InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
John Doe Lawsuit Says CFPB Action Unlawful After PHH
On January 10, a California-chartered finance company with its principal place of business in Manila, Philippines filed an action to enjoin the CFPB from, among other things, disclosing the existence of an investigation of the plaintiff and taking any action against the plaintiff unless and until the CFPB is constitutionally structured. John Doe Co. v. CFPB, D.D.C., No. 17-cv-00049 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2017). The action was prompted, in part, by the recent PHH v. CFPB decision in which the court held that the CFPB’s single director leadership structure is unconstitutional and, thus, that the agency must operate as an executive agency supervised by the President. Here, the John Doe plaintiff argues that because the CFPB has requested review of the PHH decision, the court’s remedy in regarding the CFPB’s structure has not taken effect and thus agency is operating in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, plaintiff asserts, the CFPB can take no further action against it—including publication of the CFPB’s investigation of plaintiff or initiation of enforcement action against plaintiff.
We note, that on the same day the plaintiff filed its complaint, the court issued an order reflecting its decision that the plaintiff be able to proceed in its action against the CFPB under a pseudonym. In so doing, the court noted that where a company has filed an action to protect against the government’s disclosure of its identity, it would be “counterintuitive that a court should require that same company to disclose its identity in the parallel court proceedings.” Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has given the CFPB until Jan. 25 to respond to the company’s complaint and motion to proceed under a pseudonym.
CFPB Files Suit Against Nation's Largest Student Loan Company
On January 18, the CFPB initiated an enforcement action against the nation’s largest student loan servicer based upon alleged violations of the CFPA, FCRA, and FDCPA. In a complaint filed with the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Bureau charged that the student lender “systematically and illegally” created “obstacles to repayment” and “cheated” many borrowers out of their rights to lower repayments, causing them to pay much more than they had to for their loans. The CFPB “seeks to obtain permanent injunctive relief, restitution, refunds, damages, civil money penalties, and other relief.”
Later that day, the lender issued a statement categorically rejecting the CFPB's charges, explaining: “[T]he suit improperly seeks to impose penalties [] based on new servicing standards applied retroactively and applied only against one servicer. The regulator-asserted standards are inconsistent with Department of Education regulations, and will harm student loan borrowers, including through higher defaults.” The company also noted that “the timing of this lawsuit—midnight action filed on the eve of a new administration—reflects their political motivations.”
CFPB Seeks Advisory Council Applications
As explained in a January 16 blog post, the CFPB recently set up three “advisory groups”—the Consumer Advisory Board, the Community Bank Advisory Council, and the Credit Union Advisory Council—in anticipation that the groups would provide information about emerging trends and practices in the consumer financial marketplace and to open lines of direct communication with smaller financial institutions. On January 16, the Bureau requested applications seeking to fill vacancies in all three groups, which have seats that will become vacant in the fall of 2017. According to the post, the CFPB is seeking individuals with expertise in a variety of consumer protection issues, including representatives of banks serving underserved communities, representatives of communities impacted by higher priced mortgages, employees of credit unions and community banks, and academics. Applications are due March 1.
D.C. Circuit Grants PHH Request to Respond to Solicitor General's Brief
Over the objections of the CFPB, the D.C. Circuit today granted the request of PHH Corp. to file a supplemental brief responding to arguments in support of en banc review that were raised for the first time in a brief filed by the U.S. Solicitor General on the December 22, 2016. PHH’s supplemental brief is due on or before January 27, 2017. For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB’s petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
CFPB Announces Leadership Changes
On January 6, the CFPB announced several leadership changes. Specifically, Leandra English is returning to the CFPB to serve as the Chief of Staff; Jerry Horton will serve as the CFPB's Chief Information Officer; Paul Kantwill will serve as the Bureau's Assistant Director for Servicemember Affairs; John McNamara will serve as Assistant Director of Consumer Lending, Reporting, and Collections Markets; and Elizabeth (Eli) Reilly will serve as the CFPB's Chief Financial Officer.
