InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Treasury Department Releases Report on Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
On April 10, the Treasury Department released the March 2017 Monthly Report to Congress on the status of its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Among other things, the report provides updates on TARP programs such as the Capital Purchase Program, the Community Development Capital Initiative, and the Making Home Affordable Program, among others. Additionally, the report highlights, among other things, administration obligations and expenditures, insurance contracts, transaction reports, and projected costs and liabilities. On May 1, the Treasury issued a monthly TARP update noting principal, investment, income, and revenue totals affecting certain TARP programs.
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing RESPA Mortgage Servicing Rule
On May 4, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2013 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) servicing rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the CFPB to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment and a May 4 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) “[c]onsumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions”; (ii) “[c]onsumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination”; (iii) “[o]utdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens”; (iv) “[f]ederal consumer financial law is enforced consistently”; and (v) “[m]arkets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”
In 2013, the Bureau adopted the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule and further amended the rule several times to address questions raised by the industry, consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The CFPB deemed the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule, effective January 10, 2014, a “significant rule” for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act. Importantly, however, in Footnote 10 of its most-recent request for comment, the Bureau clarifies that it “is not seeking comment on the amendments to the mortgage servicing rules that became or will become effective after the January 10, 2014 effective date.” (emphasis added) Accordingly, it appears that the Bureau is not presently seeking comments on the Amendments to Regulation X and Regulation Z that the CFPB published as a Final Rule (12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026) in the October 19, 2016 edition of the Federal Register – see earlier InfoBytes coverage here – and which are slated to take effect in part on October 19, 2017 and in full on April 19, 2018.
PHH v CFPB Update: D.C. Circuit Grants CFPB’s Request to Go Last at May 24 En Banc Oral Arguments
In an per curium order handed down on May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an uncontested motion brought by the CFPB seeking to revise the order of the oral arguments in the upcoming PHH Corp. v. CFPB hearing before the en banc court. With all briefing on the merits having been submitted, the case awaits oral arguments, which have been set for May 24. The Bureau sought to change the order of arguments such that the CFPB presented its argument last—after both PHH and the DOJ. In seeking a change in scheduling order, the CFPB argued that the original schedule—pursuant to which the DOJ would go last—did not afford the Bureau an opportunity to respond to the DOJ’s arguments. The Court’s May 1 Order, having granted the Bureau’s Motion, provides for the following argument order:
- Petitioners (PHH Corp.) – 30 minutes
- Amicus Curiae United States – 10 minutes
- Respondent (CFPB) – 30 minutes
Also, note that the CFPB’s motion agrees-in-advance to PHH to likewise respond to both the DOJ and CFPB, should it wish to do so.
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the once-cooperative relationship between the CFPB and the DOJ recently turned adverse after the Sessions-led DOJ presented arguments in its latest briefing that differed markedly from both the CFPB’s positions and from the arguments asserted in briefing submitted by the Obama Administration in December 2016. For additional background, please see our recent PHH Corp. v CFPB Case Update.
NCUA Collects $445 Million from International Bank Due to Faulty Mortgage-Backed Securities, Recovers Nearly $4.7 Billion to Date
On May 1, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) announced it has collected $445 million from a Switzerland-based bank over claims stemming from losses borne by two liquidated credit unions related to faulty mortgage-backed securities they bought from the bank. As part of the settlement, NCUA will dismiss its 2012 lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in Kansas on behalf of the credit unions and brought against the bank for violations of federal and state laws through its alleged misrepresentations in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Notably, the bank is not admitting fault as part of the deal. The $445 million in recoveries will be used to pay claims against the liquidated corporate credit unions, “including those of the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund.” “This latest recovery . . . provide[s] a measure of accountability for the firms that sold faulty securities to the corporate credit unions,” acting NCUA Chairman Mark McWatters said. “It remains incumbent on NCUA to provide transparency in terms of the settlements, the legal fees and other costs that go with them, and how these affect the Stabilization Fund.” To date, NCUA’s recoveries from financial institutions alleged to have sold faulty securities to five corporate credit unions, leading to their collapse, have reached nearly $4.8 billion.
