InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Seeks Comments on Volcker Rule Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements
On November 18, OCC published a notice seeking comments on various reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements associated with its regulations that implemented the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the OCC is seeking comments on: (i) whether the information sought is necessary for the OCC to perform its supervisory functions; (ii) the accuracy of the OCC’s estimate of the information collection burden; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected while also minimizing the collection burdens on respondents; and (iv) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide the information. Comments must be submitted on or before January 17, 2017.
Election Results: Preliminary Thoughts and Reactions
As a result of last Tuesday’s election, Republicans will control the White House and both houses of Congress in 2017. It is likely there ultimately will be some significant changes affecting financial services regulation and enforcement, but they will take time to implement. The President-elect has articulated sympathy for less regulation and opposition to the Dodd-Frank Act but also an unconventional economic populism. The Congressional Republicans have already prepared, and in some cases passed, more specific changes to limit and cabin the CFPB. We anticipate efforts focused on changing the CFPB Director and CFPB structure, reduced regulation that may encourage product innovation (particularly in the FinTech space), and potentially less emphasis on certain Department of Justice (“DOJ”) enforcement initiatives such as fair lending and the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”) task force. Nonetheless, we expect continued enforcement and supervisory activity, including by states and by prudential regulators that are less directly tied to shifting political winds.
Click here to read the full special alert
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Jon D. Langlois, (202) 349-8045
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Christopher M. Witeck, (202) 349-8051
CFPB Takes Action Against B&B Pawnbrokers For Misleadingly Low Annual Percentage Rate
On November 3, the CFPB filed a lawsuit in federal district court against a Virginia pawnbroker for deceiving consumers about the actual annual cost of its loans. In its Complaint, the CFPB alleges both TILA violations and unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under Dodd-Frank and the CPA. The complaint seeks monetary relief, injunctive relief, and penalties. The CFPB coordinated its investigation with the Virginia Attorney General’s office – which filed its own lawsuit against the same pawnbrokers back in July 2015 for violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
CFPB Releases Financial Literacy Annual Report for 2016
On October 31, the CFPB released its Financial Literacy Annual Report for 2016. The report describes what the Bureau is doing to “help consumers navigate the financial marketplace and build financial well-being” per its mandate under Dodd-Frank to improve the “financial literacy” of consumers in America. The 2016 edition of the report is broken down into three sections: (i) why there is a need for financial literacy amongst consumers; (ii) the Bureau’s approach to increasing financial literacy; and (iii) research initiatives designed to “understand consumers and the financial market place,” “effective financial education practices,” and “how best to prepare youth for financial capability in adulthood.”
CFPB Orders Credit Union to Pay $28.5 Million Over Debt Collection Practices
On October 11, the CFPB issued a consent order to a Virginia-based federal credit union to resolve allegations that its debt collection activities were unfair and deceptive in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. According to the CFPB’s consent order, the credit union failed to implement adequate compliance controls and employee training on debt collection communications. The credit union’s actions involved employees who sent letters to “hundreds of thousands” of consumers containing various misrepresentations regarding the handling of consumer debt. The consent order alleged that these debt collection letters falsely threatened legal action, wage garnishment, and contacting servicemembers’ commanding officers for failure to remit payments. The consent order also noted that the same threats were made via telephone. The CFPB further contends that the credit union (i) sent approximately 68,000 letters misrepresenting the credit consequences of falling behind on a loan, alleging that members would “find it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain additional credit because of [their] present unsatisfactory credit rating” (internal quotations omitted); and (ii) restricted consumers’ electronic account access and electronic accounts services – without providing adequate notice – once their accounts became delinquent. Pursuant to the consent order, the credit union must (i) pay $23 million in consumer redress; (ii) pay a $5.5 million civil money penalty; and (iii) establish a comprehensive compliance plan regarding its policies and procedures on consumer debt collection communications and electronic account restrictions.
ABA and Regional Members Lend Perspective on CFPB's Proposed Rule on Payday, Title, and Certain Other Installment Loans
On October 7, the American Bankers Association (ABA) sent a comment letter to the CFPB regarding the agency’s proposed rule on payday, title, and certain other installment loans. Describing the proposal as “exceedingly and unnecessarily complex,” the ABA argues that the proposed rule imposes significant restrictions on the small-dollar credit industry by limiting financial institutions’ ability to make small-dollar loans to consumers in need of such credit. In addition to asserting that the proposal reflects an over-reach of the CFPB’s statutory authority to regulate unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices, the comment letter contends that, if adopted, the proposed rule would, among other things, (i) “stifle innovation in consumer lending, reduce consumer choice, and directly harm the very borrowers [it] was intended to protect”; (ii) impose an unlawful cap on interest rates; (iii) regulate insurance, thereby violating the Dodd-Frank Act; and (iv) levy substantial costs on consumers and lenders. Furthermore, the comment letter includes several testimonials to illustrate how receiving short-term credit helped consumers establish credit and overcome arduous financial conditions. In an effort to safeguard affordable financial services, the ABA urged the CFPB to “protect the ability of community banks to continue to meet small dollar lending needs.” In particular, the ABA sought to exempt entities that make no more than 2,500 loans subject to the proposed rule in the course of a year “if those loans comprise no more than 10% of the lender’s gross annual revenue.”
