2021, the respondent took steps to remediate the issues identified by the Department and the independent consultant; however, substantial weaknesses remained, and its compliance system was inadequate to handle the growing volume of the respondent’s business.
Under the terms of the consent order, the respondent must pay a $50 million civil penalty to NYDFS and invest $50 million in its compliance program. Additionally, an independent third party will continue to work with the respondent for another year, which may be extended at the Department’s sole discretion. NYDFS noted that the respondent has already taken steps to build a more effective and robust compliance program under the supervision of NYDFS and the NYDFS-appointed independent monitor. According to the respondent’s press release, the company “has taken substantial measures to address these historical shortcomings” and “remains committed to being a leader and role model in the crypto space, including partnering with regulators when it comes to compliance and other areas.”
NYDFS revises proposed amendments to third-party debt collection rules
In December, NYDFS released revised proposed amendments to 23 NYCRR 1, which regulates third-party debt collectors and debt buyers. NYDFS first issued a proposed amendment to 23 NYCRR 1 in December 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here), which factored in findings from NYDFS investigations that revealed instances of abusive and deceptive debt collection practices, as well as consumer debt collection complaint data. The first proposed amendment, among other things, is intended to enhance consumer protections by increasing transparency, requiring heightened disclosures, reducing misleading statements about consumer debt obligations, and placing stricter limits on debt collection phone calls than those currently imposed under federal regulations. The revised proposal, among other things, also include the following requirements:
- A debt collector must send written notification within five days after the initial communication with a consumer that clearly and conspicuously contains validation information as required under Regulation F. Debt collectors are prohibited from using the charge-off date as the itemization date for the alleged debt unless it is a revolving or open-end credit account. Instead, debt collectors should use the last payment date as the itemization date if available.
- Written notifications must be clear and conspicuous and also include the following, in addition to validation information: (i) the reference date relied upon to determine the itemization date; (ii) for revolving or open-end credit accounts, an account number (or a truncated version of the account number) associated with the debt on the last payment date or the last statement date if no payment has been made; (iii) the merchant brand, affinity brand, or facility name, if any, associated with the debt; (iv) the date and amount of the last payment or a statement noting that no payment was made, if available; (v) the applicable statute of limitations expressed in years for debt that has not been reduced to judgment; (vi) information on a debt that has been reduced to a judgment, if applicable; and (vii) notice that a consumer has the right to dispute the validity of a debt and instructions on how to submit a dispute.
- Debt collectors must inform consumers of available language access services and are required to record the consumer’s language preference, if other than English, in the written notification.
- Unless affirmatively requested by the consumer, required disclosures may not be made exclusively by electronic communication. Additionally, a debt collector may communicate with a consumer exclusively through electronic communication only if: (i) the consumer has voluntarily provided contact information for electronic communication; (ii) the consumer has given revocable consent in writing to receive electronic communication from the debt collector in reference to a specific debt (electronic signatures constitute written consent); (iii) the debt collector retains the written consent for six years or until the debt is discharged, sold, or transferred (whichever is longer); and (iv) all electronic communications include clear and conspicuous disclosures regarding revoking consent.
- Communications sent in the form of a pleading in a civil action will not be considered an initial communication for the purposes of these amendments.
- Debt collectors must provide substantiation of debt within 45 days.
- Debt collectors may not communicate or attempt to communicate excessively with a consumer. Specifically, debt collectors are limited to one completed phone call and three attempted phone calls per seven-day period per alleged debt. Telephone calls more than these limits may be permitted when required by federal or state law, or when made in response to the consumer’s request to be contacted and in the manner indicated by the consumer, if any.
Comments are due February 13. The amendments are scheduled to take effect 180 days after the notice of adoption is published in the State Register.
NYDFS releases proposed guidance for mitigating climate-related risks
On December 21, NYDFS proposed guidance for regulated banking and mortgage institutions to support efforts for responding to evolving risks stemming from climate change. The proposed guidance—which was developed to align with the climate-related work of federal and international banking regulators—will aid institutions in identifying, measuring, monitoring, and controlling material climate-related financial risks, consistent with existing risk management principles. Institutions should “minimize and affirmatively mitigate adverse impacts on low- and moderate-income communities while managing climate-related financial risks,” NYDFS said, explaining that the proposed guidance focuses on areas of risk management related to corporate governance, internal control frameworks, risk management processes, data aggregation and reporting, and scenario analysis that also accounts for unknown future risks. Among other things, the proposed guidance warned institutions of the importance of ensuring fair lending is provided to all communities, including low- to moderate-income neighborhoods that may face heightened risks, when managing climate-related financial risks. The proposed guidance also outlined tools institutions should use to measure and protect against climate change risks. NYDFS warned institutions that they may have to directly absorb a greater portion of losses and should plan for insurance coverage premiums to either increase or be withdrawn entirely in areas where climate risks are prevalent.
