InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
District Court partially denies defendants’ time-barred claims, rules certain TSR violations may proceed
On May 3, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California addressed time-barred claims raised by a group of affiliated law firms and their managing attorneys (defendants) that partnered with a now-defunct entity to offer debt relief services to consumers. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request for summary judgment after determining that many of the allegedly improper up-front fees charged to consumers seeking debt relief were collected within the three-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions. As previously covered in InfoBytes last January, the CFPB claimed, among other things, that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by allegedly assisting a different, now-defunct debt relief service company with charging up-front fees. Last May, the district court denied the defendants’ bid for dismissal but at the time “declined to resolve the parties’ dispute over the applicable statute of limitations.” While the CFPB agreed to limit its request for relief to the three years preceding the filing of the suit, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the entire action should be barred because the alleged violations relate to a “singular scheme” discovered by the CFPB in 2012. However, according to the court, federal consumer financial law states that “any violations of the TSR that occur within the relevant limitations period are not time-barred.” Therefore, because the CFPB provided evidence that fees were collected in 2015—well within the applicable statute of limitations—the defendants’ request as to violations of the TSR that allegedly occurred within three years of the filing is denied. Notwithstanding, the court granted part of the defendants’ request for summary judgment and barred all claims related to conduct that occurred outside the three-year window because the CFPB did not oppose the motion.
PHH will not challenge CFPB’s constitutionality with Supreme Court
PHH will not seek to appeal the January 31 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which upheld the CFPB’s constitutionality in a 7-3 decision. (Covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert.) The Supreme Court requires petitions for writ of certiorari to be filed within 90 days of the decision, which would have put PHH’s deadline around May 1. According to reports, a PHH spokesperson confirmed the company did not file the petition but declined to provide further comment.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently agreed to hear a similar challenge to the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director structure by two Mississippi-based payday loan and check cashing companies.
Senators release report on credit reporting agency from data in CFPB’s public complaint database
On April 30, three Democratic Senate Banking Committee members released a report addressing publicly available complaints the CFPB received regarding the 2017 data breach announcement by a national credit reporting agency. In a letter to the CFPB, which accompanied the release of the report, the Senators encouraged the Bureau to “hold [the credit reporting agency] accountable and act quickly and decisively to protection the millions of consumers harmed by the breach.” Additionally, the Senators make a plea for the CFPB to continue to keep consumer complaints public, citing to recent remarks by Mulvaney that the database would soon be removed from public view. According to the report, within six months of the data breach announcement—which reportedly affected 143 million American consumers—the CFPB received over 20,000 complaints against the company. Of the 20,000 complaints, the issues consumers mentioned include (i) “improper use of a credit report after the breach”; (ii) “incorrect information on credit report”; (iii) “[Company]’s inadequate assistance in resolving problems after the breach”; and (iv) “[Company]’s credit monitoring services, fraud alerts, security freezes, and other identity theft protection products.” The report also cites to specific narratives from consumer complaints that were available through the CFPB’s consumer complaint database.
Coalition of state Attorneys General oppose efforts to weaken CFPB’s investigative authority
On April 25, a coalition of 16 state Attorneys General issued a comment letter responding to the CFPB’s Request for Information (RFI) on Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs). (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the RFI here and here.) According to the letter, the coalition opposes “any effort to curtail the Bureau’s civil investigative demand authority,” noting, among other things, that (i) the CFPB’s implementation of its final rule relating to investigations was “non-controversial” and based on established FTC enforcement practices; (ii) federal agencies are allowed to fulfill their mandates through the legislative grant of civil investigative demand authority; (iii) judicial supervision over CIDs protects recipients’ rights; and (iv) the CFPB “has used its investigative authority responsibly and effectively.”
5th Circuit will hear CFPB constitutionality challenge
On April 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed to hear a challenge by two Mississippi-based payday loan and check cashing companies to the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director structure. The CFPB filed a complaint against the two companies in May 2016 alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act for practices related to the companies’ check cashing and payday lending services, previously covered by InfoBytes here. The district court denied the companies’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, rejecting their arguments that the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional and that the CFPB’s claims violate due process. However, the district court granted the companies’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal as to the question of the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure, referencing the D.C. Circuit’s decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert here), and noting the “substantial ground for difference of opinion as to this issue as exhibited by the differences of opinion amongst the jurists in the [D.C. Circuit] who have considered this issue.” The district court emphasized that the question is a “controlling question of law” that the 5th Circuit has yet to decide and, if the CFPB were determined to be an unconstitutional entity, this would materially advance the underlying action’s termination. A panel of the 5th Circuit has now granted the companies’ motion for leave to appeal from the interlocutory order on the issue of the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure.
