InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule
On May 25, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2014 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment, and a May 25 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (ii) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; (iii) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; (iv) federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and (v) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The Dodd-Frank Act established new standards for mortgage lending and created a class of “qualified mortgage” (QM) loans. The standards required lenders to assess consumers’ ability to repay (ATR). Dodd-Frank also provided for a class of QM loans that must not have “certain risky product features and are presumed to comply with the ATR requirement.”
The CFPB issued rules to make ATR and QM standards “clear and effective” in January 2013. As previously covered in a Special Alert, the rule and its amendments that took effect on January 10, 2014 provide a mechanism for curing point-and-fees overages on QM loans as well as more minor amendments to its mortgage origination and servicing rules.
Florida Judge Issues Temporary Injunction to Halt Debt Relief Operation
On May 25, at the request of the FTC and the State of Florida, a Southern District of Florida court issued a preliminary injunction order temporarily halting a debt relief operation that bilked millions of dollars from financially strapped consumers. According to the complaint filed by the FTC and the State of Florida, the Defendants—who operated the debt relief operation—allegedly violated the FTC Act, the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by claiming they would enroll consumers in loan forgiveness or payment reduction programs to pay, settle, or obtain dismissals of their debts and improve their credit. (See FTC v. Marcus, No. 0:17-cv-60907-CMA (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2017).) Consumers were often promised attractive interest rates and significantly lower monthly payments. However, consumers, after paying hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for promised debt-consolidation services, discovered their debts were unpaid, their accounts had defaulted, and their credit scores damaged. Several were sued by their creditors, and some were forced into bankruptcy. The FTC and the State of Florida further allege that the Defendants “falsely claimed non-profit status to appear more credible and legitimate.” The complaint further alleges that Defendants called consumers already enrolled with debt-relief providers to inform them that they were taking over the servicing of those accounts and would provide the same or similar debt relief services. Contrary to the Defendants’ promises, consumers ended up in worse financial positions.
In its preliminary injunction order, the court determined that there was good cause to believe that “immediate and irreparable harm” would result unless an injunction was issued. The order prohibits the defendants, in connection with the advertising, marketing, promotion or sale of any good or service, including any debt-relief product or service or credit product or service, from making misrepresentations about debt-relief programs or services and violating any provision of the TSR. The court also ordered a freeze of the Defendants’ assets, imposed financial reporting requirements, and appointed a temporary receiver. In a press release issued by the FTC, the Agency claims it seeks to “permanently stop the alleged illegal practices and obtain refunds for affected consumers.”
CFPB Closes Public Comments on Remittance Transfer Rule; Industry Groups Submit Responses
As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plan for assessing the effectiveness of its May 2013 final rule governing consumer remittance transfers (Remittance Rule). The request, which closed for public comment on May 23, focused on, among other things: (i) “whether the market for remittances has evolved . . . in ways that promote access, efficiency, and limited market disruption”; and (ii) whether the Remittance Rule (and other CFPB regulatory activity) has “brought more information, transparency, and greater predictability of prices to the market.” The CFPB received over 35 public comments from a vast array of large and small credit unions, as well as some of the leading providers of money transfer by volume. The consensus among these institutions was that implementing and maintaining the Remittance Rule’s new disclosures, cancellation windows, and audits are costly and the benefits to consumers are negligible. Specifically, one commenter noted increased consumer confusion, increased consumer delays in receiving their funds, and some have discontinued offering money transfers altogether.
On May 23, the American Bankers Association (ABA) submitted a comment letter calling upon the Bureau to conduct an evidence-based assessment on whether the rule has preserved consumers’ access to remittance services. According to a survey conducted by the ABA of 75 member banks of varying asset sizes and cited in the comment letter, the rule—intended to “provide additional information to help consumers shop for remittances and establish error resolution procedures and protections”—has “restricted consumers’ access to remittances, increased fees for use of the service, and unnecessarily delayed remittance requests.” As explained in the letter, the ABA expressed concern about the rule, stating that there is “little evidence that the final rule has improved consumer decision-making or facilitated comparison shopping.” Furthermore, the ABA has asked the CFPB to examine the following issues: (i) whether consumers, including those in rural areas, have access to remittance transfer services; (ii) whether consumers are provided information about remittance services that inform rather than confuse; and (iii) whether regulation of remittances is not unnecessarily burdensome to the financial institutions that provide this service.
