InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC Fines Wisconsin Bank and Affiliated Lenders for Overcharging Military Members
On May 11, the FDIC announced that a Wisconsin-based bank and its two institution-affiliated parties agreed to settle allegations of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the FDIC, the unfair and deceptive practices, which harmed consumers including military service members and their families, included: (i) charging interest on loans that were marketed as interest-free if they were repaid within six months; (ii) selling add-on products without clearly disclosing the terms; and (iii) not allowing consumers the opportunity to use the monthly premium-payment option when they bought debt cancellation products. Under the terms of the settlement with the FDIC, the bank will establish a $3 million restitution fund for eligible consumers (and has agreed to add more if that amount is insufficient to make all of the required payments). In addition, the bank and its institution-affiliated parties are required to: (i) prepare a comprehensive restitution plan; (ii) retain an independent auditing firm to determine compliance with the plan; and (iii) provide the FDIC with quarterly written progress reports describing the actions taken by the parties to comply with the terms of the settlement. The settlement also requires the bank to pay a civil penalty of $151,000, and the institution-affiliated parties to pay civil money penalties of $54,000 and $37,000 respectively.
New York AG Announces Settlement with Virginia Developer for Violating Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
On May 10, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that a Virginia-based company has agreed to pay $69,000 to settle allegations that, among other things, it violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by unlawfully charging fees to servicemembers who terminated their residential leases early. Under the provisions of the SCRA, servicemembers and their families are allowed to terminate leases early without penalty if they are deployed, receive orders for permanent change of station, or their military service is honorably terminated. According to the Attorney General’s office, the company—which owns a community of townhomes in close proximity to Fort Drum and actively markets its housing to servicemembers and their families—also violated New York law by including “numerous unconscionable provisions” in its lease agreements, and advertising amenities that were either not included in the rent, or unavailable. Under the terms of the settlement, the company must pay more than $59,000 to over 125 servicemembers, reform its lease and other business practices to comply with New York law, and pay a civil money penalty of $10,000 to the State.
D.C. Circuit Holds CID Unenforceable Due to “Perfunctory” Notification of Purpose
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a civil investigative demand (“CID”) did not advise a non-profit organization that accredits for-profit colleges of “’the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation.’ 12 U.S.C. § 5562(c)(2).” See CFPB v. Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls.& Schs., [Order] No. 16-5174 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2017). The CID described “the nature of the conduct” as simply “unlawful acts and practices in connection with accrediting for-profit colleges.” Because this “broad and non-specific” language did not describe the purpose of the CFPB’s investigation, the Court determined that it could not ascertain whether the information sought was reasonably relevant or “the link between the relevant conduct and the alleged violation.” The Court also found that the description of the laws applicable to the violation was inadequate. The CID identified 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 and 5536 and “any other Federal consumer financial protection law,” but the Court concluded that the citations “tell … nothing about the statutory basis for the Bureau’s investigation” considering the CFPB’s failure to identify “the specific conduct under investigation.” Notably the Court explicitly limited its ruling to the particular CID at issue and declined to address the broader question of whether the CFPB may investigate accreditation of for-profit schools.
Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Legislation Expanding High-Cost Payday Lending
On May 5, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin vetoed legislation that would have expanded consumer payday lending in the state. Oklahoma House Bill 1913—known as the “Oklahoma Small Loan Act”—would have allowed lenders to offer installment loans with terms no longer than 12 months and interest rates up to 17 percent per month. Fallin’s veto message to the House expressed concerns about adding another high interest loan product without eliminating or restricting existing payday loan products: “House Bill 1913 adds yet another level of high interest borrowing (over 200% APR) without terminating or restricting access to existing payday loan products.” Fallin further asserted that “some of the loans created by this bill would be more expensive than the current loan options.” Four years prior, Fallin vetoed Senate Bill 817 “due to [her] concerns with the frequency [with which] low-income families in Oklahoma were using these lending options, and the resulting high cost of repayment to those families.” In the veto message, Fallin requested that the state legislature seek advice from her office as well as consumer advocates and mainstream financial institutions if it decides to revisit these issues. Under Section 11 of Article 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the legislation can still be enacted if two-thirds of the members of both legislative chambers vote to override the veto. In earlier votes, the legislation fell short of the two-thirds threshold, passing the Oklahoma House 59-31 and the Senate by a 28-16 margin.
Notably, last year, the CFPB published proposed rules in the Federal Register affecting payday, title, and certain other high-cost installment loans (see previously posted Special Alert).
FDIC Releases May List of CRA Compliance Examinations
On May 3, the FDIC published its monthly list of state nonmember banks recently evaluated for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The list reports CRA evaluation ratings assigned to institutions in February 2017. Monthly lists of all state nonmember banks and their evaluations that have been made publicly available can be accessed through the FDIC’s website. As noted by the FDIC, the CRA is “intended to encourage insured banks and thrifts to meet local credit needs, including those of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations.”
