InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Congressman Luetkemeyer Proposes Bill to Eliminate "Abusive" in CFPB's UDAAP Authority
Recently, Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) introduced H.R. 5112, the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Uniformity Act, to make the authority of the CFPB and FTC more consistent and similar, and to encourage greater communication among regulators. Specifically, the Act would amend Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act by removing the CFPB’s ability to regulate “abusive” conduct from its current authority to regulate “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts or practices (UDAAP). In addition, the bill would insert the following language at the end of Section 1031: “[i]n prescribing any rule under this subsection, the Bureau shall comply with the requirements of section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a) applicable to the Federal Trade Commission when the Commission prescribes rules and general statements of policy under that section with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”
CFPB Issues Proposed Rule Seeking to Prohibit Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
On May 5, the CFPB released a highly anticipated proposed rule that would ban covered providers of most financial consumer products and services from including mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in future consumer agreements. In addition, the proposed rule would require a covered provider involved in arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to submit specified arbitral records to the CFPB. Following its March 2015 Arbitration Study, the CFPB asserts that the proposed rule would (i) protect consumers’ right to seek justice and relief in court; (ii) deter companies from violating the law, claiming “attention on the practices of one company can affect or influence their business practices and the business practices of other companies more broadly”; and (iii) increase transparency by requiring companies that use arbitration clauses to submit to the CFPB any claims filed or awards issued in arbitration.
The CFPB officially announced its proposed rule during a May 5 field hearing in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In his opening remarks at the field hearing, CFPB Director Cordray opined that, “[i]f arbitration truly offers the benefits that its proponents claim, such as providing a less costly and more efficient means of dispute resolution, then it stands to reason that companies will continue to make it available.” Opponents of the proposal argue that, among other things, by requiring companies to insert language into arbitration clauses that explicitly states the clauses cannot be used to stop consumers from being part of a class action, the CFPB is, in fact, placing a de facto ban on arbitration. In a U.S. Chamber post, Executive Director of Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness Travis Norton, who was present at the CFPB’s field hearing, reasoned that companies can only bear the costs of arbitration because they do not simultaneously have to defend themselves in class actions, writing that “[n]o economically rational company (or individual) is going to spend additional money voluntarily [on arbitration] when it is forced to pay millions in litigation costs imposed by the broken class action system.”
CFPB Report Reviews 2015 Fair Lending Activities and Notes Continuing Priorities
On April 29, the CFPB released its fourth annual report to Congress on fair lending activities. The report recaps the CFPB’s 2015 supervisory and enforcement efforts around fair lending and identifies ongoing priorities in the areas of: (i) mortgage lending, noting a continuing focus on HMDA data integrity and fair lending risks related to redlining, underwriting, and pricing; (ii) indirect auto lending, noting targeted ECOA reviews in examinations; (iii) credit cards, focusing “on the quality of fair lending compliance management systems and on fair lending risks in underwriting, line assignment, and servicing”; and (iv) other product areas including small-business lending, focusing on risks in underwriting, pricing, and redlining, and offering that “current and future small business lending supervisory activity will help expand and enhance the Bureau’s knowledge in this area, including the credit process; existing data collection processes; and the nature, extent, and management of fair lending risk.” The report highlights that “supervisory work on mortgage servicing has included use of the ECOA Baseline Review Modules … to identify potential fair lending risk in mortgage servicing and inform [its] prioritization of mortgage servicers.” In addition to recaps of its 2015 rulemaking, published guidance and efforts at interagency cooperation (including its MOU and sharing of customer complaints with HUD), the report also indicates that the CFPB had a number of authorized enforcement actions in settlement negotiations or pending investigations at year end in areas including mortgage lending, indirect auto lending, and credit cards.
CFPB Amends Regulations J and L of Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to Allow Electronic Filings
On May 2, the CFPB announced that it is amending implementing Regulations J and L of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) to permit electronic filings. Pursuant to ILSA, certain land developers must register their subdivisions and provide prospective lot purchasers with a disclosure statement known as a Property Report. In light of the amendments, the CFPB simultaneously released electronic filing and payment instructions for submitting the requisite registration and filing fees under ILSA.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Highlights Issues Related to Mortgages
On April 26, the CFPB issued its latest installment of reports covering consumer complaints. According to this month’s report, the CFPB has, as of April 1, handled more than 859,000 complaints across all products, with mortgage complaints accounting for approximately 223,100, making it the second most-complained about product after debt collection. Key findings from the report include the following: (i) approximately 51% of mortgage-related complaints relate to consumers encountering problems when they were having difficulty making payments, such as facing prolonged loss mitigation review processes and receiving conflicting and confusing foreclosure notifications during loss mitigation assistance review; (ii) consumers facing issues involving transfers of their loan to another servicer without being properly informed of the transfers; (iii) loan servicers allegedly providing confusing and contradictory information regarding reinstatement amounts, charges and fees, and interest rates; (iv) loan servicers delaying the release of insurance claim funds allocated to property damages despite consumers having provided all required documentation; and (v) consumers facing prolonged and confusing loan origination processes, resulting in the loss of favorable interest rates and the expiration of rate locks. Consistent with past reports, this month’s issue lists the top 20 most-complained-about companies for mortgage-related complaints, as well as the top ten most-complained-about companies across all financial products. Finally, with more than 118,000 complaints submitted from the state’s consumers as of April 1, the report identifies California as its geographical spotlight, noting that complaints from the state have “generally followed the national trend.”
