Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • New Edition of Consumer Compliance Outlook Published by Philadelphia Fed

    Consumer Finance

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has posted the latest edition of Consumer Compliance Outlook. This edition features articles on subpart B of Regulation E on Remittance Transfers and the updated interagency questions and answers regarding Community Reinvestment.

    Consumer Finance Federal Reserve CRA Miscellany Regulation E

  • FCC Denies Petition by MBA to Exempt Certain Mortgage Servicing Calls from Prior Express Consent Requirement

    Federal Issues

    In an order dated November 15, the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau denied a petition by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) that sought an exemption from the FCC’s prior express consent requirement for non-telemarketing residential mortgage servicing auto-dialer calls to wireless numbers. In its order, the Bureau concluded that MBA had failed to show (1) that the calls in question would be free of charge to consumers; and (2) that the parties seeking relief should be able to send non-time-sensitive calls to consumers without their consent.

    Among other things, the Order explained that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) “reflects Congress’ recognition of the potential costs and privacy risks imposed on wireless consumers from the use of auto-dialer equipment, which can generate large numbers of unwanted calls” and accordingly, the FCC has generally attempted to balance and accommodate the legitimate business interests of callers in addition to recognized consumer privacy interests.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance TCPA FCC U.S. Senate U.S. House Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security

  • CFPB Issues Advisory Bulletin on Detecting and Preventing Consumer Harm from Production Incentives

    Federal Issues

    In a November 28 advisory bulletin entitled Detecting and Preventing Consumer Harm from Production Incentives, the CFPB highlights examples from its supervisory and enforcement experience in which incentives contributed to substantial consumer harm. The bulletin also describes compliance management steps that supervised entities should take to mitigate risks posed by incentives. Among other things, the CFPB clarifies that it is not outlawing sales incentives or other similar programs, but rather is cautioning companies that such programs can lead to abuse. As explained in the bulletin, “[t]ying bonuses or employment status to unrealistic sales goals or to the terms of transactions may intentionally or unintentionally encourage illegal practices such as unauthorized account openings, unauthorized opt-ins to overdraft services, deceptive sales tactics, and steering consumers into less favorable products.”

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB Compliance Sales Incentive Compensation

  • OCC Issues Updated Guidance for Managing Bank Premises and Equipment

    Federal Issues

    On November 29, the OCC announced the release of a revised Bank Premises and Equipment booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The revised booklet, which replaces the booklet of the same title issued in March 1990, applies to examinations of all national banks and federal savings associations engaged in the acquisition, management, and disposal of bank premises and equipment. According to the accompanying OCC Bulletin, the revised booklet incorporates updated statutory and regulatory citations and revised examination procedures since the integration of the Office of Thrift Supervision into the OCC in 2011. The bulletin explains that the booklet also replaces the "Investment in Bank Premises" booklet of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual and the "Fixed Assets" section of the former Office of Thrift Supervision Examination Handbook.

    Federal Issues Banking Consumer Finance OCC OTS Licensing Comptroller's Licensing Manual

  • CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Spotlights Debt Settlement, Check Cashing, and Other Financial Services Complaints

    Federal Issues

    On November 29, the CFPB released Volume 17 of its monthly complaint snapshot reports on consumer complaints stemming from financial services that fall outside of the Bureau’s major complaint categories. The “other financial services” covered in the report include debt settlement, check cashing, money orders, and credit repair. To date, the CFPB has handled approximately 1,035,200 complaints nationally across all products. As reported in the current snapshot: (i) Debt collection was the most-complained-about financial product or service in October; (ii) Student loan complaints showed the greatest increase—108 percent—of any product or service over the three-month period of August to October; and (iii) Alaska, New Mexico, and Missouri experienced the greatest year-to-year complaint volume increases from August to October 2016 period versus the same time period 12 months before. The current report also highlighted a trend in complaints coming from Oklahoma and the Oklahoma City metro area.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB Student Lending Debt Collection Check Cashing

  • CFPB Publishes Updated Version of its Mortgage Servicing Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Federal Issues

    On December 1, the CFPB published an updated version of the Mortgage Servicing Small Entity Compliance Guide on its "Mortgage Servicing Implementation & Guidance" webpage. The updated guide incorporates amendments made to mortgage servicing provisions in Regulation X and Regulation Z by the 2016 Mortgage Servicing final rule. Most provisions of the 2016 Mortgage Serving final rule take effect on October 19, 2017. However, the provisions relating to successors in interest and the provisions relating to periodic statements for borrowers in bankruptcy will not take effect until April 19, 2018.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB Mortgage Servicing Regulation Z Regulation X

  • PHH Response Due Date Pushed Back as Solicitor General Permitted to Respond to CFPB's Petition in PHH Corp. v. CFPB by December 22

    Courts

    As discussed previously, the D.C. Circuit ordered PHH to respond to the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. In an Unopposed Motion for Leave to file the United States' Response, filed December 1, the Office of the Solicitor General sought permission to file its own responsive briefing on or before December 22. In an Order issued December 1, the D.C. Circuit granted the Solicitor General’s request, but also moved back the due date for PHH’s responsive papers so that both responses are now due on December 22.