Trump Announces CFPB Transition Team
On January 5, 2016, the Trump Transition team announced the names of the four individuals assigned to lead the President-elect’s CFPB “Landing Team.” Generally, each landing team is tasked with collect information on each agency—ranging from the agency's budget and policies to the status of various rulemakings and the current administration's priorities—all with the overarching purpose of facilitating an orderly transfer of power at the federal financial regulators. The CFPB Landing Team includes:
- Paul Atkins, former GOP Commissioner for the SEC and current CEO of Patomak Global Partners LLC, which provides consulting services concerning financial services industry matters, regulatory compliance, risk and crisis management, public affairs, independent reviews, litigation support, and strategy.
- Kyle Hauptman, Senior Development Manager and occasional writer about financial & political issues for the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), member of the SEC’s Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, and former chief economic adviser on the issues of Financial Markets, Housing to the Romney For President (RFP) campaign.
- Consuala “CJ” Jordan, a public relations executive and Republican political consultant who is currently CEO of The Jordan Management Group, LLC, a full service Government Relations and Public Affairs Firm, specializing in strategic business development.
- Julie B. Lindsay, Managing Director and General Counsel of Capital Markets and Corporate Reporting at Citigroup Inc., and former Counsel to Commissioner Glassman at the SEC.
CFPB Publishes Rule Implementing Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustments
On January 12, the CFPB published a final rule adjusting upward the maximum amount of each civil penalty within its jurisdiction, as required by provisions of the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance. As explained in the rule, the new penalty amounts for 2017 are calculated by multiplying the corresponding 2016 penalty by a “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier—which for 2017 has been set by the OMB at 1.01636—and then rounding to the nearest dollar. The new penalty amounts apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2017.
CFPB Proposes Amending Ethical Standards for Employees
On January 10, the CFPB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning amendments to its existing Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees. Among other things, the proposed rule would amend CFPB Ethics Regulations that address: (i) outside employment for covered employees; (ii) Bureau employee ownership or control of certain securities; (iii) restrictions on seeking, obtaining, or renegotiating credit; and (iv) disqualification requirements based on existing indebtedness. The proposed rule is also intended to clarify certain definitions. Comments on the proposal must be received on or before February 9.
CFPB Orders Medical Debt Collection Law Firms to Refund $577,135 to Consumers
On January 9, the CFPB entered into a Consent Order and Stipulation against two medical debt-collection law firms and their president for alleged violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. Based on these allegations, the CFPB ordered the Respondents to provide $577,135 in relief to affected consumers, correct their business practices, and pay a $78,800 civil money penalty. According to the allegations set forth in the consent order, between January 2012 and August 2016, debt collectors working for the firms violated the FDCPA by giving the false impression that the firm’s “Demand Letters were from an attorney or that the firm’s attorneys were meaningfully involved in reviewing the consumer’s case or had reached a professional judgment that sending a Demand Letter or making a collection call was warranted.” The Bureau also found that the firms notarized consumer affidavits for use in debt-collection lawsuits without properly verifying the truth of the signature. The CFPB also alleged that the firms violated FCRA’s Regulation V by failing to establish, implement, and periodically review and update reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer information furnished to consumer reporting agencies.
House Democrats Defend CFPB Director in Response to GOP Letter Demanding His Dismissal
On January 10, Rep. Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, and 20 Democratic panel members sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump urging him to reject calls by Republicans to fire CFPB Director Richard Cordray. Among other things, the letter argues against “entering into a protracted – and likely unsuccessful – legal battle to oust” Director Cordray before his term expires in July 2018. Specifically, the letter “caution[s]” the President-Elect “not to engage in partisan litigation, particularly since it is likely to be unsuccessful and will needlessly divert government resources away from other important priorities.” The lawmakers contend further that removing the CFPB Director "for cause” would be an "extraordinary remedy” that is “without historical precedent,” and which “must be subjected to enhanced congressional, judicial, and public scrutiny.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, a majority of a panel of U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia concluded in October 2016 that the CFPB’s governance structure was unconstitutional, and, as a corrective measure, authorized the President to fire the Bureau’s sole Director at will—a ruling for which the Bureau now seeks rehearing en banc.