InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Colorado governor extends suspension of regulatory statutes
On March 15, the Colorado governor issued an executive order extending numerous previous executive orders for 30 days. Among other things, the previous orders suspended certain aspects of Colorado statutes concerning foreign entity qualifications to conduct business in Colorado.
California delays implementation of tax treatment law for forgiven PPP loans
On March 12, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a joint statement along with the California Senate president pro tempore and Assembly speaker related to the tax treatment of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. California intends to delay those portions of Assembly Bill 1577 that was signed into law on September 9, 2020 relating to forgiven PPP loans, pending detailed guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department regarding certain provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act.
4th Circuit affirms $10 million penalty for appraisal practices
On March 10, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment that an appraisal practice common before 2009 was unconscionable under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. According to the opinion, a class of borrowers filed a lawsuit against a lender and an appraisal management company, alleging the defendants relayed home value estimates provided by borrowers on their applications to appraisers and allegedly asked appraisers “to take another look” if the appraisal value came in lower than the estimated value. The plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that this practice constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under West Virginia law. Plaintiffs also filed a civil conspiracy claim against the defendants. The district court conditionally certified the class. It ultimately imposed a $9.6 million statutory penalty and awarded class members the appraisal fees paid as damages for breach of contract in an amount totaling nearly $1 million. However, no damages were awarded for conspiracy. The defendants appealed, arguing that summary judgment was wrongfully granted and that the class should not have been certified since individual issues predominated over common ones.
On appeal, the majority determined, among other things, that the acceptability of the challenged practice “shifted dramatically during the class period,” and that “[w]hat started out as a common (though questionable) practice became one that, in short order, was explicitly forbidden.” The majority determined the plaintiffs established their claim for unconscionable inducement, and that it “was unethical for Defendants to attempt to pressure or influence appraisers.” The majority also affirmed the district court’s ruling on the conspiracy claim. However, the appellate court concluded that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and ordered the district court to reexamine whether breach of contract occurred and whether the plaintiffs suffered resulting damages.
The dissenting judge called the majority opinion “startling,” writing that “[t]his is an unjust punishment indeed for a company that followed a practice that was both customary and legal and only later modified to avoid potentially influencing appraisers.”
States urge Department of Education to protect student loan borrowers
On March 9, NYDFS sent a letter on behalf of a multi-state coalition of financial regulators inviting recently confirmed Department of Education Secretary Dr. Miguel Cardona to partner with the states to ensure protections for student loan borrowers. Specifically, the letter urges Secretary Cardona to reverse two policies instituted by former Secretary Betsy DeVos that the coalition claims “undermine state supervision of private companies that service federal student loans.” The first is a 2018 interpretation (covered by InfoBytes here), which takes the position that state regulation of servicers of loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program is preempted by federal law. The coalition argues that the Department’s 2018 preemption interpretation has made “state-level oversight of student loan servicers more burdensome.” As such, the coalition urges Secretary Cardona to promulgate a regulation rejecting federal preemption of state consumer protection laws to ensure borrowers can “benefit from state oversight of student loan servicers.” The letter also discusses former Secretary DeVos’s attempt to use the Privacy Act of 1974 “as a shield from necessary state oversight”—an action the coalition claims leaves states “with no choice but litigation” to obtain documents needed for industry oversight.
New York reaches settlement with bank over check-cashing program
On March 1, the New York attorney general entered into an agreement with an Ohio-based bank resolving an investigation into the bank’s alleged deceptive advertising practices. According to the AG, the bank introduced a check-cashing program advertised to consumers in the state as a method to cash government and payroll checks at a low cost. The program, which was intended to assist the underbanked and unbanked in low- and middle-income (LMI) communities, allowed consumers who did not have deposit accounts with the bank to participate in the program. The AG alleged, however, that the program was not being implemented as promoted and was not available in branches where it was advertised, nor was it allegedly available to testers who tried to use the program. While neither admitting nor denying the allegations, the bank has agreed to provide $5 million to be used as down payment and home-closing cost assistance for LMI New Yorkers, and it will apply to become a participating lender with the State of New York Mortgage Agency. The bank has also agreed to originate $145 million in mortgage loans to LMI homebuyers in the state over the next five years and will waive certain fees associated with the loans.
