InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
North Carolina AG Announces $9 Million Settlement with Online Lenders
On June 21, North Carolina AG Roy Cooper, together with Commissioner of Banks Ray Grace, announced a settlement with two online lenders to resolve allegations that they violated state usury laws. According to the complaint, the lenders offered North Carolina consumers personal loans of $850 to $10,000 and charged annual interest rates of approximately 89 to 342 percent, significantly exceeding the rates allowed under state law. In 2015, Special Superior Court Judge Gregory P. McGuire issued a preliminary injunction to ban the companies from making or collecting loans in North Carolina. In addition to permanently barring the companies from collecting on loans made to North Carolina borrowers, the consent judgment requires the companies to (i) cancel all loans owed by North Carolina consumers; (ii) have the credit bureaus remove negative information on consumers’ credit reports related to the loans; (iii) pay $9,025,000 in refunds to North Carolina consumers, with the remaining $350,000 of the settlement allocated to covering the costs of the investigation, lawsuit, and administering the settlement; and (iv) cease unlicensed lending in North Carolina. The settlement represents North Carolina’s first successful action to ban an online payday-type lender that used affiliation with an Indian tribe in an effort to evade state usury laws.
Michigan AG Announces Default Judgment against Auto Title Loan Company
On June 8, Michigan AG Bill Schuette announced that a Michigan court entered a Default Judgment and Final Order for Permanent Injunction against an auto title loan company, several associated alias companies, and the company manager. The Judgment and Order found the defendants in violation of Michigan law for: (i) engaging in consumer lending without requisite authority or license in Michigan; (ii) charging or receiving interest on title loans in excess of 36%; (iii) misrepresenting in communications with borrowers the status of legal action taken or threatened to be taken in violation of Michigan’s Regulation of Collection Practices Act; (iv) engaging in conduct deemed unlawful under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act during the course of soliciting, selling, and collecting upon unauthorized title loans with illegal interest rates; and (v) transacting business in Michigan without a certificate of authority since at least June 28, 2013. Under the court’s judgment, the company is prohibited from, among other things, (i) making loans in Michigan without proper licensure; (ii) making, servicing, or collecting on any title loans sold or issued to certain Michigan consumers; (iii) accepting title loan interest or other payments made by certain Michigan consumers; (iv) engaging in any collection activities on title loans issued by defendants for certain Michigan consumers; (v) asserting a security interest in any vehicles allegedly pledged as security for repayment of a title loan; and (vi) selling or otherwise transferring interest in any motor vehicle associated with a title loan. The company must also pay a total of $2,208,698, $790,050 of which will be paid to the State and $1,418,648 of which is allocated for consumer restitution.
Colorado AG Settles with Lenders Over Alleged Violations of Consumer Credit Protection Laws
On June 8, Colorado AG Cynthia Coffman announced a settlement with various lenders to resolve allegations that they violated Colorado’s consumer credit protection laws by making, servicing, and collecting high-cost loans. According to AG Coffman, the lenders made unlawful personal loans to more than 5,000 Colorado consumers, some of which had annual interest rates exceeding 355%. The AG’s office asserted that, in “the most egregious cases, consumers paid over five times the amount they borrowed in unlawful fees and interest.” Pursuant to a consent judgment entered by the Denver District Court, the lenders must pay $7,384,005.12 in disgorgement and restitution. The settlement comes after the State of Colorado obtained a $565,000 consent judgment against various entities in January 2014 arising out of similar conduct, making this the second Colorado AG settlement in connection with high-cost loans.
