InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York AG announced proposed settlement with student debt relief companies
On May 22, the New York attorney general (NYAG) announced a proposed settlement with three student loan debt relief companies and two of the companies’ executive officers (collectively, “defendants”), resolving allegations that the defendants participated in a broader scheme that fraudulently, deceptively, and illegally marketed, sold, and financed student debt relief services to consumers nationwide. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the September 2018 complaint alleged that a total of nine student loan debt relief companies, along with their financing company, and the two individuals violated several federal and state consumer protection statutes, including the Telemarketing Sales Rule, New York General Business Law, the state’s usury cap on interest rates, disclosure requirements under TILA, and the Federal Credit Repair Organization Act. Specifically, the NYAG asserted, among other things, that the defendants (i) sent direct mail solicitations to consumers that deceptively appeared to be from a governmental agency or an entity affiliated with a government agency; (ii) charged consumers over $1,000 for services that were available for free; (iii) requested upfront payments in violation of federal and state credit repair and debt relief laws; and (iv) charged usurious interest rates.
If approved by the court, the proposed consent judgment would require the five defendants to pay $250,000 of a $5.5 million total judgment, due to their inability to pay. Additionally, the defendants are also permanently banned from advertising, marketing, promoting, offering for sale, or selling any type of debt relief product or service—or from assisting others in doing the same. Additionally, the defendants must request that any credit reporting agency to which the defendants reported consumer information in connection with the student loan debt relief services remove the information from those consumers’ credit files. The defendants also agreed not to sell, transfer, or benefit from the personal information collected from borrowers.
The NYAG previously settled with two other defendants in February, covered by InfoBytes here.
District court: Unilateral imposition of post-judgment interest violates FDCPA
On May 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part parties’ motions for summary judgment in an FDCPA action concerning post-judgment interest. According to the ruling, the defendants—a debt buyer and an attorney who represents creditors, including the debt buyer, in collection actions—obtained a judgment from the Connecticut State Superior Court (state court) for the plaintiff’s unpaid credit card debt. The judgment awarded the defendant $33,921.25 plus post judgment interest under state law. While the complaint requested post-judgment interest of 10 percent—the maximum amount allowed by state law—the judgment did not reference a specific interest rate. After the defendants began charging post-judgment interest at 10 percent, the plaintiff filed suit alleging the defendant violated the FDCPA by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt. The defendants sought clarification of the rate of post-judgment interest from the state court and received a clarification order stating that the state court “intended that the interest rate be set at the allowable rate of ten percent per year in accordance with the statute.” In its defense, the defendants asserted a bona fide error defense under the FDCPA, arguing, among other things, that they “erroneously believed that application of post-judgment interest at a rate of ten percent was neither false nor misleading because they relied on the state court’s judgment and Clarification Order, which explicitly provided for post-judgment interest at a rate of ten percent.”
The court partially granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her FDCPA claim, stating that the unilateral imposition of post-judgment interest at a rate of 10 percent per year, which was not awarded in the judgment, is a “clear violation” of the FDCPA that is not subject to the bona fide error defense. The court stated that the bona fide error defense does not apply in this situation because “the FDCPA violation resulted from the defendants’ mistaken belief that, absent a rate of post-judgment interest expressly set by the state court, defendants were entitled to set a rate at the maximum amount allowed under the statute.” According to the court, when a state court “fails to include a specific rate of interest based on the state law,” a debt collector may not apply a default interest rate. In holding that the FDCPA’s bona fide error defense is inapplicable here, the court extended the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A. that the “bona fide error defense . . . is not available to debt collectors who misinterpret the legal requirements of the FDCPA,” to include misinterpretations of state law as well.
The court did, however, partially grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the application of pre-judgment interest.