CFPB Releases Report on Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgage Industry, Banking Agencies Attend Roundtable Meeting
On April 27, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its report summarizing strategies intended to promote diversity and inclusion by mortgage industry participants. The report, Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgage Industry: Readout from an Opening Roundtable, is the result of the Bureau’s collaboration with the financial services industry. The roundtable meeting—led by the Bureau’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI)—convened representatives from the mortgage industry, nonbank financial companies, and OMWI staff from the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and FHFA. OMWI was a created by Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act and charges directors with “increasing diversity in agency programs and contracts, and assessing diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.” The report highlights issues raised by roundtable participants and stresses the need to develop a “strong business case for diversity and inclusion.” The Bureau’s position on the strategies and practices discussed include the following:
- promoting diversity and inclusion strengthens organizations and improves overall performance;
- building in diversity and inclusion as “fundamental principles” and taking a “tone from the top” approach highlights the importance of leadership buy-in and accountability;
- boosting diversity and inclusion through the recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement of personnel creates opportunities for more diverse viewpoints;
- promoting a more diverse workforce and tailoring products to the needs of different consumers fosters a greater understanding of the needs of a more diverse customer base; and
- understanding the importance of data collection and analysis supports the business case for diversity.
Fannie Mae to Allow Home Owners to Swap Student Loan Debt for Mortgage Debt
On April 25, Fannie Mae issued updates to its Selling Guide allowing home owners to refinance their mortgages to pay off their student loan debt. The new policies will present opportunities for homeowners to (i) pay down student debt by refinancing their mortgage; (ii) no longer be required to include non-mortgage debt (credit cards, auto loans, and student loans) paid by others on loan applications; and (iii) increase the likelihood of qualifying for a mortgage loan while carrying student debt “by allowing lenders to accept student debt payments included on credit reports.” The updates also allow for debt to be excluded from the debt-to-income ratio if a lender can obtain documents showing that a non-mortgage debt has been paid by another party for at least 12 months. “These new policies provide . . . flexible payment solutions to future and current homeowners and, in turn, allow lenders to serve more borrowers,” stated Jonathan Lawless, Fannie Mae’s Vice President of Customer Solutions. The policy changes are effective immediately.
CFPB Releases Supervisory Highlights Focused on Student Lending and Mortgage Servicing
On April 26, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights for spring 2017, which outlines its supervisory and oversight actions in areas such as mortgage servicing and student loan servicing. According to the Supervisory Highlights, recent supervisory resolutions have “resulted in approximately $6.1 million in restitution to more than 16,000 consumers.”
Student loan servicing. Bureau examiners reported that student loan servicers (i) routinely acted on incorrect information about whether the borrower was enrolled in school, and (ii) failed to reverse certain charges, including improper late fees and capitalization of unpaid interest, even after they knew they had wrongly ended a deferment.
Mortgage servicing. According to the report, the Bureau continued to see “serious issues for consumers seeking alternatives to foreclosure, or loss mitigation, at certain servicers.” CFPB examiners found problems with premature foreclosure filings, mishandling of escrow accounts, and incomplete periodic statements. Furthermore, examiners found that one or more mortgage servicers:
- failed to identify the additional documents and information borrowers needed to submit to complete a loss mitigation application and then denied the applications for not including those documents;
- launched the foreclosure process prematurely after receiving loss mitigation applications from borrowers, thereby failing to give required foreclosure protections to qualified consumers;
- mishandled escrow accounts by using funds to pay insurance premiums on unrelated loans, creating shortages in the escrow accounts and higher monthly payments for consumers; and
- issued incomplete periodic statements that used vague language such as “Misc. Expenses” and “Charge for Service” when describing transaction activity.
The report also outlined the Bureau’s position on employee production incentives and presented guidance and examples of where “incentives contributed to substantial harm.”
