InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Court denies lender’s bid to arbitrate DACA suit
On April 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a matter alleging a lender denied plaintiffs’ applications based on their immigration status. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants, alleging the lender denied their loan applications based on one of the plaintiff’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and the other plaintiff’s status as a conditional permanent resident. The plaintiffs claimed that these practices constituted unlawful discrimination and “alienage discrimination” in violation of federal law and California state law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the lender violated the FCRA by accessing one of their credit reports without a permissible purpose. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the claims.
With respect to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the lender claimed that the DACA plaintiff “expressly consented to arbitration” when he was required to check a box labeled “I agree” in order to proceed with his online student loan refinancing application back in 2016. However, the DACA plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement “lacked adequate consideration” because he was ineligible for a loan as a DACA applicant, and that even if it were a valid agreement, it only applied to his 2016 application and not to his subsequent attempts to refinance his student loans. In denying the lender’s motion to compel arbitration, the court concluded that the DACA plaintiff did not claim that he was seeking to reopen or have the lender reconsider his 2016 application, but rather he asserted that these were “standalone attempted transactions,” and as such, did not fall within the scope of the 2016 arbitration agreement.
In reviewing whether the lender’s policies constitute alienage discrimination, the court determined, among other things, that while the lender “asserts that it does not discriminate against non-citizens because some non-citizens—namely [lawful permanent residents] and some visa-holders—are still eligible to contract for credit with [the lender],” the distinction “is not supported by the language of the statute,” noting that under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, protections “extend to ‘all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Additionally, the court ruled that the second class of conditional permanent residents whose credit reports were pulled by the lender and allegedly experienced a decrease in their credit scores—despite plaintiffs claiming the lender’s policy states that permanent residents are ineligible for loans if their green cards are valid for two years or less—may proceed with their FCRA claims.
PA AG settles with collector over payday loan scheme
On April 9, the Pennsylvania attorney general announced settlements with the former CEO of a since-dissolved lender and a debt collector to resolve claims that the collector charged borrowers interest rates as high as 448 percent on loans and lines of credit. The AG alleged that the former CEO “participated in, directed and controlled” business activities related to the allegedly illegal online payday lending scheme, while the debt collector collected more than $4 million related to Pennsylvania consumers’ loan accounts. The terms of the settlement require the individual defendant to comply with relevant consumer protection laws and limits the individual defendant’s ability to work in the consumer lending industry in Pennsylvania for the next nine years. Additionally, the individual defendant is required to pay the Commonwealth $3 million.
The AG’s office noted that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also approved a settlement with the debt collector, which requires the company to comply with relevant consumer protection laws and, among other things, undertake the following actions: (i) ensure that all acquired debts, for which it attempts to collect, comply with applicable laws and regulations; (ii) cancel all balances on applicable accounts, take no further action to collect debts allegedly owed by Pennsylvania consumers on these accounts, and notify consumers of the cancellations; (iii) “refrain from engaging in [c]ollections on any [d]ebts involving loans made over the internet by [n]on-bank lenders that violate Pennsylvania laws,” including its usury laws; and (iv) will not sell, re-sell, or assign debt related to applicable accounts, including accounts subject to a previously-negotiated nationwide class action settlement agreement and Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan. Previous InfoBytes coverage related to the payday lending scheme can be found here, here, and here.
NYDFS announces Statewide Office of Financial Inclusion and Empowerment
On April 13, NYDFS announced the new Statewide Office of Financial Inclusion and Empowerment, which is intended to meet the financial services needs of low- and middle-income New Yorkers and provide a “single-stop state resource” for consumers to access financial help. Superintended Linda A. Lacewell stated that the intention of the office is to “advance the Department’s strategic financial inclusion initiatives” and “pilot and develop policy initiatives designed to help further financial inclusion and empowerment.” Among other things, the new office will (i) maintain a centralized list of financial services counseling providers from across the state in the areas of housing, student loan, debt, and general financial literacy; (ii) coordinate state and local services intended to expand access to credit and opportunities for wealth building; (iii) “[i]ncubate new programs to expand access to safe and affordable banking services, credit and financial education,” and “coordinate public-private partnerships”; and (iv) foster the provision of high-quality, low-cost financial products across New York. Lacewell also announced that the Honorable Tremaine Wright will serve as the office’s first director. Wright, who will develop and implement the office’s policies and programs, was previously elected to the New York State Assembly where she was chair of New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus.
California bill would create public banking for the unbanked
Recently, the California legislature introduced AB 1177—the California Public Banking Option Act—which would, if enacted, establish the Public Banking Opinion Board and task the Board with designing, implementing, and overseeing a program for consumers in the state who lack access to traditional banking services. Specifically, the bill would create the BankCal Program, which would protect unbanked and underbanked consumers from predatory, discriminatory, and costly alternatives by providing “access to voluntary, zero-fee, zero-penalty, federally insured transaction account and debit card services at no cost to account holders.”
Among other things, the bill would (i) impose a mandate requiring employers and hiring entities to maintain payroll direct deposit arrangements to allow workers to participate in the program; (ii) require landlords to allow tenants to pay rents and security deposits by electronic funds transfers from a BankCal account; (iii) require the Board to contract with and coordinate financial services vendors for the program and build an expansive financial services network of participating ATMs, banks and credit union branches, and other in-network partners to allow account holders to load or withdraw funds from their BankCal accounts without paying fees; (iv) require the Board to establish a no-fee process to allow all account holders to arrange for payments to a registered payee using a preauthorized electronic fund transfer from a BankCal account; and (v) require the Board to “determine the criteria for certification of lenders of consumer credit” to maximize consumer protection and protect account holders from unfair and deceptive practices, including those that “steer consumers into unnecessary, more costly, or higher risk products that do not match their financial needs.” Furthermore, the Board would be tasked with studying whether additional services may be beneficial to account holders to maximize the purposes of the program.