In addition to the ABA’s comment letter, various regional ABA members, such as individual banks and state bankers associations, sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray expressing concern about the “substantial barriers and costs” the proposed rule would impose if adopted. ABA members called on the CFPB to “restore its previously proposed ‘5 percent payment-to-income ratio’ alternative compliance option” so that banks may maintain their ability to offer small-dollar credit.
OCC Issues Bulletin Regarding Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts
On October 3, the OCC issued Bulletin 2016-31 seeking comment on a proposed rule intended to “enhance the resilience and the safety and soundness of federally chartered and licensed financial institutions.” Pursuant to the proposal, a covered bank would be required to ensure that a covered qualified financial contract (i) contains a contractual stay-and-transfer provision equivalent to those contained in the Dodd-Frank Act’s stay-and-transfer provision under title II and in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; and (ii) restricts the use of default rights based on an affiliate’s insolvency. Moreover, the proposal would “make conforming amendments in certain definitions in the capital adequacy standards in 12 CFR 3 and the liquidity risk measurement standards in 12 CFR 50.” Comments on the proposed rule are due by October 18, 2016.
Bill to Change SIFI Determination Postponed
The House of Representatives delayed discussion of HR 1309, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act, in an effort to give the bill’s sponsor Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) additional time to propose a method to fund the estimated $115 million cost of implementing the changes in regulatory oversight. The increased oversight costs stem, in part, from provisions in the bill that would require closer involvement by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) in determining whether a bank holding company is a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI), and thus subject to enhanced supervision and macro-prudential standards by the Federal Reserve. Under the current law, originating from Title I of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FSOC looks only to whether the bank holding company has $50 billion in assets. Whereas under HR 1309, the FSOC would also factor whether a bank was subject to material financial distress, as well as the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness or mix of the bank’s activities in making the SIFI designation.
CFPB Imposes $8 Million Civil Penalty on For-Profit Company over Allegedly Deceptive Student Lending Practices
On September 12, the CFPB entered into a consent order with a San Diego-based for-profit education company to resolve allegations that its student lending practices were deceptive in violation of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Starting in 2009, the company, which owns two for-profit colleges, has operated an in-house institutional-lending program (Program). The CFPB alleged that under the Program thousands of students borrowed in the aggregate approximately $23,544,184, of which the company collected more than $4,900,000 in principle and interest, with more than $18,000,000 in debt remaining outstanding. The company claimed that, through the Program, students could repay their loans with a minimum monthly payment of $25; the CFPB contends, however, that the company’s marketing practices were deceptive because the typical loan payments under the Program exceeded $25. Pursuant to the consent order, the company must (i) provide cancellation of $18.5 million in existing student debt and pay $5 million in redress directly to affected students; (ii) ensure that students utilize the CFPB’s newly released Electronic Financial Impact Platform, which ultimately generates a customized disclosure for students regarding, among other things, finance offerings available and estimated post-graduate expenses; (iii) stop making allegedly misleading statements regarding students’ monthly payment obligations; (iv) remove any negative information that was reported to consumer-reporting agencies; and (v) pay an $8 million civil penalty.
House Financial Services Committee Approves Financial CHOICE Act
On September 13, the House Financial Services Committee approved by a 30-26 vote the Financial CHOICE Act, Congressman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-TX) legislative replacement to the Dodd-Frank Act. In his opening remarks, Hensarling claimed that the bill aims to end bailouts, support economic growth, and provide regulatory relief to community banks. House Democrats did not offer amendments to the bill, although many expressed adamant disapproval. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) claimed that the “deeply disturbing” legislation “would take us back to the regulatory stone age.” Various Democrats referenced the CFPB’s recent enforcement action against a national bank to argue that the Financial CHOICE Act’s attempt to remove the CFPB’s authority over abusive practices was one of many reasons to oppose the bill. Democrats unanimously voted against the legislation, while all but one Republican, Congressman Bruce Poliquin (R-ME), voted in favor of moving the legislation forward.