Special Alert: CFPB Proposes Amendments to 2015 HMDA Rule
On April 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a proposal to amend the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule. The changes are primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements, and most of the clarifications and revisions would take effect in January 2018. Comments on the CFPB’s proposal are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The CFPB describes the changes as being non-substantive in nature, noting that the proposal is meant to provide “clarifications, technical corrections, or minor changes.” While we describe the more significant proposed amendments below in greater detail, highlights of the proposal include:- Clarification of the definitions of “automated underwriting system,” “closed-end mortgage loan” (specifically, extension of credit), “dwelling” (specifically, multifamily residential structures and communities), “home improvement loan,” and “home purchase loan” (specifically, construction and permanent financing)
- Permission for institutions to report “not applicable” for loan purpose and the loan originator’s Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ID when reporting certain purchased loans originated before Regulation Z’s loan originator rules took effect
- Clarification of the exclusions for temporary financing and construction loans, commercial or business purpose loans, financial institutions that do not meet the loan-volume threshold, and new funds in advance of consolidation with New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreements (CEMA)
- Provision of a safe harbor for bona-fide errors related to incorrect census tract reporting if the institution properly uses the geocoding tool published on the CFPB website
Click here to read full special alert***
If you have questions about the amendments or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
PHH Submits Reply Brief in Case Against CFPB; DOJ Allocated 10 Minutes at May 24 Oral Argument
As recently covered by InfoBytes, on March 31 the CFPB and seven amicus curiae respondents each filed briefing in PHH Corp. v CFPB urging the D.C. Circuit to uphold the constitutionality of the Bureau’s single-director, independent-agency structure. On April 10, PHH filed a reply brief responding to the arguments raised by the CFPB and other respondents, and reiterating its position that, among other things, the en banc court should declare that the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the CFPB violated constitutional separation of powers requirements and that the only satisfactory remedy is the complete invalidation of the Bureau.
Citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), PHH contends that, “the Constitution does not permit Congress to assign any portion of the executive power to an ’independent’ officer who is not accountable to, and removable by, the President.” Id. at 113. Moreover, in addressing comparisons between the CFPB and the FTC, the mortgage lender’s reply argues that “[t]he CFPB’s broad executive, legislative, and adjudicative authority further refutes its claim that it is functionally ‘indistinguishable’ from the FTC in 1935” because, among other reasons, “[i]n 1935, the FTC had no substantive rulemaking powers—the FTC disclaimed that authority until 1962.” In support of this claim, PHH highlights the fact that “the CFPB has all the authority—and more—of a cabinet department such as Treasury or Justice” but “unlike most cabinet positions, the Director may unilaterally appoint every subordinate official in the agency, as well as hire and compensate all CFPB employees outside the normal competitive-service requirements” (emphasis added). In addition to addressing the constitutional issue, PHH’s reply brief also notes that the CFPB has offered no support for its effort to enforce a reinterpretation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act against the companies.
Oral argument is scheduled for May 24. As provided in a Per Curiam Order issued on April 11, the Court has allocated 30 minutes per side for the argument and an additional ten minutes of argument for the United States as amicus curiae. For additional background, please see our recent PHH Corp. v CFPB Case Update.
District Court Says Bank/RMBS Trustee Must Face Suit Filed by Institutional Investors Claiming Breach of Trust Agreement
On March 30, a federal court in the Southern District of New York denied in part a bank’s motion to dismiss claims brought in five consolidated actions by institutional investors alleging breach of contract and conflict of interest in connection with billions of dollars of alleged losses stemming from the bank’s role as a trustee of 53 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). The RMBS investors alleged, among other things, that the trustee took “virtually no action” to require lenders to repurchase or cure defaulted or improperly underwritten loans that backed the securities, despite having knowledge of “systemic violations.” The investors further alleged that the trustee’s failure to take corrective action was due to concerns that it might expose its own “misconduct” in other RMBS trusts and/or jeopardize its business dealings with lenders and servicers.
Ultimately, the Court granted in part and denied in part the bank-trustee’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue breach of contract and conflict of interest claims related to the trusts, as well as certain claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and due care. In reaching its conclusion, the Court explained that, having identified internal bank documents that raise legitimate questions about whether bank officials knew about lenders’ “alleged breaches of the trusts’ governing agreements” and failed to address the problems, the plaintiffs’ allegations “go far beyond many other RMBS trustee complaints, which themselves have been found sufficient to state a claim.” The Court did, however, dismiss the investors’ claims that alleged negligence and those alleging a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and negligence because, among other reasons, “[a] tort claim cannot be sustained if it ‘do[es] no more than assert violations of a duty which is identical to and indivisible from the contract obligations which have allegedly been breached.’” The Court also nixed several claims asserting violations of certain provisions of the New York law governing mortgage trusts for which no private right of action exists.