InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
**UPDATE** PHH v. CFPB
On January 27, PHH filed a scheduled response brief to views briefed last month by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Obama, likely bringing to a close the parties’ briefing of the CFPB’s petition for en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Also on January 27, PHH separately filed a (less significant) brief, opposing the recent-filed motion to intervene on the CFPB’s behalf submitted by 17 Attorneys General.
As previously covered on InfoBytes, late last year the Court invited briefing by President Obama’s DOJ on behalf of the United States. (Note that the DOJ does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The DOJ’s brief focused on the constitutional issue (without wading into the RESPA rulings), and argued that the en banc court should either (i) review the panel’s majority holding that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional because the majority’s reasoning was erroneous in view of Supreme Court precedent, or (ii) review and simply adopt the dissenting panelist’s view that because the panel was in all events reversing the CFPB’s RESPA rulings and remanding to the CFPB on that basis, the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue.
In response to the DOJ, PHH argues that en banc review is unnecessary because the DOJ had only pointed to an error in the panel’s constitutional reasoning, without stating whether DOJ’s preferred mode of analysis would have led to a different result than the one reached by the panel, namely the severing of the “for cause” removal provision applicable to the CFPB Director under Dodd-Frank. PHH also contended that there is no precedent for an en banc court panel to review a panel decision just to determine whether the panel had properly reached a constitutional issue, and that in any event the panel’s decision to reach the issue was entirely proper (and therefore not worthy of review) because, as PHH’s framed the matter, the panel could not have remanded the case to an agency with a potentially unconstitutional structure.
In addition, on January 26, two other non-parties filed two motions to intervene on the CFPB’s side: (i) one by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, respectively; and (ii) one by a coalition of interest groups, which included the Center for Responsible Lending, US PIRG, Americans for Financial Reform, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and other movants.
Nevada Supreme Court Holds that HOA "Superpriority" Statute Does Not Violate Due Process, Declines to Follow 9th Circuit
On January 26, in Saticoy Bay LLC Series 350 Durango 104 v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No 68630, (Nev. Jan 26, 2017), the Nevada Supreme Court reaffirmed its interpretation of the state statute granting priority lien status to unpaid condo assessments (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116 et seq.); specifically that foreclosure of such liens extinguishes prior-recorded mortgages. The Nevada Supreme Court declined to follow a 2016 ruling by the Ninth Circuit holding that the statute violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather, the Nevada Supreme Court stated that the Due Process Clause protects individuals from state actions, and a foreclosing HOA cannot be deemed to be a state actor. In doing so, the court specifically notes that “[w]e acknowledge that the Ninth Circuit has recently held that the Legislature's enactment of NRS 116.3116 et seq. does constitute state action. . . . However, for the aforementioned reasons, we decline to follow its holding.”
Supreme Court Holds that Sue-and Be-Sued Clause Does Not Create Automatic Federal Jurisdiction in Suits Involving Fannie Mae
On January 18, in Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., No. 14-1055, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that Fannie Mae’s sue-and-be sued clause does not grant federal courts jurisdiction over all cases involving Fannie Mae. In reaching its conclusion, the Court found that the clause, which authorizes Fannie Mae “to sue and to be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal,” was distinct from other sue-and-be-sued clauses previously considered to confer jurisdiction. Unlike other clauses, which referred to suit in federal court without qualification, the Fannie Mae clause authorized suit in “any court of competent jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the Court concluded that “[i]n authorizing Fannie Mae to sue-and-be-sued ‘in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal’ it permits suit in any state or federal court already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit” and thus a suit involving Fannie Mae does not automatically create federal jurisdiction.
FHA Price Cut Officially Halted by New Administration
On January 20, the newly-installed Trump Administration issued Mortgagee Letter 2017-07, which indefinitely suspended the reduction in Federal Housing Administration (FHA) premiums that had been scheduled to go into effect January 27 under a policy approved by outgoing HUD Secretary Julian Castro. In suspending the rate change, FHA explained that it remains “committed to ensuring its mortgage insurance programs [remain] viable and effective in the long term for all parties involved, especially our taxpayers,” and that, “more analysis and research are deemed necessary to assess future adjustments while also considering potential market conditions in an ever-changing global economy that could impact our efforts.” FHA also confirmed that it “will issue a subsequent Mortgagee Letter at a later date should this policy change.”
NCUA Issues Guidance on CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rule, FDCPA Interpretive Rule
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) has issued a regulatory alert to federally insured credit unions regarding recent amendments to the CFPB's 2013 Mortgage Servicing Rule, issued on August 4, 2016, and the Bureau’s FDCPA interpretive rule concerning safe harbors from FDCPA liability. The recent amendments to the Mortgage Servicing Rule clarify (i) Regulation X (RESPA) provisions regarding force-placed insurance notices, mortgage servicing policies and procedures, early intervention, and loss mitigation requirements, and (ii) Regulation Z (TILA) provisions regarding prompt payment crediting and periodic statement requirements. The FDCPA interpretive rule provides safe harbor for servicers acting in compliance with specified mortgage servicing rules set forth in Regulations X and Z.