NYDFS commented that the proposed guidance serves as a basis for supervisory dialogue and instructed interested parties to provide input as it undertakes a data-driven approach to formulating the final guidance. Comments are due by March 21, 2023. A webinar will be held on January 11, 2023 to provide an overview of the proposed guidance.
“Regulators must anticipate and respond to new risks to operational resiliency and safety and soundness, jeopardizing an institution’s future,” Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris said. “NYDFS is committed to working with all stakeholders to further refine expectations and finalize guidance appropriate for institutions to address material climate-related financial risks.”
NYDFS announces benchmark for mortgage lending institutions
On December 16, NYDFS issued industry guidance to all mortgage lending institutions in the state regarding a New York subprime law requirement and the discontinued publication of the primary mortgage market survey rate for 5/1 adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans. According to NYDFS, as required by state law, lending institutions must use the weekly Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS), published by Freddie Mac, for loans that are comparable to the term of the underlying loan, to assess whether a home loan qualifies as “subprime” in New York. In November, Freddie Mac discontinued publication of its weekly PMMS average commitment rate for loans in the U.S. for the 5/1 ARM. NYDFS noted that Freddie Mac’s decision “disrupted the ability of lending institutions to determine whether a residential mortgage loan with a comparable duration to the 5/1 ARM is a subprime home loan.” NYDFS continued that the “inability to ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 6-m has made it impossible for lending institutions to offer this loan product in New York, limiting the availability of certain mortgage financing for consumers in New York.” To address availability of mortgage financing in New York, NYDFS announced the designation of the Average Prime Offer Rate for 5/1 ARMs, as published by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, as the replacement benchmark lending institutions should use for calculating the subprime threshold for loans with a fixed rate for at least three years.
NYDFS's Harris to serve as the state banking representative on the FSOC
On December 13, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris will serve as the state banking representative on the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). According to the announcement, in 2013, Superintendent Harris joined the Obama Administration as a Senior Advisor in the U.S. Department of Treasury prior to being appointed as the Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In this role, she managed the financial services portfolio, focusing on the implementation of Dodd-Frank, and developed strategies for financial reform, consumer protections, cybersecurity and housing finance reform. According to James M. Cooper, president and CEO of CSBS, Harris’s “background and experience at both the federal and state level will be an asset for the council as it manages emerging risk during a time of economic uncertainty.”
District Court stays action against remittance provider while Supreme Court weighs CFPB’s funding structure
On December 9, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stayed an action brought by the CFPB and the New York attorney general against a defendant remittance provider until after the U.S. Supreme Court decides if it will review whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that the Bureau’s funding structure violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Last month the DOJ, on behalf of the CFPB, submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the 5th Circuit’s decision during its current term. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The New York AG and the Bureau sued the defendant in April for allegedly violating the EFTA and its implementing Regulation E, the Remittance Rule, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), among various consumer financial protection laws, in its handling of remittance transfers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
The defendant argued that the district court should hold off on deciding on its motion to dismiss per the aforementioned argument, but should nonetheless rule on its pending motion to transfer. The Bureau opposed the defendant’s request for a stay, countering “that a stay would not promote efficiency” since the issue of the Bureau’s standing would not affect the claims brought in the current action. The Bureau further asserted “that the public and the parties’ interest weighs against a stay, as it would hinder Plaintiffs’ enforcement of the consumer protection laws and make obtaining evidence down the line more difficult.”
The district court disagreed, stating that the Supreme Court may address the broader issue of the Bureau’s standing to bring enforcement actions in its decision, and that, regardless, the agency’s claims in the current action “are inextricably linked to CFPB rules and regulations, which themselves may be implicated by a Supreme Court decision should it grant the petition.” The district court stayed the case in its entirety and said that it will wait to decide on both motions until after the Supreme Court decides on the Bureau’s filed petition for a writ of certiorari.
NYDFS finds racial disparities in mortgage lending
On December 8, NYDFS announced a second report in an ongoing statewide inquiry into redlining and other forms of housing discrimination by mortgage lenders, particularly non-depository lenders. This report focuses on racial disparities in mortgage lending in Long Island, Rochester, and Syracuse, and follows one on Buffalo (covered by InfoBytes here). The report maps lending activity and details individual institutions' lending in majority-minority neighborhoods and to borrowers identifying as members of a minority group.
