InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB: Credit applications rebound to pre-pandemic levels
On July 27, the CFPB published a special issue brief finding that consumer applications for auto loans, new mortgages, and revolving credit cards had, for the most part, returned to pre-pandemic levels by May 2021. The brief compares the number of applications made in these categories before the pandemic to the number being made now and provides a state-by-state analysis of the change in applications. Highlights of the brief include: (i) sub-prime borrower credit applications increased in conjunction with federal stimulus payments; (ii) auto loan inquiries dropped 52 percent by the end of March 2020 but returned to their usual pre-pandemic trend by January 2021; however, the Bureau reports wide geographic variability in the demand for auto loans while changes in credit card applications were generally uniform; (iii) new mortgage credit inquiries experienced a smaller drop in March 2020 compared to other credit types but later saw a surge, with inquiries exceeding the usual, seasonally adjusted volume by 10 to 30 percent—a reflection of unusually high activity seen throughout the pandemic; (iv) revolving credit card inquiries declined by over 40 percent and took the longest to rebound, not returning to normal levels until March 2021; and (v) consumers with deep subprime credit scores represented the largest decline in auto loan inquiries compared to prior years, followed by inquiries from consumers with subprime credit scores, with both categories of consumers also showing declines in new mortgage and revolving credit card inquiries. “While consumer credit applications have generally recovered to pre-pandemic levels in the aggregate, we see important differences across consumers,” acting CFPB Director David Uejio stated. “Both borrowers with superprime and subprime credit scores are still not applying for credit as much as they were pre-pandemic. We will continue to keep a close watch on the marketplace as the economic recovery continues, to help ensure all consumers have access to financial products and services that are fair, transparent, and competitive.”
FDIC announces Michigan disaster relief
On July 23, the FDIC issued FIL-52-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Michigan affected by severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC further stated that it will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
District Court certifies “rent-a-tribe” class action
On July 20, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia certified a “rent-a-tribe” class action alleging an individual who orchestrated an online payday lending scheme violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), engaged in unjust enrichment, and violated Virginia’s usury law by partnering with federally-recognized tribes to issue loans with allegedly usurious interest rates. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant partnered with the tribes to circumvent state usury laws even though the tribes did not control the lending operation. The court ruled that, as there was “no substantive involvement” by the tribes in the lending operation and evidence showed that the defendant was “functionally in charge,” the lending operation—which allegedly charged interest rates exceeding Virginia’s 12 percent interest cap—could not claim tribal immunity. The plaintiffs moved to certify two RICO classes, distinguished from each other based on the lending entity, each with two sub-classes of borrowers: (i) a usury sub-class of borrowers who either paid any principal, interest, or fees on their loans; and (ii) a unjust enrichment subclass of borrowers who paid any amount on their loans. The defendant challenged class certification, arguing that “due to his changing roles” in the lending operation over the class period “differences between class members will result in a need for a series of complicated mini-trials.” In certifying the two RICO classes, the court called the defendant’s recommendation to bring individual lender suits “an unnecessary and untenable burden on the judicial system.” Furthermore, the court wrote that “[w]ith respect to [p]laintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims, [the defendant] also attempts to argue that some [p]laintiffs did not confer a benefit on [the defendant] because they paid back less than they received on their loans.” However, the court noted that because Virginia law states that any contract in violation of the state’s usury law is void, “any money paid on a void contract could constitute a benefit for the purposes of an unjust enrichment.”
CFPB marks 10th anniversary
On July 21, the CFPB marked its 10 year anniversary. Prepared remarks published by acting Director Dave Uejio highlighted Bureau activities taken over the past decade in consumer empowerment and racial equity, as well as recent actions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. With respect to enforcement, Uejio noted that since 2011, the Bureau’s work has led to approximately $14.4 billion in consumer relief and $1.7 billion in civil penalties. According to a Bureau blog post, during this time period more than 183 million consumers and consumer accounts have received economic redress and consumers have filed more than 3 million complaints. Additionally, over 7 million consumers have accessed the Bureau’s Covid-19 educational materials. “In the decade to come, we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to empower American consumers and work to ensure the financial markets they interact with are fair, transparent, and competitive,” Uejio wrote.
District Court preliminarily approves class action settlement concerning mortgage “Pay-to-Pay” fees
On July 19, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in a class action against a mortgage lender (defendant) alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the FDCPA and various state laws. The plaintiffs originally filed three separate putative class actions against the defendant alleging the lender violated state laws in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas and breached consumers’ mortgage agreements by improperly charging and collecting “Pay-to-Pay” fees when borrowers made monthly mortgage payments by telephone, interactive voice response, or the internet. The defendant denied the allegations and any wrongdoing and moved to dismiss the claims. After proceedings were stayed in all three class actions pending mediation, notices of settlement were filed in each case providing that a global settlement had been reached and that plaintiffs would be added to one lawsuit. Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement, the defendant agreed to pay $5 million to establish a settlement fund and resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.