    Earlier in the week, on November 30, two groups filed amicus briefs in support of the CFPB’s petition together along with motions requesting an invitation from the court. The first brief was submitted by a group of leading consumer protection organizations, while the second brief was filed by a group of 21 current and former members of Congress.

    Courts Consumer Finance CFPB U.S. Senate U.S. House PHH v. CFPB

  • Full D.C. Circuit Orders PHH to Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review, Invites U.S. Solicitor General to Provide Views

    Federal Issues

    On November 23, the full D.C. Circuit ordered PHH to respond to the CFPB's petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The CFPB’s November 18 petition challenged, among other things, the conclusion by the majority of the panel that the CFPB's structure was unconstitutional and that, to remedy this defect, the Director must be removable at will by the President. PHH’s response, which is due by December 8, would not have been permitted without the court’s order. Similarly, the CFPB is not permitted to file a reply unless ordered by the court.  Importantly, the en banc court also “invited” the U.S. Solicitor General “to file a response to the petition” to “express[] the views of the United States.” Although there is no deadline for this response, the invitation allows the Solicitor General to respond before the change in administration, which may be significant because the Dodd-Frank Act does not allow the CFPB to petition the Supreme Court for review without the approval of the Attorney General (12 USC § 5564(e)).

    For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision and the CFPB's petition for rehearing.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB U.S. Supreme Court PHH v. CFPB Cordray DC Circuit Single-Director Structure

  • GAO Issues Report on Compliance with the SCRA Interest Rate Cap by Student Loan Servicers

    Federal Issues

    On November 18, the GAO announced the release of its report and recommendations following the watchdog agency’s review of application of the SCRA’s rate cap by student loan servicers. According to the report, entitled Student Loans: Oversight of Servicemembers' Interest Rate Cap Could Be Strengthened, the number of servicemembers receiving the interest rate cap for their student loans has greatly increased since the Department of Education began requiring federal student loan servicers to automatically check the Department of Defense’s SCRA database to identify those who are eligible.

    The report also identified several challenges commonly encountered by servicemembers seeking to take advantage of the rate cap, including:  (i) inaccurate SCRA information from the database; (ii) lack of a requirement that private loan servicers use the automatic eligibility check to identify eligible servicemembers; and (iii) lack of routine oversight of SCRA compliance for nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. The GAO recommended, among other things, that the DOJ require private loan servicers to use the automatic eligibility check to identify eligible borrowers. The report also highlighted an issue with the Department of Education’s new borrower complaint system, which lacks the ability to track SCRA complaints systematically.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance Servicemembers Student Lending SCRA GAO Department of Education Department of Defense

  • CFPB Requests Rehearing of Decision Threatening Agency's Structure

    Federal Issues

    Earlier today, the CFPB filed its much-anticipated response in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, requesting reconsideration by the full D.C. Circuit. As discussed in our special alert, on October 11, 2016, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). In addition, a majority of the panel held that, to resolve a constitutional defect in the CFPB’s structure, the Director was removable by the President at will, meaning that President Trump could remove Director Cordray upon taking office. However, the panel’s decision is stayed until seven days after the court rules on the CFPB’s request.

    Rather than proceeding directly to the Supreme Court, the CFPB proceeded as expected by requesting rehearing en banc by the full D.C. Circuit, which is generally disfavored and granted only for matters of “exceptional importance.” Perhaps most significantly, the Bureau’s petition does not request rehearing of the panel’s conclusion that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applied to administrative as well as judicial actions brought under that statute. 

    The CFPB’s petition argues that the panel’s constitutional ruling on the CFPB’s structure should be reheard because it “sets up what may be the most important separation-of-powers case in a generation.” Specifically, the Bureau argues that the panel’s determination that a multi-member commission is an essential component of an independent agency runs contrary to Supreme Court precedent and “unduly limits Congress’s flexibility to respond to the various crises of human affairs … by creating independent administrative agencies headed by a single director.” The Bureau further states that the panel’s reasoning “may affect not only the Bureau but also other agencies headed by a single director removable only for cause,” such as the Social Security Administration, Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Office of Special Counsel.

    The Bureau also asks the D.C. Circuit to rehear the panel’s determination that RESPA permits lenders and mortgage insurers to enter into tying arrangements under which the lender refers mortgage insurance businesses to the insurer in exchange for the insurer purchasing reinsurance from the lender’s affiliate. In support of this request, the Bureau argues that “the panel’s decision misinterpreted [RESPA] in a manner that so fundamentally defeats the statutory purpose [of prohibiting kickbacks] as to warrant rehearing en banc.” Specifically, the Bureau states that “[t]he panel’s reading of the statute would permit any mortgage lender to condition referrals on the purchase of goods or services in any related or unrelated business line. Such schemes flout the core purposes of RESPA.”

    Under the D.C. Circuit’s rules, PHH is not permitted to file a response to the CFPB’s petition unless ordered by the court to do so. However, the court will not modify the panel’s opinion without allowing PHH to respond to the petition. There is no deadline for action by the court.

    Federal Issues Consumer Finance CFPB RESPA FHA PHH v. CFPB Trump U.S. Supreme Court Single-Director Structure

Pages

Upcoming Events