Texas updates guidance for credit access businesses, continuing to urge them to work with consumers and allowing employees to work remotely
On April 15, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin (as described here, here, here, here, here, and here) urging credit access businesses to continue to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis. Among other measures, the regulator asks licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 on the business’ policies (including communication procedures), work out modifications for payment difficulties, and review policies for fees, late charges, delinquency practices, and repossessions. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through May 31, 2021, unless withdrawn or revised.
Texas updates guidance related to regulated lenders, continuing to urge them to work with borrowers and allowing employees to work remotely
On April 15, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin (previously covered here, here, here, here, here, and here) urging regulated lenders to continue to work with borrowers during the Covid-19 crisis. Among other measures, the regulator asks licensees to increase borrower communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 on the lender’s policies (including communication procedures), work out modifications for payment difficulties, review policies for fees, late charges, delinquency practices, and repossessions, and that certain mortgages may be covered by federal foreclosure moratoriums. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through May 31, 2021, unless withdrawn or revised.
Texas updates guidance for motor vehicle sales finance licensees, continuing to urge them to work with consumers and allowing employees to work remotely
On April 15, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin (previously discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) urging motor vehicle sales finance licensees to continue to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis. Among other measures, the regulator asks licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 on the lender’s policies (including communication procedures), work out modifications for payment difficulties, review policies for fees, late charges, delinquency practices, and repossessions, and that there may be limits on allowable deferment charges, and refers a consumer to the protections included in advisory bulletin B16-4. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through May 31, 2021, unless withdrawn or revised.
Massachusetts Appeals Court: Plaintiffs’ counterclaim under PHLPA filed after foreclosure sale is untimely
On April 7, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that plaintiffs could not assert a violation of the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act (PHLPA) in connection with a foreclosure proceeding. In 2005, the plaintiffs obtained a loan to purchase a home but later defaulted on their mortgage. In 2016, the defendant loan servicer began foreclosure proceedings, and sent plaintiffs a right to cure letter followed by an acceleration notice more than 90 days later. Approximately a year later, the servicer sent the plaintiffs a notice of the foreclosure sale, purchased the property, and ultimately filed a summary process eviction action and motion for summary judgment, which the state housing court granted. The plaintiffs then filed a counterclaim alleging the servicer violated PHLPA § 15(b)(2). The servicer maintained, however, that it is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law because more than five years had passed between the time the [plaintiffs] closed on the loan and the time they brought their counterclaim for violation of the PHLPA,” and that, as such, “the five-year statute of limitations in § 15(b)(1) bars their counterclaim.”
On appeal, the Appeals Court majority determined that while the five-year statute of limitations under § 15(b)(1) did not apply to the borrowers’ counterclaim, § 15(b)(2)—under which the plaintiffs brought their counterclaim—“provides that a borrower may employ a defense, claim, or counterclaim ‘during the term of a high-cost home mortgage loan.’” However, because a foreclosure sale following acceleration of a note and mortgage “concludes the term of a mortgage loan,” the Appeals Court deemed the plaintiffs’ counterclaim was untimely.
Texas updates guidance for tax lenders, continuing to urge them to work with consumers and allowing employees to work remotely
On April 15, the Texas Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner updated its advisory bulletin (previously discussed here, here, here, here, and here) urging property tax lenders to continue to work with consumers during the Covid-19 crisis. Among other measures, the regulator urges licensees to increase consumer communication regarding the effects of Covid-19 on the licensees’ business, work out modifications for payment difficulties, and review policies for fees, late fees, and delinquency practices, to help support successful repayment. The guidance also: (i) reminds licensees of legal requirements for using electronic signatures, and (ii) continues to permit licensees to conduct activity from unlicensed locations, subject to certain conditions. The guidance is in effect through May 31, 2021, unless withdrawn or revised.
Industry group sues to stop Washington’s emergency rule banning credit scoring in insurance underwriting
On April 8, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) filed a lawsuit in Washington Superior Court in an attempt to stop an emergency rule issued last month by the Washington Insurance Commissioner, which bans the use of credit-based insurance scores in the rating and underwriting of insurance for a three-year period. The rule specifically prohibits insurers from “us[ing] credit history to place insurance coverage with a particular affiliated insurer or insurer within an overall group of affiliated insurance companies” and applies to all new policies effective, and existing policies processed for renewal, on or after June 20, 2021.
According to a press release issued by the Commissioner, the emergency rule is intended to prevent discriminatory pricing in private auto, renters, and homeowners insurance in anticipation of the end of the CARES Act, which will expire 120 days after President Biden declares an end to the national emergency caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Under the CARES Act, Congress required furnishers of information to credit bureaus to modify credit reporting practices if and when they grant an “accommodation”—that is, an agreement to defer payments, modify a loan, or grant other relief—to borrowers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, irrespective of asset type to ensure that borrowers who sought and obtained forbearance or other relief were not credit reported as becoming delinquent or further delinquent as a result of the forbearance or other relief (see Buckley Special Alert), which the Commissioner believes has disrupted the credit reporting process and reportedly caused credit bureaus to collect inaccurate credit histories for some consumers. The Commissioner further contends that because “the predicative ability of current credit scoring models cannot be assumed,” scoring models used by insurers to set rates for policyholders have been degraded and will have a disparate impact on consumers with lower incomes and communities of color. Sources report that APCIA’s lawsuit—which seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (and asks the court to declare the Commissioner’s rule invalid and to enjoin its enforcement)—claims the Commissioner’s rule will harm insured consumers in the state who pay less for auto, homeowners, and renters insurance because of the use of credit-based insurance scores to predict risk and set rates.