InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Increases Asset-Size Thresholds Under HMDA, TILA
On December 30, the CFPB announced final rules adjusting the asset-size thresholds under Regulation C (HMDA) and Regulation Z (TILA). Both rules take effect on January 1, 2014.
HMDA and Regulation C require certain lenders to collect and report data about mortgage application, origination, and purchase activity, and make such data available to the public. Institutions that have an asset level below a certain dollar threshold are exempt from the requirements of Regulation C. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $42 million to $43 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $43 million or less as of December 31, 2013, from collecting HDMA data in 2014.
TILA and Regulation Z, among other things, require creditors to establish escrow accounts when originating higher-priced mortgage loans. However, TILA exempts certain entities from this requirement, including entities that meet an asset-size threshold established by the CFPB. The final rule increases this asset-size exemption threshold from $2 billion to $2.028 billion, thereby exempting creditors with assets of $2.028 billion or less as of December 31, 2013, from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for higher-priced mortgage loans in 2014.
CFPB Continues Add-On Products Crackdown
On December 23, the CFPB announced a coordinated enforcement action taken by federal regulators against a major credit card company and certain subsidiaries alleged to have violated multiple consumer protection laws with respect to credit card add-on products. The action, which is the fourth action taken by the CFPB relating to credit card add-on products, and the fifth add-on product action overall, extends the CFPB’s intense supervisory and enforcement focus on ancillary products and oversight of third-party service providers.
In coordination with the FDIC and the OCC, the CFPB ordered the companies to refund an estimated $59.5 million to more than 335,000 customers for certain credit card practices, including allegedly unfair billing tactics and deceptive marketing. The company must also pay an additional $9.6 million in civil penalties, submit to an independent review of other credit card add-on products, and continue to implement enhanced third-party oversight.
The consent orders allege that the company misled consumers about the benefits, fees, length of coverage, and terms and conditions of certain payment protection products, and that the company billed consumers for services they did not receive, unfairly charged consumers for interest and fees, and failed to comply with federal requirements to inform consumers about their right to a free credit report.
The coordinated action follows another taken by federal regulators last year, in which the same companies were ordered to refund approximately $85 million in connection with alleged UDAAP violations related to the offering of a rewards card and certain debt collection practices.
CFPB, DOJ Announce First Joint Fair Lending Action Against Indirect Auto Finance Company
This morning, the CFPB and the DOJ announced their first ever joint fair lending enforcement action to resolve allegations that an auto finance company’s dealer compensation policy, which allowed for auto dealer discretion in pricing, resulted in a disparate impact on certain minority borrowers. The $98 million settlement is the DOJ’s third largest fair lending action ever and the largest ever auto finance action.
Investigation and Claims
As part of the CFPB’s ongoing targeted examinations of auto finance companies’ ECOA compliance, the CFPB conducted an examination of this auto finance company in the fall of 2012. This finance company is one of the largest indirect automobile finance companies in the country which, according to the CFPB and DOJ’s estimates, purchased over 2.1 million non-subvented retail installment contracts from approximately 12,000 dealers between April 1, 2011 and present. The CFPB’s investigation of the finance company allegedly revealed pricing disparities in the finance company’s portfolio with regard to auto loans made by dealers to African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers. The CFPB referred the matter to the DOJ just last month, and the DOJ’s own investigation resulted in findings that mirrored the CFPB’s.
Specifically, the federal authorities claim that, based on statistical analysis of the loan portfolios, using controversial proxy methodologies, the investigations showed that African-American borrowers were charged on average approximately 29 basis points more in dealer markup than similarly situated non-Hispanic whites for non-subvented retail installment contracts, while Hispanic borrowers and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers were charged on average approximately 20 and 22 basis points more, respectively. The complaint also faults the finance company for not appropriately monitoring pricing disparities or providing fair lending training to dealers.
The CFPB and the DOJ did not claim that the finance company intentionally discriminated against any borrowers. Instead the federal agencies alleged that the finance company’s facially neutral pricing policy allowed auto dealers to price in such a manner that resulted in certain minority groups, on average, paying more for credit than non-Hispanic white borrowers. The federal authorities employed disparate impact theory of discrimination, which allows government and private plaintiffs to establish “discrimination” based solely on the results of a neutral policy without having to show any intent to discriminate (or even in the demonstrated absence of intent to discriminate). When announcing the settlement, CFPB Director Cordray stated that “[w]hether or not [the finance company] consciously intended to discriminate makes no practical difference. In fact, we do not allege that [the finance company] did so. Yet the outcome, and the harm to consumers, is the very same here.”