6th Circuit: Delegation clause in arbitration agreement keeps case out of court
On March 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that a district court “exceeded its authority” when it ruled that an arbitration agreement was unenforceable in a case disputing an allegedly predatory loan. According to the 6th Circuit opinion, the plaintiff claimed she was the victim of an illegal “rent-a-tribe” scheme when she accepted a $1,200 loan with an interest rate exceeding 350 percent from an online lender owned and organized under the laws of a federally recognized Montana tribe. The loan contract the plaintiff signed included a provision stating that “‘any dispute. . .related to this agreement will be resolved through binding arbitration’ under tribal law, subject to review only in tribal court.” The plaintiff filed suit, alleging, among other things, that the arbitration agreement violated Michigan and federal consumer protection laws. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, arguing that because the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate issues regarding “the validity, enforceability, or scope” of the arbitration agreement through a “delegation clause,” the court should stay the case and compel arbitration. The district court denied the defendant’s motion, “maintaining that the enforceability of the arbitration agreement ‘has already been litigated, and decided against [the defendant], in a similar case from the 2nd Circuit.’” The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court disregarded the delegation clause.
On remand, the 6th Circuit stated that its decision does not bear on the merits of the case but merely addresses who resolves the plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration agreement. “It’s not even about whether the parties have to arbitrate the merits. Instead, it’s about who should decide whether the parties have to arbitrate the merits,” the appellate court wrote. Focusing on the delegation clause—which states that the parties agreed that an arbitrator, and not the court, would decide “gateway arbitrability issues”—the appellate court held that “[o]nly a specific challenge to a delegation clause brings arbitrability issues back within the court's province,” which was a challenge that the plaintiff failed to make.
FTC, multiple states halt charitable telefunding operation
On March 4, the FTC, together with state attorneys general from 38 states and the District of Columbia, the secretaries of state from Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection (collectively, “plaintiffs”), announced settlements with a telefunding operation whose charitable fundraising calls allegedly collected over $110 million using deceptive solicitations. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants engaged in deceptive fundraising by placing more than 1.3 billion prerecorded robocalls to convince consumers to donate to “practically nonexistent charitable programs.” The charitable organizations then paid the defendants typically 80 to 90 percent of every donation, the complaint states, noting that certain defendants knew that almost none of the donations would be spent supporting the charitable programs. The plaintiffs contended that these false or misleading actions violated the FTC Act. Moreover, in many instances, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using soundboard technology to place the telemarketing calls. Using pre-recorded messages in calls to first-time donors is a violation of the TSR, the plaintiffs stated, as is using soundboard technology in calls to prior donors without first disclosing to recipients that they may opt-out of all future calls and providing them with a mechanism to do so.
Proposed settlements (see here, here, and here) reached with one group of defendants will, among other things, permanently ban them from engaging in any fundraising activities, conducting telemarketing to sell goods or services, or using existing donor information. The defendants will also be required to pay $110,063,848 each, which is either partially or fully suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
Additionally, proposed settlements reached with the two fundraising company defendants and their senior managers (see here, here, and here) will permanently prohibit them from engaging in any fundraising activities or consulting on behalf of a charitable organization or nonprofit organization claiming to work on behalf of causes similar to those noted in the complaint. These defendants will also be banned from using robocalls connected to telemarketing, engaging in abusive calling practices, or making misrepresentations about a good, service, or contribution. The defendants will further be required to disclose when a donation is not tax deductible. The individual defendants also are required to pay $110,063,843 each, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay, while the two corporate defendants, along with two of the individual defendants, are subject to a partially suspended monetary judgment of $1.6 million.
Virginia issues new guidance for electronic notaries
On March 11, the Virginia secretary of state will require every electronic notarial certificate to include: (i) county/city within Virginia where the electronic notary public was physically located at the time the notarization was performed; and (ii) whether the notarization was done in person or by remote notarization. The requirement follows the passage of HB2064, which amends and reenacts certain provisions of the Virginia Code, relating to electronic notary and remote notarization. HB2604 is effective March 11, 2021.
DFPI reiterates “aggressive” enforcement during pandemic
On March 11, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a statement discussing the regulator’s expanded consumer protection efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic. Among other things, DFPI noted that it is “aggressively exercising its new authority to regulate a large group of newly covered financial services, including debt collectors, credit reporting and credit repair agencies, debt relief agencies and others,” and verifying compliance with state and federal laws protecting homeowners from “coronavirus-related foreclosures.” DFPI also stated it issued a cease-and-desist order filed against a student loan debt relief company (covered by InfoBytes here), and launched an investigation of lender efforts to evade state interest rate caps.
New York governor signs bill setting forth eviction and foreclosure protections for small businesses
On March 9, the New York governor signed the COVID-19 Emergency Protect Our Small Businesses Act of 2021 (S471A/A3207), which sets forth eviction and foreclosure protections for small businesses. Among other things, the act prohibits removal of a commercial tenant prior to May 1, 2021, except by eviction proceedings. The act also prohibits the initiation of eviction proceedings until May 1, 2021 and stays pending eviction proceedings for a certain period of time depending on whether an eviction warrant or judgment of possession or ejectment has been issued. The act further requires landlords to provide certain pre-eviction notices. The press release notes that the act builds on prior state moratoriums on residential and commercial evictions.