Separately, on May 23, The Clearing House, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade, and the ABA (Associations), issued a joint letter urging the CFPB to examine the effects of the rule from the perspective of both consumer-senders of remittance transfers and the providers of those services. The Associations outlined recommendations for the CFPB including: (i) continuing to permit depository institutions to provide estimates of third-party fees and exchange rates rather than actual fees and rates in cases where obtaining exact data is not feasible; (ii) excluding from the rule high-value transfers in excess of a certain dollar amount as well as excluding from coverage transfers effectuated through reloadable prepaid cards; (iii) modifying disclosure requirements and cancellation and resend rights; and (iv) making changes to the rule’s error resolution provisions to hold the sender responsible for transaction costs resulting from sender error.Department of Education Releases Phase II Amending the Federal Student Loan Servicing Solicitation
On May 19, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) announced the formal amendment of Phase II of the federal student loan servicing solicitation. According to a fact sheet issued by the Department, the amendment outlines plans to select a single student loan servicer that all borrowers will interact with on a unified platform. This is a departure from the current system in which nine servicing companies handle borrowers’ payments of their federal student loans. The amendment further clarifies and lists the Department's expectations of the eventual servicer. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos commented on the announcement, “[w]ith changes in the new amendment, we have simplified the process to ensure meaningful borrower protections while saving taxpayers more than $130 million over the next five years. Savings are expected to increase significantly over the life of the contract. Borrowers can expect to see a more user-friendly loan servicing interface, shorter email and call response times and an improved payment application method that will maximize the benefit of each payment the borrower makes. Our amendment makes no changes to repayment plan requirements.”
As previously covered in InfoBytes, DeVos also rolled back Obama administration policies developed to guide the way in which the federal government contracts with outside servicers.
Texas Enacts Law Expanding Requirements for Holders of Debt Cancellation Agreements
On May 26, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law SB 1052, which contains provisions related to retail installment contracts and debt cancellation agreements in the state. Notably, the revised and renumbered Section 354.007 of the Finance Code, “Refund for Debt Cancellation Agreements,” concerns the responsibilities of the holder or the administrator of the agreement. This section has been amended to add that if a debt cancellation occurs as a result of an early termination of the contract, the holder shall, within 60 days of the termination, “refund or credit an appropriate amount of the debt cancellation agreement fee” or refund or credit the appropriate amount of the fee through written instructions to the appropriate person. Revisions also dictate that the holder will ensure that the refund or credit of the debt cancellation agreement fee “made by another person” is also made no later than 60 days after the agreement terminates. Furthermore, the holder is now responsible for maintaining records pertaining to the refund or credit of the debt cancellation agreement fee, and likewise, must grant electronic access to the records per the terms of the provision. The law takes effect September 1, 2017.
Payday Lenders Argue Case for Operation Choke Point Injunction, Claim Regulator Activities Violate Their Rights to Due Process
On May 19, a group of payday lenders filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia claiming a U.S. district court judge was wrong to deny their request for a preliminary injunction against regulator activities they claim violate their rights to due process. (See Advance America v. FDIC, et al, 2017 WL 2212168 (C.A.D.C.).) As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the lenders claim the DOJ’s “Operation Choke Point” initiative—designed to target fraud by investigating U.S. banks and the business they do with companies believed to be a higher risk for fraud and money laundering—is a threat to their survival. The lenders’ brief alleges that federal agencies, including the DOJ and the FDIC, began as early as June 2008 to expand the interpretation of “reputation risk.” According to the lenders, reputation risk originally referred to risk to a bank’s reputation that arose from its own actions; however, the regulators expanded that to apply to risks that could arise from activities of a bank’s customers, which meant “bank servicing businesses identified as ‘high risk’ would be required to incur significant additional regulatory compliance costs and face the risk of increased regulatory scrutiny.” This, the lenders assert, became a justification to pressure banks to sever their banking relationships with payday lenders.