Maryland Court of Special Appeals: Borrower may maintain cause of action before credit grantor’s collections exceed principal amount
On July 1, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed a state circuit court’s ruling, holding that “a consumer borrower may maintain a cause of action against a credit grantor under the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC). . .before the credit grantor has collected more than the principal amount of the loan.” In 2014, the borrower entered into a loan agreement with the credit grantor. Although the borrower allegedly made numerous payments on the credit contract, her personal property was repossessed in 2017. She filed a CLEC claim against the credit grantor, alleging the company “specifically refused” to provide her with a requested written statement memorializing her account history, “including all debits and credits to her account and any monthly statements sent to [her] and all other documents which refer to payments due or received.” The credit grantor moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the borrower was not entitled to monetary recovery under CLEC and that she failed to allege that she paid amounts in excess of the principal, and as such, did not assert a proper claim under CLEC. The borrower countered “that ‘CLEC damages are available regardless of whether a credit grantor has collected more than [the] principal amount of the loan,” and that furthermore, citing several cases, “‘[t]he relief that is provided by CLEC § 12-1018 has also already been determined by Maryland Appellate Courts and includes monetary, equitable and declaratory relief[.]’” The circuit court granted the credit grantor’s motion to dismiss, in part, as to the CLEC claim, holding that when relying on the plain language of the statute, the consumer was not entitled to relief.
On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals held, based on CLEC’s plain language, statutory construction, legislative history, and precedent that a consumer can bring a claim under CLEC for damages, and/or declaratory and injunctive relief before the consumer has paid amounts in excess of principal. However, because the borrower had “failed to allege actual damages or request other appropriate relief under CLEC,” the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing her CLEC claim.
OCC marks first anniversary of financial inclusion project
On July 15, the OCC marked the one-year anniversary of Project REACh, an initiative launched by the agency last year to promote greater financial inclusion of underserved populations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Project REACh (Roundtable for Economic Access and Change) brings together leaders from the banking industry, national civil rights organizations, and various businesses and technology organizations to identify and reduce barriers to accessing capital and credit. While the project’s scope in its first year included a national workstream and a regional effort centered on Los Angeles, acting Comptroller Michael Hsu announced that Project REACh will soon expand its regional focus to Washington, D.C., Dallas, and Detroit in order “to replicate the success of the project’s national workstream.” In prepared remarks, Hsu emphasized that addressing economic inequality needs to be “transformational, not transactional,” pointing out that “the financial system can perpetuate inequality” as “traditional credit scores, traditional overdraft practices, and predatory lending make it expensive to be poor, while wealthy clients can borrow and access a wide range of financial services at lower cost.” Hsu explained that Project REACh’s structure and approach allows for collaborative problem identification and problem solving and creates opportunities for business and community representatives to incubate ideas and pilots “that can later be implemented on a broader scale than possible by any one institution.”
FTC settles with financial services company
On July 14, the FTC announced an $18 million settlement with a financial services company (defendant) over allegations that it deceived consumers. The FTC originally filed a complaint in 2018 claiming, among other things, that the defendant violated the FTC Act, the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, by falsely advertising loans with “no hidden fees” and misleading consumers with respect to whether their loan applications had been approved. The complaint also alleged that the defendant withdrew double payments from consumers’ accounts and continued to charge consumers who cancelled automatic payments or paid off their loan, leading to overdraft fees and preventing borrowers from making other payments. Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the defendant is permanently barred from (i) misrepresenting fee amounts, the status of an application, and other material facts concerning any extension of credit; and (ii) making any representation about a specific loan amount prior to accepting a loan application, without clear and conspicuous disclosure of the dollar amount of any prepaid, up-front, or origination fee or the total amount of funds that would be disbursed to the consumer.
District Court approves $35 million settlement in student debt-relief action
On July 14, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a stipulated final judgment and order against the named defendant in a 2019 action brought by the CFPB, the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney, which had alleged a student loan debt relief operation deceived thousands of student-loan borrowers and charged more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint asserted that the defendants violated the CFPA, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws. A second amended complaint also included claims for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under the FDCPA and California’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
In 2019, the named defendant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 case. As the defendant is a Chapter 7 debtor and no longer conducting business, the Bureau did not seek its standard compliance and reporting requirements. Instead, the finalized settlement prohibits the defendant from resuming operations, disclosing or using customer information obtained during the course of offering or providing debt relief services, or attempting “to collect, sell, assign, or otherwise transfer any right to collect payment” from any consumers who purchased or agreed to purchase debt relief services. The defendant is also required to pay more than $35 million in redress to affected consumers, a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau, and $5,000 in civil money penalties to each of the three states.
The court previously entered final judgments against several of the defendants, as well as a default judgment and order against two other defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here).
FTC settles with payment processors in student loan debt relief scam
On July 12, the FTC announced a settlement with two Florida-based payment processing companies and their CEO (collectively, “defendants”) accused of participating in a student loan debt relief scam. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, the FTC alleged the student loan debt relief operation violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by, among other things, falsely claiming borrowers had pre-qualified for federal loan assistance programs that would reduce their monthly debt payments or result in total loan forgiveness and accepting monthly payments that were not applied towards student loans. A settlement was reached last December (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the FTC’s most recent complaint, the defendants allegedly “applied for and obtained merchant accounts for the [scam] by knowingly and repeatedly providing false information to payment processors about the [operation’s] three companies.” The defendants’ payment processing applications, the FTC contended, concealed the fraudulent activity, denied that the operation was offering consumers prohibited debt relief services, and repeatedly ignored warnings and direct evidence that the operation was defrauding consumers.
Under the terms of the settlement order, the defendants are permanently banned from payment processing or acting as an independent sales organization or sales agency. The defendants are also prohibited from assisting and facilitating any unfair and deceptive trade practice, including to obtain payment processing services. In addition, the order imposes a $28.6 million judgment against the defendants, which is partially suspended following the payment of $20,493, due to the defendants’ inability to pay the full amount.