Advocacy Organization Argues Need for CFPB Prepaid Rule Communications Before CRA Vote
On April 28, an advocacy organization filed a reply to the CFPB’s opposition for expedited handling of two FOIA requests issued to the Bureau on April 12. The organization filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 18 contending that the Bureau failed to comply with a statutory expedition processing request, and asserts that there is a “compelling need” for information that would enable the public to learn about efforts to influence the government's policymaking process before a proposed Congressional vote in mid-May to overturn the CFPB’s Prepaid Rule. The organization further argues—despite the Bureau’s assertions to the contrary—that in order to fulfill its mission it is “primarily engaged in disseminating information” with its public education efforts, and therefore, like others whose requests have been granted expedited processing, has “met the dissemination of information as a primary activity” requirement (citing Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260 (D.D.C. 2005)). Additionally, the organization claims that its FOIA requests pertain to issues for which there is an “urgency to inform the public” because of an imminent deadline under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which “permits Congress to overrule a regulation within a certain amount of time after its promulgation.” Specifically, the FOIA requests seek access to communications about the Prepaid Rule between the CFPB and 12 Senators, and between the Bureau and two prepaid companies. The organization is asking the court to order the Bureau to take whatever steps are necessary to comply with the FOIA requests prior to the CRA vote on the Prepaid Rule.
PHH v CFPB Update: D.C. Circuit Grants CFPB’s Request to Go Last at May 24 En Banc Oral Arguments
In an per curium order handed down on May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an uncontested motion brought by the CFPB seeking to revise the order of the oral arguments in the upcoming PHH Corp. v. CFPB hearing before the en banc court. With all briefing on the merits having been submitted, the case awaits oral arguments, which have been set for May 24. The Bureau sought to change the order of arguments such that the CFPB presented its argument last—after both PHH and the DOJ. In seeking a change in scheduling order, the CFPB argued that the original schedule—pursuant to which the DOJ would go last—did not afford the Bureau an opportunity to respond to the DOJ’s arguments. The Court’s May 1 Order, having granted the Bureau’s Motion, provides for the following argument order:
- Petitioners (PHH Corp.) – 30 minutes
- Amicus Curiae United States – 10 minutes
- Respondent (CFPB) – 30 minutes
Also, note that the CFPB’s motion agrees-in-advance to PHH to likewise respond to both the DOJ and CFPB, should it wish to do so.
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the once-cooperative relationship between the CFPB and the DOJ recently turned adverse after the Sessions-led DOJ presented arguments in its latest briefing that differed markedly from both the CFPB’s positions and from the arguments asserted in briefing submitted by the Obama Administration in December 2016. For additional background, please see our recent PHH Corp. v CFPB Case Update.
FDIC Releases List of Enforcement Actions Taken Against Banks and Individuals in March 2017
On April 28, the FDIC released its list of 24 administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in March. Among the consent orders on the list are civil money penalties for violations of the Food Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and its flood insurance requirements. An additional six actions listed relate to unsafe or unsound banking practices and breaches of fiduciary duty, including five removal and prohibition orders. There are no administrative hearings scheduled for May 2017. The FDIC database containing all of its enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
CFPB Releases “Core Outcomes” for Financial Empowerment Programs
On April 27, the CFPB announced in a blog post its release of a core set of financial outcomes designed to help human services organizations integrate financial empowerment and capability initiatives into their programs. Strategies include implementing financial education tools and financial counseling or coaching. In its April report, Tracking Success in Financial Capability and Empowerment Programs, the Bureau identified the following five core outcomes to help consumers improve their financial capabilities: (i) planning and goals; (ii) savings; (iii) bill payment; (iv) credit profile; and (v) financial well-being. According to the report, which assists the financial empowerment field in encouraging commonality in outcomes, core outcomes are designed to:
- “help inform and guide service delivery organizations and those who design, fund, or evaluate service programs as they assess or document the value of integrating financial capability and empowerment strategies into the delivery of human services programs”;
- “provide a suggested core set of common outcomes to measure for the financial empowerment field”;
- “augment, not displace, current programmatic outcomes and accommodate a broad range of different program types”; and
- “help provide consistency across programs by creating a common framework and language for demonstrating success for the provision of financial empowerment services as an element of other human services programs.”
According to the Bureau’s Office of Financial Empowerment, it began identifying common core outcomes with input from multiple financial empowerment practitioners and researchers to “improve the financial well-being of “lower-income and economically vulnerable consumers.”
CFPB Releases Report on Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgage Industry, Banking Agencies Attend Roundtable Meeting
On April 27, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its report summarizing strategies intended to promote diversity and inclusion by mortgage industry participants. The report, Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgage Industry: Readout from an Opening Roundtable, is the result of the Bureau’s collaboration with the financial services industry. The roundtable meeting—led by the Bureau’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI)—convened representatives from the mortgage industry, nonbank financial companies, and OMWI staff from the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and FHFA. OMWI was a created by Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act and charges directors with “increasing diversity in agency programs and contracts, and assessing diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.” The report highlights issues raised by roundtable participants and stresses the need to develop a “strong business case for diversity and inclusion.” The Bureau’s position on the strategies and practices discussed include the following:
- promoting diversity and inclusion strengthens organizations and improves overall performance;
- building in diversity and inclusion as “fundamental principles” and taking a “tone from the top” approach highlights the importance of leadership buy-in and accountability;
- boosting diversity and inclusion through the recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement of personnel creates opportunities for more diverse viewpoints;
- promoting a more diverse workforce and tailoring products to the needs of different consumers fosters a greater understanding of the needs of a more diverse customer base; and
- understanding the importance of data collection and analysis supports the business case for diversity.