Notably, the U.S. district court judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction and was not persuaded that the lenders would be able to prove that these regulatory actions caused banks to deny services the lenders needed to operate.
However, the lenders claim in their brief that they can show a violation of their procedural due process rights under three theories: “stigma-plus,” “reputation-plus,” and “broad preclusion.”
- The lenders describe the “stigma-plus” theory as requiring them to show they were stigmatized in connection with an “alteration of their background legal rights” without any due process protections. They believe they can prove this occurred because they were labeled as high-risk customers and denied access to the banking system with no legal protections.
- The “reputation-plus” theory would require a deprivation of banking services in connection with defamatory statements that harmed their reputation, the lenders claim. The lenders contend this can be proved because the “’stigmatizing charges certainly occurred in the course of the termination of the accounts, which is all that is required for a reputation-plus claim to succeed.” Each lender claims to have lost a relationship with at least one bank due to false regulator claims that the relationships could threaten the bank’s stability.
- The “broad preclusion” theory also applies, the lenders assert, because the regulators’ statements to banks have prevented them “pursuing their chosen line of business.”
Furthermore, the lenders take issue with the U.S. district court judge’s position that they are required to show they lost all access to banking services in order to show a due process violation. They also argue that a loss of their constitutional right to due process is a sufficient irreparable injury to justify a preliminary injunction.
Florida Attorney General Rolls Out Military Consumer Protection Program; CFPB Publishes Annual Servicemember Report
On May 17, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a new consumer protection program designed to spread awareness and help prevent deceptive business practices affecting military and veteran communities. The Military and Veterans Assistance Program (MVAP) will provide resources and information to consumers on emerging scams and other consumer protection related issues, as well as encourage open communication among local, state, and federal partners to help ensure complaints are handled appropriately.
On May 16, the CFPB’s Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) published its fifth annual servicemember report, The Office of Servicemember Affairs: Charting our course through the military lifecycle, and a follow-up blog post outlining the work the office has conducted over the past five years and the work it intends to do in the future. The structure of the report—designed to be presented within the construct of the “military lifecycle”—presents the ways that “many common and some uniquely-military consumer issues . . . fit within that continuum.” Under the Dodd-Frank Act, OSA monitors servicemember complaints about consumer financial products or services and coordinates with the efforts of federal and state agencies to improve measures and provide assistance. As of April 1, 2017, the OSA reports that it has handled approximately 74,800 complaints submitted by servicemembers, veterans, and their families since July 2011, of which 42 percent related to debt collection, 18 percent to mortgages, and 11 percent to credit reporting. In total, the OSA claims it has provided approximately $3.3 million in monetary relief to military consumers who submitted complaints to the CFPB.
OIG Recommends CFPB Improve Enforcement Data Security
On May 15, the Office of Inspector General for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued findings in a report entitled The CFPB Can Improve Its Practices to Safeguard the Office of Enforcement’s Confidential Investigative Information (the Report), stemming from an evaluation to determine whether the Bureau has effective controls to manage and safeguard access to Confidential Investigative Information (CII). The Report found that the Bureau’s practices could be improved. According to the findings, the Bureau’s Office of Enforcement (Office) allowed 113 unique users to have access to databases in which there was CII—which may include personally identifiable information—about companies that were subject to reviews by enforcement staff. Of those 113 users, 72 were still employed by the CFPB but did not have a need for access to that information, the report said.
Specifically, the OIG determined users continued to have access to at least one electronic application when it was no longer relevant to the performance of the users’ assigned duties. The OIG also cited instances of improper handling and safeguarding of sensitive information and inconsistent naming conventions for matters across its four electronic applications and two internal drives, which impeded the Office’s ability to verify, maintain, and terminate access to files. The OIG noted in the report that during its assessment the Office took several steps to correct these issues.