CFPB Fines Mortgage Servicers $28 Million, Claims Failure to Provide Foreclosure Relief
On January 23, the CFPB announced that it had entered consent orders (2017-CFPB-0004 , 2017-CFPB-0005), against two affiliated mortgage servicers, claiming the companies had misled homeowners seeking foreclosure relief. One of the respondent companies is alleged to have, among other things, burdened consumers with excessive and unnecessary paperwork demands in response to foreclosure relief applications thereby violating both RESPA and the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The Bureau is therefore requiring the company to pay an estimated $17 million to compensate affected consumers and to pay a civil penalty of $3 million.
As for the second respondent, the CFPB alleged that it failed to consider payment deferment applicants for foreclosure relief options, misled consumers about the impact of deferring payments, charged certain borrowers for credit insurance that should have been cancelled, prematurely cancelled credit insurance for other borrowers, provided inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies, and failed to investigate consumer disputes. Finding violations under RESPA, FCRA, and various “deceptive acts or practices,” the Bureau is requiring the second company to refund approximately $4.4 million to consumers and to pay a civil penalty of $4.4 million.
Nation's Biggest Bank Agrees to $55 Million Settlement with DOJ Regarding Allegations of Discriminatory Lending Practices
On January 18, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing a national bank of discriminating against minorities in home lending. According to the government’s complaint, the DOJ alleges, among other things, that the bank “failed to adequately monitor for and fully remedy the effects of race and national origin disparities in APR” and did not “maintain adequate data to determine whether it was discriminating” before ending its wholesale lending practice in late 2009. Two days later, on January 20, the bank agreed to settle the matter and will pay $55 million, while denying any wrong doing. The bank maintains its view that the DOJ’s case is based on legacy allegations that concern pricing decisions of independent third-party brokers. The details of the settlement have not been released as of the publication date of this post.
State Attorneys General Seek to Intervene in PHH v. CFPB Case
On January 23, the Attorneys General of 16 states and the District of Columbia (the State Attorneys General) filed a motion requesting the permission of the D.C. Circuit to intervene in the CFPB’s petition for en banc reconsideration in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. In the motion, the State Attorneys General argue that they have a vital interest in the matter because the October 2016 panel decision subjecting the CFPB Director to “at will” removal by the President “threatens to undermine the ability of the State Attorneys General [to work with the CFPB] to bring effective civil enforcement and coordinated regulatory actions free from political influence and interference.”
Noting the possibility that President Trump may seek to remove CFPB Director Cordray before the petition for rehearing is resolved or refuse to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court if the panel decision stands, the State Attorneys General raise the concern that “[t]he incoming administration … may not continue an effective defense of the statutory for-cause protection of the CFPB director.” Therefore, because “[a] significant probability exists that the pending petition for rehearing will be withdrawn, or the case otherwise rendered moot,” the State Attorneys General argue that the D.C. Circuit should allow them to intervene to protect their interests.
In addition to the District of Columbia, the motion was filed on behalf of the Attorneys General for the following states: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The filing of the motion was announced by Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, whose office prepared the initial draft.
Senate Banking Committee Announces Subcommittee Assignments for 115th Congress
On January 17, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), announced subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress. The Senators named to head each subcommittee are listed below:
- Dean Heller of Nevada will be the new chairman of the Securities, Insurance and Investment subcommittee. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia will continue to serve as ranking member.
- Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania will remain chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection subcommittee. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will be the new ranking member.
- Tom Cotton of Arkansas will become chairman of the Economic Policy subcommittee. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota will be the new ranking member.
- Ben Sasse of Nebraska will chair the National Security and International Trade and Finance subcommittee. Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana will serve as ranking member.
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina will continue to chair the Housing, Transportation and Community Development subcommittee. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey will remain ranking member.
Misleading Mortgage Investors Costs Germany's Largest Bank $7.2 Billion
On January 17, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a $7.2 billion settlement with Germany’s largest lender, resolving federal civil claims that a German global bank misled investors in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) between 2006 and 2007. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the bank must pay a $3.1 billion civil penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), and must provide $4.1 billion in consumer relief. The DOJ described the settlement as “one of the largest FIRREA penalties ever paid.”
As a part of the settlement, the bank acknowledged misleading investors in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale, and issuance of RMBS. Pursuant to the agreement, an independent monitor will determine whether the bank has satisfied its consumer relief obligations. In connection with the settlement, the DOJ released an appendix containing credit and compliance due diligence results from a selection of the bank’s RMBS, along with a list of the RMBS at issue. The settlement— described by the DOJ as “one of the largest FIRREA penalties ever paid”—does not release any individuals from potential criminal or civil liability. The bank has agreed to fully cooperate with investigations related to the conduct covered by the agreement.