Nebraska AG Peterson and Department of Banking Announce Settlement with Loan Companies for Alleged Deceptive Practices
Recently, Nebraska AG Doug Peterson, in conjunction with the Director of the Department of Banking and Finance, Mark Quandahl, announced a settlement with four loan companies and their owners for alleged violations of three state laws, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTPA), and the Nebraska Installment Loan Act (NILA). According to AG Peterson, three of the companies managed and facilitated almost every aspect of the fourth companys business. The complaint alleged that the fourth company acted as an unlicensed lender to originate usury-based internet loans to Nebraska consumers by way of electronic transfer. In violation of the CPA and the UDTPA, AG Peterson alleged that the fourth companys loan agreements deceptively stated that it was a tribal entity subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Indian Reservation when it was not; rather, according to the complaint, it is a limited liability company whose profits were distributed directly to its owner. Pursuant to the Department of Banking and Finances authority to enforce the NILA, Director Quandahl alleged that the defendants charged loan origination fees in excess of the states maximum origination fee permitted for installment loan licensees and non-licensed lenders. Under the terms of the settlement, the companies and their owners will pay $150,000 to the state and establish a restitution fund of $950,000 to repay, pro rata, excess interest and fees paid by Nebraska consumers. In addition, more than $557,000 in loans taken out by Nebraska consumers and held by one of the four companies will be forgiven, and credit reporting agencies will be notified to remove the history of the loans. The companies and their owners are prohibited from originating loans in Nebraska until they comply with state law.
New York DFS Takes Action Against Online Payday Loan Lead Generator
Recently, the New York DFS announced that an online payday loan lead generator and its CEO will pay a $1 million penalty and cease payday loan lead generation activities in New York to resolve allegations that its payday loans charge fees had interest rates greater than the usury limits allowed under New York law, and that it failed to protect consumers' personal information. According to the DFS, the company (i) "advertised payday loans and connected New York consumers to payday lenders without disclosing that the payday loans contained terms that violate New York usury laws"; and (ii) failed to take any protective measures when selling leads to its network of lead buyers, despite advertising that it "prides itself in putting [its] customer's security and personal information protection at the top of [its] priority list." In the event that the company solicits non-payday lending services in New York in the future, the order requires it to establish and adhere to data security protocols for the secure use, transfer, and storage of consumers' personal information. This action represents the DFS's first action to require a company to implement consumer data security measures to its future collection of consumers' personal information.
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Department of Banking's Cease and Desist Order Against an Unlicensed Internet Lender
Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (Department) enforcement action against an unlicensed internet lender and loan purchaser for alleged violations of Pennsylvania law. PA Dept. of Banking and Sec. v. Autoloans, LLC (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 2016). The Department conducted an investigation of consumer complaints and found that in order to secure a loan with the respondents, consumers were required to (i) complete an online loan application, providing highly detailed personal information; (ii) electronically sign the loan documents and a power of attorney, which made the lienholder the attorney-in-fact for purposes related to the motor vehicle to secure the loan; and (iii) install a GPS tracker on the motor vehicle, as required by the contract. On June 24, 2015, the Department issued an Order to Cease and Desist, Prohibit, Pay a Fine and Provide Restitution (Order) against the respondents for alleged violations of the Loan Interest and Protection Law (LIPL), the Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA), and the Pawnbrokers License Act (PLA): [T]he Department alleged that Respondents violated the LIPL because they are not licensed in Pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction of the United States to provide loans to consumers, to engage in pawn brokering or to collect interest in excess of 6%. It further alleged that Respondents violated the CDCA and the PLA by providing loans to consumers using their motor vehicles as security without a license. The Court granted the Departments petition to enforce the Order, citing a 2009 case in which the Court ruled in favor of the Departments right to enforce the LIPL and the CDCA. Following the Courts decision, the Department announced that, under the Order, the respondents must (i) stop making loans to Pennsylvania residents; (ii) stop collecting payments of principal or interest from Pennsylvania residents on existing loans; (iii) stop repossessing cars from Pennsylvania residents; (iv) release all liens on file at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; and (v) return all titles to Pennsylvania residents. In addition, the order requires that the respondents pay a fine of $412,500 representing $2,500 for each known Pennsylvania resident.