The OIG presented the following recommendations: (i) enhance practices for managing access rights to matter folders; (ii) improve the handling of printed sensitive information; and (iii)establish a standard naming convention for electronically stored information.
City of Philadelphia Sues National Bank for Discriminatory Lending Practices
On May 15, the City of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit against a national bank (Bank) alleging that it violated the Fair Housing Act by engaging in discriminatory lending practices that targeted minority borrowers. (See City of Phila. v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 2:17-cv-02203-LDD, 2017 WL 2060317 (E.D. Pa.).) The complaint alleges that beginning in 2004 and continuing through the present, the Bank engaged in “a continuous and unbroken discriminatory pattern and practice of issuing higher cost or more onerous mortgage loans to minority borrowers” while offering better terms to similarly situated non-minority borrowers. The City’s complaint alleges discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The City claims that the Bank has a long history of both redlining (the practice of refusing to make loans in minority neighborhoods) and reverse redlining (the practice of targeting higher cost loans or loans with less favorable terms to minority neighborhoods). The complaint further describes a pattern of knowing and intentional discrimination by the Bank, relying on statistical analyses finding, among others, that: (i) a loan for a home in a predominantly minority neighborhood was 4.7 times more likely to go into foreclosure than a loan on a home in a mainly white neighborhood; (ii) African American and Latino borrowers were more than twice as likely to receive a high-cost loan as white borrowers; and (iii) when credit scores were factored in for borrowers with FICO scores of more than 660, African American borrowers were more than 2.5 times more likely than white borrowers to receive a high cost loan, and Latino borrowers more than twice as likely. As a result of the foreclosures and vacant homes, the City says it suffered a suppression of property tax revenue and increased cost of providing services such as police, fire fighting, and other municipal services.
City of Miami Suit. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Supreme Court recently ruled that municipal plaintiffs may be “aggrieved persons” authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) against lenders for injuries allegedly flowing from discriminatory lending practices, although the five-justice majority held that such injuries must be proximately caused by the FHA violations. The Supreme Court returned the City’s lawsuit to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit because, while the Court found that the City’s injuries appeared to be a foreseeable result of the lender’s practices, this was not enough to establish proximate cause. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether the City can show proximate cause.
PHH v. CFPB Update: D.C. Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Before En Banc Court
On May 24, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the matter of PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The parties and the Department of Justice generally presented their arguments as expected based on their briefs. However, questions from some members of the court indicated doubts about the conclusion by a panel of the court in October 2016 that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional. In particular, multiple members of the court repeatedly pressed PHH’s counsel on whether prior Supreme Court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies led by presidential appointees who could only be removed “for cause” prevented the D.C. Circuit from concluding that the president lacked sufficient authority over the CFPB’s Director.
Notably, however, in response to statements by PHH that current CFPB Director Richard Cordray could remain in his position after the expiration of his term in July 2018 until a successor was confirmed by the Senate, the CFPB’s counsel stated that, in the Bureau’s view, the “for cause” removal limitation no longer applied once the Director’s term expired, and the president could then remove the Director “at will.”
In contrast to the constitutional issue, the questioning on other aspects of the case was minimal and did not indicate that the en banc court was inclined to revisit the panel’s determination that the CFPB misinterpreted the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when applying it to PHH’s practices, violated due process by failing to give PHH proper notice of its interpretation, and improperly failed to apply RESPA’s statute of limitations in its administrative proceedings.
At the direction of the en banc court, the oral arguments in PHH followed those in Lucia v. SEC, a case addressing whether the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) violate the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Although this issue was not discussed during the PHH oral arguments, the CFPB originally brought its claims against PHH before an ALJ borrowed from the SEC and the court had previously suggested that a finding that the SEC ALJs were improperly appointed could also justify reversal of the CFPB’s decision against PHH. (See previous Special Alert here.)
A decision from the en banc court is not expected for months. Importantly, while questioning during oral argument is often used as a barometer of the potential outcome of a case, the questions asked by a judge do not necessarily indicate how that judge will vote on a particular issue. Judges often use oral argument to see how the parties and their colleagues will respond to hypotheticals, rather than to share their views of the case.