Analyzing HMDA data, NYDFS’s recent report concluded that: “ In Nassau county, where the population is 41.8 percent non-white, on average, lenders make 35.32 percent of their loans to borrowers identifying as people of color. Among lenders operating in the county, lending to borrowers identifying as people of color ranges from 14.9 percent to 50.22 percent. In Suffolk county, where the population is 33.7 percent non-white, on average, lenders make 22.44 percent of their loans to borrowers identifying as people of color. Among lenders operating in the county, lending to borrowers identifying as people of color ranges from 13.07 percent to 36.85 percent. In the Rochester metro area, where 23.9 percent of the population is non-white, on average lenders make 11.32 percent of their loans to borrowers identifying as people of color, less than half of what would be expected based solely on population make-up. Similarly in the Syracuse metro area, 18.7 percent of the population is non-white, but on average lenders make 8.67 percent of their loans to borrowers identifying as people of color.”
In the announcement, NYDFS noted that it is currently developing regulations to implement the updated New York Community Reinvestment Act, which expands oversight to non-depository mortgage lenders operating in the state. The insights uncovered through these reports’ investigations will be reflected in these proposed regulations which will be published for public comment in 2023.
CFPB says TILA does not preempt NY law on commercial disclosures
On December 7, the CFPB issued a preliminary determination that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law is not preempted by TILA because the state’s statute regulates commercial financing transactions and not consumer-purpose transactions. The CFPB issued a Notice of Intent to Make Preemption Determination under the Truth in Lending Act seeking comments pursuant to Appendix A of Regulation Z on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination that New York’s law, as well as potentially similar laws in California, Utah, and Virginia, are not preempted by TILA. Comments are due January 20, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the Bureau will publish a notice of final determination in the Federal Register.
Explaining that recently a number of states have enacted laws to require improved disclosures of information contained in commercial financing transactions, including loans to small businesses, in order to mitigate predatory small business lending and improve transparency, the Bureau said it received a written request to make a preemption determination involving certain disclosure provisions in TILA. While Congress expressly granted the Bureau authority to evaluate whether any inconsistencies exist between certain TILA provisions and state laws and to make a preemption determination, the statute’s implementing regulations require the agency to request public comments before making a final determination.
While New York’s Commercial Financing Law “requires financial disclosures before consummation of covered transactions,” the Bureau pointed out that this applies to “commercial financing” rather than consumer credit. The request contended that TILA preempts New York’s law in relation to its use of the terms “finance charge” and “annual percentage rate”—“notwithstanding that the statutes govern different categories of transactions.” The request outlined material differences in how the two statutes use these terms and asserted “that these differences make the New York law inconsistent with Federal law for purposes of preemption.” As an example, the request noted that the state’s definition of “finance charge” is broader than the federal definition, and that the “estimated APR” disclosure required under state law “for certain transactions is less precise than the APR calculation under TILA and Regulation Z.” Moreover, “New York law requires certain assumptions about payment amounts and payment frequencies in order to calculate APR and estimated APR, whereas TILA does not require similar assumptions,” the request asserted, adding that inconsistencies between the two laws could lead to borrower confusion or misunderstanding.
In making its preliminary determination, the Bureau concluded that the state and federal laws do not appear “contradictory” for preemption purposes based on the request’s assertions. The Bureau explained that the statutes govern different transactions and disagreed with the argument that New York’s law impedes the operation of TILA or interferes with its primary purpose. Specifically, the Bureau stated that the “differences between the New York and Federal disclosure requirements do not frustrate these purposes because lenders are not required to provide the New York disclosures to consumers seeking consumer credit.”
NYDFS proposes virtual currency firms to pay supervision fees
Recently, NYDFS announced it is seeking public comment on a proposed rule establishing how certain licensed virtual currency businesses would be assessed for the costs of their supervision and examination. According to NYDFS, the proposed regulation establishes a provision in the state budget granting NYDFS new authority to collect supervisory costs from virtual currency businesses that are licensed pursuant to the Financial Services Law, and will permit NYDFS “to continue adding top talent to its virtual currency regulatory team.” The proposed regulation states that it will apply only to licensed persons engaged in virtual currency business activity and that the fees will only cover the costs and expenses associated with NYDFS's oversight of each licensee. Specifically, the draft regulation states that a licensee's total annual assessment fee will be the “sum of its supervisory component and its regulatory component” and that each licensee will be billed five times per fiscal year. According to the regulation, there will be four quarterly fees, each approximately 25 percent of the anticipated annual amount, and a final fee based on the actual total operating cost for the fiscal year. Comments on the proposed regulation are due March 20.