CFPB and Massachusetts AG sue credit-repair telemarketers
On May 22, the CFPB and the Massachusetts attorney general announced a joint lawsuit against a credit repair organization and the company’s president and owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly committing deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law. The complaint also alleges the defendants engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s (CFPA) prohibition against deceptive acts or practices and the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). According to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the defendants allegedly enrolled tens of thousands of consumers by deceptively claiming that their credit-repair services could help consumers substantially improve their credit scores. The services also allegedly promised to fix “unlimited” amounts of negative items from consumers’ credit reports. However, the complaint asserts that in “numerous instances,” the defendants failed to achieve these results. The defendants also allegedly engaged in abusive acts and practices in violation of the TSR by requesting and collecting fees before achieving any results related to repairing a consumer’s credit. Among other things, the complaint further alleges that the defendants claimed to have more than 60 credit repair experts but actually only employed a handful of Boston-based employees, only some of whom interacted with consumers. The majority of the interactions, the complaint alleges, were conducted by telemarketers located in Central America who were paid “almost entirely by commission” based on the number of consumers they enrolled.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief; “damages and other monetary relief against [the defendants] as the Court finds necessary to redress injury to consumers resulting from [the defendants’] violations, which may include, among other things, rescission or reformation of contracts, refund of monies paid, and restitution; and civil money penalties.”
Minnesota Department of Commerce extends certain licensing application deadlines for insurance producers and real estate brokers
On May 27, the Minnesota Department of Commerce issued an order modifying certain regulatory deadlines as set forth in Regulatory Guidance 20-29, 20-30, 20-31, 20-32, and 20-33. Guidance 20-29 through 20-32 extends the deadlines for insurance producer and adjuster renewal applications, and Guidance 20-33 extends the deadline for certain real estate broker license applicants to complete their applications.
Kansas permits temporary remote notarizations
On May 26, the Kansas governor issued Executive Order 20-40, which temporarily permits notaries and witnesses to use audio-video technology for notarial acts during the state of disaster emergency. The order requires that (i) the notary public and the individual signing the document both be physically located in Kansas while performing the notarial act, (ii) the notary public identify the individual signing the document by personal knowledge or documentary evidence, and (iii) the transaction follow any guidance posted by the Kansas secretary of state on its website, among other conditions.
Kansas extends renewal deadlines for all professional licenses
On May 26, the Kansas governor issued Executive Order 20-39 requiring all state agencies to extend renewal deadlines for any occupational or professional license, certificate, permit, or registration that has or will expire during the state of disaster emergency. The extension will be granted to any individual or organization that was in good standing as of March 12, 2020, and will last until 90 days after termination of the emergency.
California Department of Business Oversight highlights risks of exempt securities offerings
On May 26, the California Department of Business Oversight issued an investor alert on exempt securities offerings, aka “private placements,” during Covid-19. The alert outlines the reasons why such offerings carry a higher risk of fraud and offers suggestions for potential investors to protect themselves.
New York announces New York Forward Loan Fund for small businesses, nonprofits, and small landlords
New York has announced the creation of the New York Forward Loan Fund (NYFLF), a new state-based loan program to support small businesses, nonprofits, and small landlords (buildings with 50 units or less) in New York as they reopen from Covid-19-related shutdowns. The NYFLF is intended to provide working capital for upfront expenses related to complying with operational guidelines, such as inventory, marketing, and refitting for new social distancing guidelines. The loans will be available to individuals who did not receive a loan from either the U.S. Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection Program or the SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans for Covid-19 in 2020. The NYFLF loans are interest bearing, are not forgivable, and must be repaid over a five-year term. Pre-applications for the program are being accepted.
Washington extends proclamation regarding garnishments and accrual of interest
On May 22, Washington governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 20-49.2 amending and extending proclamations 20-05 (declaring a state of emergency) and 20.49, and 20.49.1 (regarding garnishments and accrual of interest) until the earlier of the termination of the Covid-19 state of emergency or 11:59pm on May 27. Proclamations 20.49 and 20.49.1 were previously covered here and here.
Idaho Department of Finance extends work from home guidance for its licensees and registrants
On May 22, the Idaho Department of Finance extended temporary work from home guidance previously issued to Idaho mortgage brokers and lenders, mortgage loan originators, regulated lenders, title lenders, payday lenders, and collection agency licensees and registrants. The original guidance, previously covered here, permits employees to work from home where the residence is not a licensed branch. The guidance is extended through September 1, 2020.