Resolution
The investigation and potential enforcement action were disclosed by the finance company earlier this year. The final terms, formalized in a CFPB administrative consent order and a DOJ consent order filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, require the finance company to pay an $18 million penalty and provide $80 million for a settlement fund to compensate borrowers allegedly harmed between April 2011 and December 2013. The CFPB and the DOJ will identify borrowers to be compensated and the amount to be paid to each identified borrower using an undisclosed methodology, and the payments will be administered by a third party administrator paid for by the finance company.
In addition, the finance company is required to adopt and implement a compliance plan pursuant to which the finance company must: (i) establish a dealer compensation policy that limits the maximum spread between the buy rate and the contract rate to no more than the spread currently permitted; (ii) provide regular notices to dealers explaining ECOA and dealer pricing obligations; (iii) establish quarterly and annual portfolio-wide analysis of markups based on the CFPB and the DOJ statistical methodologies; (iv) take prompt corrective action with respect to dealers identified in such quarterly analysis that culminates in prohibiting a dealer’s ability to mark up the rate or termination of the dealer relationship; and, (v) providing remuneration for affected customers.
While the settlements do not bar discretionary dealer compensation, they provide an incentive for the finance company to eliminate the practice. The agreements permit the finance company to develop a non-discretionary compensation plan for approval by the CFPB and the DOJ, subsequent to which the finance company no longer is required to implement the majority of the compliance plan.
Looking Ahead
Dealer compensation practices have been targeted by the CFPB for the past year, including in guidance issued earlier this year, which the CFPB recently defended at a public forum. We expect the CFPB’s scrutiny of dealer compensation and auto finance companies more generally to continue into next year. Questions regarding the matters discussed in this alert may be directed to any of the lawyers in our Auto Finance or CFPB practices, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
CFPB Adjusts CARD Act, HOEPA Thresholds
On December 16, the CFPB published a final rule to review and adjust provisions of Regulation Z that implement amendments to TILA under the CARD Act and HOEPA. Specifically, the CFPB is required to adjust, as appropriate based on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index in effect on June 1, 2013, (i) the threshold amount that triggers requirements for the disclosure of minimum interest charges and (ii) the maximum penalty fee card issuers can impose for violating account terms without violating the restrictions on penalty fees established by the CARD Act. For 2014, the minimum interest charge disclosure threshold will remain unchanged, while the permissible penalty fees will increase to $26 for a first late payment and $37 for each subsequent violation within the following six months. Similarly, the CFPB is required to adjust the combined points and fees threshold that triggers compliance with HOEPA. Effective January 1, 2014, that threshold will be $632.
House Democrats Encourage FTC Scrutiny Of Consumer Reporting Agencies' Add-On Products Marketing
On December 18, a group of House Democrats sent a letter urging the FTC to focus on the online marketing of products and services by consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The lawmakers assert that CRAs “often require consumers to jump through hurdles, presumably in an effort to generate additional revenue.” The lawmakers suggest that certain CRAs’ websites mislead and confuse consumers, particularly with regard to the marketing of “free” consumer products and services that are conditioned upon consumers signing up for “costly add-on services such as ongoing credit monitoring.” The letter identifies the following specific practices for FTC scrutiny: (i) marketing “free” products or services that automatically convert to a monthly subscription if the consumer does not cancel within a trial period; (ii) “prominent” advertising of discount packages without disclosing that the initial small dollar enrollment fee converts into a subscription service; and (iii) requiring consumers to set up accounts before being granted access to their credit score or reports, while “barrag[ing]” consumers with add-on product offerings during the account registration process.
CFPB, State AGs Announce First Nonbank National Servicing Settlement
On December 19, the CFPB and attorneys general for 49 states and the District of Columbia, and a nonbank mortgage servicer, filed a proposed consent order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, pursuant to which the servicer will be required to provide $2 billion in principal reduction to certain borrowers and refund $125 million to nearly 185,000 borrowers who were foreclosed upon.