California DBO Orders California-based Lender to Pay Restitution to California Borrowers
On November 18, the California DBO announced that a California-based lender fulfilled its obligation to pay nearly $1 million of restitution to more than 7,000 California consumers and $1 million to the DBO in penalties to resolve allegations that the company used deceptive marketing practices to steer consumers into personal loans exceeding $2,500. California state law limits interest rates at about 30% for loans less than $2,500, but there is no such limit above that amount. According to the DBO, the lender advertised that it provided personal loans of “up to” $2,600, $5,000, or $10,000; in reality, the lender did not offer loans less than $2,600. The lender allegedly told consumers that they could “give back the amount they did not want in the form of a prepayment,” without disclosing that it could then charge borrowers unlimited interest rates since the loan was greater than $2,500. Per the February 5 settlement, in addition to the restitution and penalty fees, the lender must, among other things, ensure that its non-mortgage and non-auto loan ads disclose, in a “clear and conspicuous manner,” that the minimum loan amount is $2,600, that there is a state law interest rate cap on loans of less than $2,500, and that it is lower than the rate charged by the lender.
Special Alert: Second Circuit Will Not Rehear Madden Decision That Threatens To Upset Secondary Credit Markets
Two months ago we issued a Special Alert regarding the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, which held that a nonbank entity taking assignment of debts originated by a national bank is not entitled to protection under the National Bank Act (“NBA”) from state-law usury claims. We explained that the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Madden ignored long-standing precedent upholding an assignee’s right to charge and collect interest in accordance with an assigned credit contract that was valid when made. And, because the entire secondary market for credit relies on this Valid-When-Made Doctrine to enforce credit agreements pursuant to their terms, the decision potentially carries far-reaching ramifications for securitization vehicles, hedge funds, other purchasers of whole loans, including those who purchase loans originated by banks pursuant to private-label arrangements and other bank relationships, such as those common to marketplace lending industries and various types of on-line consumer credit.
After the decision, Midland Funding, the assignee of the loan at issue, petitioned the Second Circuit to rehear the case either by the panel or en banc – a petition that was broadly supported by banking and securities industry trade associations in amicus briefs. On August 12, the court denied that petition.
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.
- Walter E. Zalenski, (202) 461-2910
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
Special Alert: Second Circuit Decision Threatens to Upset Secondary Credit Markets
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC held that a nonbank entity taking assignment of debts originated by a national bank is not entitled to protection under the National Bank Act (“NBA”) from state-law usury claims. In reaching this conclusion, the Court appears to have not considered the “Valid-When-Made Doctrine”—a longstanding principle of usury law that if a loan is not usurious when made, then it does not become usurious when assigned to another party. If left undisturbed, the Court’s decision may well have broad and alarming ramifications. The decision could significantly disrupt secondary markets for consumer and commercial credit, impacting a broad cross-section of financial services providers and other businesses that rely on the availability and post-sale validity of loans originated by national or state-chartered depository institutions.
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.
- Walter E. Zalenski, (202) 461-2910, wzalenski@buckleyfirm.com
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030, jnaimon@buckleyfirm.com
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040, jkromer@buckleyfirm.com
Georgia Carves Overdraft, Other Fees Out Of Usury Limit Applicable To State Banks
On April 15, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 824, which amends state law to clarify that certain banking fees are not “interest” subject to the state’s usury cap applicable to state-chartered institutions. Specifically, the bill carves out from the definition of “interest” the following: overdraft and nonsufficient funds, delinquency or default charges, returned payment charges, stop payment charges, or automated teller machine charges, and any other charge agreed upon in a written agreement governing a deposit, share, or other account. The legislation was crafted to codify and expand a declaratory order issued by the state banking commissioner following a March 2013 Georgia Court of Appeals holding that Georgia law in some situations could allow overdraft fees to be considered interest. Plaintiffs in the case had sued a state bank claiming that its overdraft fees amounted to an interest rate that far exceeded the state’s usury cap. The changes made by HB 824 took effect immediately.