CFPB finalizes KBYO amendment to address “black hole”
On April 26, the CFPB issued a final amendment to its “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule to address when mortgage lenders with a valid changed circumstance or other justification are permitted to reset tolerances and pass on increased closing costs to consumers using the Closing Disclosure. Last summer, as previously covered in a Buckley Sandler Special Alert, the Bureau published a proposal seeking public comment on whether to close the “black hole” that prohibited creditors from passing on cost increases (particularly rate lock extension fees) when closing was significantly delayed after the Closing Disclosure. After considering comments, the Bureau finalized the proposed amendment. The final amendment will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Federal Reserve releases updates to interagency examination procedures for Regulations X and Z
On April 19, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a consumer affairs letter (CA 18-3) announcing revised interagency examination procedures for Regulation X (RESPA) and Regulation Z (TILA) that supersede procedures previously issued in September 2015. The updated procedures account for amendments to mortgage servicing rules under Regulations X and Z that took effect October 19, 2017 (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), as well as amendments to Regulation Z published by the CFPB through April 2016, including rules concerning small creditors’ mortgage lending to rural and underserved areas. However, the Fed stated in its letter that, at this time, the updated procedures do not incorporate Regulation Z amendments concerning the CFPB’s TILA-RESPA integrated disclosure rule or those regarding prepaid accounts. These amendments will be addressed in a future update.
Twenty state Attorneys General oppose bill that would remove attorneys engaged in debt collection litigation from FDCPA purview
On April 19, a coalition of twenty state Attorneys General issued a letter to leaders of Congress expressing opposition to the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act, HR 5082, which would amend the FDCPA to exclude law firms and attorneys engaged in debt collection-related litigation activities from the scope of the FDCPA. The House Financial Services Committee passed HR 5082 on March 21 with a vote of 35-25. In the letter, the Attorneys General state, “debt collection lawsuits comprise the majority of many state-court dockets” and note numerous actions brought by the CFPB and state Attorneys General against debt collection law firms and attorneys for illegal collection practices. The letter argues that debt collection attorneys should be held accountable when using litigation for improper purposes and that HR 5082 would preclude Attorneys General from using the FDCPA to pursue improper behavior. Additionally, the letter notes, “the FDCPA is the only consumer protection tool available to State Attorneys General in a significant number of jurisdictions where state consumer protection law does not govern the conduct of attorneys.”
Student loan servicer must comply with CFPB CID pending appeal
On April 17, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered a student loan servicer to comply with a CFPB Civil investigative Demand (CID), while the servicer awaits appeal. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February the court enforced a CFPB CID issued against the student loan servicer in June 2017. In granting the Bureau’s petition to enforce the CID, the court found that the CID’s Notification of Purpose met the statutory notice requirements because nothing in the law bars the CFPB “from investigating the totality of a company’s business operations.” The court also found that the investigation was for a “legitimate purpose,” the information requested is relevant and not already known by the Bureau, and the request is not unreasonably broad or burdensome. On March 26, the servicer filed a motion to stay the court’s order pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In denying the servicer’s motion, the court held that the servicer would not be irreparably harmed if it responded to the CID should the 3rd Circuit reverse the court’s decision as the Appeals Court could order all documents to be returned and prevent the CFPB from acting upon information learned through the CID. Additionally, the servicer argued that the CFPB would not be injured if the court granted the stay because the agency has not yet brought an enforcement action. The court disagreed with this argument, holding that the CFPB cannot bring an enforcement action without reviewing the relevant documents and granting the stay would only “further stall the CFPB’s efforts to obtain documents and information that it requested nine months ago.”
CFPB and OCC fine national bank $1 billion for mortgage and auto lending practices
On April 20, the CFPB, in coordination with the OCC, announced a $1 billion settlement with a national bank for certain auto and mortgage lending practices the bank had previously discontinued and for which voluntary consumer remediation was initiated by the bank. According to the CFPB consent order, the Bureau alleged the bank inappropriately (i) charged fees for mortgage rate-lock extensions, and (ii) operated a force-placed insurance program in connection with auto loans. Specifically, the CFPB alleged that the bank sometimes charged rate lock extension fees to consumers when it should have absorbed the fees. With respect to auto loans, the Bureau alleged that, due to issues with the vendor employed to monitor for insurance and issue insurance if not maintained by the consumer, certain consumers paid for force-placed insurance premiums and interest that may not have been required resulting in potential consumer harm. The CFPB consent order acknowledges that the bank voluntarily discontinued the above practices and has voluntarily begun consumer remediation. Under the terms of both of the consent orders, the bank will remediate affected consumers and will implement necessary changes to its compliance risk-management program.