The agreement is modeled on the 2012 national mortgage servicing settlement between five banks and federal and state authorities, and it is the first such agreement with a nonbank mortgage servicer. The proposed order would resolve allegations that the servicer, and two other servicers it acquired in recent years, engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the servicing of residential mortgages and foreclosure processing in violation of state consumer protection laws and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. Those allegations are detailed in a complaint filed by the CFPB and states on the same day.
Along with the monetary settlement, the agreement requires the servicer to implement numerous servicing policy changes, which incorporate the standards established in the national servicing settlement and add requirements related to transferred loans. The servicing requirements included in the settlement are in addition to new servicing standards the CFPB finalized earlier this year, which take effect on January 10, 2014. Compliance with the agreement will be overseen by the monitor of the national settlement. The agreement does not include releases for any potential claims of criminal liability and does not prohibit private actions.
CFPB Releases Annual Report On College Cards, Urges Disclosure Of Campus Marketing Agreements
On December 17, the CFPB released its annual report to Congress on college credit card agreements, prepared pursuant to the CARD Act. The report follows an inquiry launched earlier this year into financial products marketed to students. The study revealed that since 2009, the number of college card agreements in effect has decreased by 41 percent, the compensation paid to colleges and universities has decreased by 40 percent, and the number of new accounts opened by students has decreased by 18 percent.
The Bureau’s press release urges financial institutions to voluntarily disclose to the public any agreements with colleges and universities to market debt, prepaid, and other products to students and warns that “[t]he CFPB prioritizes its supervisory examinations based on the risks posed to consumers” and “[failing to make] college financial product arrangements transparent to students and their families . . . increase[s] such risks.”
CFPB Announces First Online Lending Lawsuit
On December 16, the CFPB announced a civil lawsuit against a California-based online loan servicer and its owner, subsidiary, and affiliate for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act by collecting money consumers did not owe. This is the first CFPB enforcement action to target online lending directly and, according to the CFPB, represents “a significant step in the Bureau’s efforts to address regulatory-evasion schemes that are increasingly becoming a feature of the online small-dollar and payday lending industry.”
The subject loans were acquired from an online payday lender that recently shut down its operations after commencement of investigations and court actions across several states. According to the complaint, the defendants violated licensing requirements and interest-rate caps in several states that rendered certain high-cost loans void or otherwise nullified but nonetheless continued to collect money from borrowers. The complaint states that the defendants’ engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by sending collection notices, debiting accounts, and demanding payments related to such loans without disclosing that the borrowers were not obligated to pay the amounts under state law. The complaint also alleges that the defendants’ actions were abusive because they took unreasonable advantage of consumers’ lack of understanding of applicable state laws.
The CFPB action parallels actions taken by several other state attorneys general on the same day.
Special Alert: HUD Adopts Its Own QM Rule
On December 11, 2013, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a final rule defining what constitutes a “qualified mortgage” (“QM”) for purposes of loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). With limited clarifications and adjustments, the rule tracks the proposal issued by HUD in September. This final rule, which applies to all case numbers assigned on or after January 10, 2014, replaces the temporary QM definition for FHA loans established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) in its Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (“ATR/QM Rule”).
Loans that qualify as QMs provide lenders with some legal protection against borrower lawsuits under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) alleging the lender did not sufficiently consider the borrower’s ability to repay the loan. Under HUD’s final rule, most FHA loans will qualify for the QM safe harbor if they have Annual Percentage Rates (“APRs”) that are no more than 2.5 percentage points over the Average Prime Offer Rate (“APOR”) for a comparable transaction (as opposed 1.5 percentage points over APOR in the CFPB’s ATR/QM Rule).
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.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
Prudential Regulators Address Impact Of QM Lending On CRA Ratings
On December 13, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the OCC, and the NCUA issued an interagency statement to clarify safety and soundness expectations and CRA considerations in light of the CFPB’s ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage rule. The statement emphasizes that institutions may originate both QM and non-QM loans based on their business strategies and risk appetites and that residential mortgage loans “will not be subject to safety-and-soundness criticism based solely on their status as QMs or non-QMs.” Acknowledging that some institutions may choose to originate only or predominantly QM loans, the agencies state that, consistent with recent guidance concerning the fair lending implications of QM-only lending, “the agencies that conduct CRA evaluations do not anticipate that institutions’ decision[s] to originate only QMs, absent other factors, would adversely affect their CRA evaluations.”