CFPB to Host Field Hearing on Arbitration
On May 5, the CFPB will host a field hearing on arbitration in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Last October, the CFPB assembled its Small Business Review Panel to review proposals to limit pre-dispute arbitration agreements for consumer financial products and services, signaling preliminary stages of the anticipated proposed rulemaking. The May 5 hearing will be the CFPB’s third field hearing on arbitration; the first was in March 2015 and the second in October 2015.
CFPB Releases Draft Payback Playbook, Aims to Aid Student Borrowers
On April 28, the CFPB released a draft set of student loan disclosures, the Payback Playbook. Outlining repayment options for student loan borrowers, the Payback Playbook is intended to help borrowers effectively manage their monthly payments and avoid default. The Payback Playbook will be available on borrower’s monthly bills, in regular email communications from student loan servicers, or when borrowers log into their accounts. The Payback Playbook for most borrowers would summarize three personalized repayment options, while borrowers who are at risk of default or have missed a payment will receive a “single option with personalized instructions written in plain language describing how to lower their monthly payment.” The CFPB held a press call during which Director Cordray addressed the key objectives of the Payback Playbook, including: (i) aid federal student loan borrowers by personalizing income-driven repayment plans and providing a chart of action to ensure that consumers understand their right to an affordable payment plan; (ii) address the “growing disconnect between borrowers searching for affordable loan payments and [the] nation’s student loan default problem”; and (iii) address consumers’, student loan servicers’, consumer advocates’, and borrowers’ “most urgent problems.”
CFPB Takes Action Against Law Firm, its Partners, and Debt Buyer for Alleged FDCPA Violations
On April 25, the CFPB issued separate consent orders to a New Jersey-based law firm and two of the firm’s partners and a New Jersey-based debt buyer for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Dodd-Frank Act. According to the CFPB, between 2009 and 2014, the law firm, which specializes in retail debt collection litigation, filed lawsuits on behalf of the debt buyer without having “sufficient documentation” to support “the original contracts underlying the alleged debts, documentation of the consumer’s alleged obligation, or the chain of title evidencing that the debt buyer actually owned the debt and thus had standing to sue the consumer.” The CFPB alleges that, among other things, (i) the law firm relied on an automated system and non-attorney staff to complete the initial review of data submitted by the debt buyer regarding consumers’ debt accounts; (ii) the debt buyer failed to require that the law firm complete an account-level review of the documents it submitted prior to filing suit; (iii) neither the debt buyer nor law firm obtained sufficient documentation evidencing the alleged debt and its transactional history; and (iv) the debt buyer and law firm collected debts and filed suits based on unreliable data. The CFPB further contends that the named partners had “managerial responsibility for the Firm and materially participated in the conduct of its debt-collection litigation practices.” In addition to the $1 million civil money penalty imposed on the law firm and the two partners and the $1.5 million civil money penalty imposed on the debt buyer, the consent orders prohibit the firm, the two named partners, and the debt buyer from filing suits or threatening to file suits without substantial evidence that the debt is accurate and enforceable and from using deceptive affidavits, including those that misrepresent the type of documentation reviewed and that the review was conducted by the actual person signing the affidavit.
Special Alert: CFPB Plans to Propose TRID Amendments in July
Director Cordray announced yesterday in a letter to industry trade groups that the CFPB has "begun drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on the Know Before You Owe Rule.” However, contrary to some reports, the proposal is not imminent. Instead, Director Cordray stated that the Bureau “hope[s] to issue the NPRM in late July,” which means that final amendments will likely come late in the year.
In addition, it does not appear that the CFPB is contemplating extensive changes to the rule. Instead, the letter states that the Bureau plans to “incorporat[e] some of the bureau’s existing informal guidance, whether provided through webinar, compliance guide, or otherwise, into the regulation text and commentary” and to address “places in the regulation text and commentary where adjustments would be useful for greater certainty and clarity.”
These amendments may be helpful insofar as they resolve ambiguities in the regulation and convert informal guidance into official interpretations that are binding on the CFPB and subject to a higher level of deference by the courts. It is not clear which issues the CFPB will address in the proposal or whether the Bureau will take up industry concerns about the limited ability of lenders to cure technical errors and the liability of purchasers of loans with such errors. However, Director Cordray did state that the Bureau “will arrange one or two meetings in late May or early June, but before the NPRM is issued, to discuss further with [the trade groups] the Know Before You Owe rule.”
For additional information and resources on the TRID rule, please visit our TRID Resource Center.
* * *
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.
- Clinton R. Rockwell,(310) 424-3901
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Amanda Lawrence, (202) 349-8089
- Melissa Klimkiewicz, (202) 349-8098
- Steven vonBerg, (202) 524-7893
CFPB Proposes Amendments to Mortgage Servicing Rules Under RESPA and TILA
On April 26, the CFPB published a proposed rule regarding potential amendments to certain mortgage servicing provisions in RESPA (Regulation X) and TILA (Regulation Z). The recently issued proposed rule reopens the comment period of a December 2014 CFPB proposal that would require mortgage servicers to “provide modified periodic statements under Regulation Z to consumers who have filed for bankruptcy, subject to certain exceptions.” Since the December 2014 proposal, the CFPB has conducted consumer testing of sample periodic statement forms for consumers in bankruptcy. The CFPB is reopening the comment period until May 26, 2016 to “seek comment specifically on the report summarizing consumer testing of sample periodic statement forms for consumers in bankruptcy.”