InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York Attorney General reaches $230 million settlement for international company’s RMBS misconduct
On March 21, the New York Attorney General announced a $230 million settlement with two divisions of an international financial services company to resolve allegations that the company made misrepresentations in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in violation of New York’s Martin Act and Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 15 securitizations sold by the company between 2006 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in each of the securitizations’ prospectus and prospectus supplements, the company also included loans in the sales portfolio that diligence reports flagged for underwriting and valuation issues. The $230 million settlement includes $41 million to New York State and $189 million to consumer relief programs.
Washington state enacts student education loan bill of rights, outlines servicer requirements
On March 15, the Washington governor signed Senate Bill 6029, which establishes the “Washington student education loan bill of rights” and outlines licensing requirements and responsibilities for student loan servicers. The act, among other things, requires that the council designate a “student loan advocate” whose responsibilities include providing timely assistance to borrowers, reviewing borrower complaints, referring servicing-related complaints to the state’s Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) or the Attorney General’s office, compiling and disseminating data regarding borrower complaints, and establishing a student education loan borrower education course by October 1, 2020. The act also requires that student loan servicers be licensed through the state (certain entities that are exempt from the licensing requirement must still comply with the act’s other requirements). Under the act, student loan servicers—in addition to complying with applicable federal program requirements—must also (i) provide information to borrowers concerning repayment options, account history, and assessed fees; (ii) notify borrowers when acquiring or transferring servicing rights; and (iii) provide disclosures concerning the possible effects of refinancing student loans. The act further provides that third-parties offering student education loan modification services may not charge or receive money “prior to full and complete performance of the [agreed upon] services,” may not charge fees that are in excess of what is customary or reasonable, and must immediately inform a borrower in writing if the owner or servicer of a loan requires additional documentation or if “modification, refinancing, consolidation, or change in repayment plans . . . is not possible.”
Furthermore, the act exempts from the outlined requirements “any person doing business under, and as permitted by, any law of this state or of the United States relating to banks, savings banks, trust companies, savings and loan or building and loan associations, or credit unions.”
Bipartisan group of state Attorneys General denounce potential limitations on state oversight of student loan industry
On March 15, a bipartisan group of 30 state Attorneys General released a letter urging Congress to reject Section 493E(d) of the Higher Education Act reauthorization – H.R. 4508, known as the “PROSPER Act” – which would prohibit states from “overseeing, licensing, or addressing certain state law violations by companies that originate, service, or collect on student loans.” Led by the New York and Colorado Attorneys General, the letter characterizes Section 493E(d) as an “an all-out assault on states’ rights and basic principles of federalism.” According to the letter, if enacted, parts of the student loan industry would be immunized from state-level enforcement, placing a larger consumer protection role on the Department of Education for which the agency is not equipped to handle. The Attorneys General assert that the states have the legal capacity and track record to enforce against abuses in the student loan market; citing to a statistic which estimates $1.38 trillion in student loan debt, the letter highlights previous state enforcement actions and emphasizes the need for states and the federal government to work together to protect U.S. borrowers.
In addition to Section 493E(d) of the PROSPER Act, the Department of Education recently published an interpretation in the Federal Register which takes the position that state regulation of certain federal student loan programs is preempted by federal law, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Pennsylvania Attorney General sues ride-sharing company for 2016 data breach
On March 5, Pennsylvania Attorney General filed a lawsuit against a ride-sharing company for violating Pennsylvania’s Breach of Personal Information Notification Act (BPINA) because of its failure to disclose a 2016 data breach caused by hackers. The complaint alleges that after the company became aware of the breach, it “paid the hackers at least $100,000 to delete the acquired consumer data and keep quiet.” According to the complaint, the breached data included the private information of at least 13,500 Pennsylvania drivers. The Attorney General asserts that, under the BPINA, the company must provide notice to the affected residents without unreasonable delay. Instead, the company waited until November 2017 to disclose the incident. Among other things, the complaint seeks civil penalties in the amount of $1,000 or $3,000, depending on the consumer’s age, for each individual BPINA violation.
The Pennsylvania lawsuit follows similar lawsuits by the City of Chicago and Washington State, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Virginia Attorney General sues pension sale lender who targeted retired veterans and government employees; obtains full restitution for customers of online lender
On March 7, the Virginia Attorney General took action against Delaware- and Nevada-based installment lenders (defendants) for allegedly making illegal loans with excessive annual interest rates that were disguised as “lump sum” cash payouts to Virginia consumers, in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). According to the complaint, the defendants disguised the high interest loans to Virginia pensioners as “Purchase and Sale Agreements” involving a “sale” or “pension advance” in an effort to bypass consumer lending laws, including TILA and Regulation Z disclosure requirements. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the loans charged interest rates as high as 183 percent, far exceeding the state’s 12 percent annual usury cap, but because they were misrepresented as sales, defendants avoided potential private actions brought by consumers to recover excessive interest payments. The complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief.
Separately, on February 23, the Virginia Attorney General announced a settlement with a group of affiliated online lenders and debt collectors (defendants) to resolve violations of the VCPA through the offering of unlawful open-end credit plan loans and engaging in illegal debt collection practices. According to the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance approved earlier in February, between January 2015 through mid-June 2017, the defendants (i) offered open-end credit plan loans and imposed bi-monthly “service fees” that—when calculated with the advertised interest—greatly increased the loan’s cost and exceeded the state’s 12 percent annual limit; (ii) imposed illegal finance charges and other service fees on borrowers during the required 25-day grace period; (iii) contacted consumers in an effort to collect on these loans; and (iv) contacted the consumers' employers to implement wage assignments and garnish wages from consumers' paychecks. Under the terms of the settlement, defendants will provide nearly $150,000 in restitution and debt forgiveness, pay $105,000 in civil penalties and attorneys’ fees, and are permanently enjoined from consumer lending and debt collection activities in the state.
New York Attorney General settles HIPAA allegations with a health insurance company
On March 6, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement with a healthcare provider for an alleged violation of the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) concerning a mailing error, which resulted in the disclosure of over 80,000 social security numbers. According to the announcement, in October 2016, the healthcare provider discovered that its mailing envelopes for certain health policies inadvertently included the customers’ social security numbers as part of the “Health Insurance Claim Number” printed on the envelope. Under the terms of the settlement, the healthcare provider is required to pay a $575,000 fine, review its policies and procedures, and implement a corrective action plan which includes an analysis of the security risks associated with the mailing of policy documents.
International bank settles with New York Attorney General for $500 million for RMBS misconduct
On March 6, the New York Attorney General announced a $500 million settlement with an international bank to resolve allegations of misrepresentations in the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), in violation of New York’s Martin Act and Section 63(12) of New York’s Executive Law. According to the settlement agreement, the investigation focused on 44 securitizations sold by the bank between 2006 and 2007. In addition to the alleged misrepresentations in the offering documents, the bank also included loans in the sales portfolio that due diligence vendors warned did not comply with underwriting guidelines. The $500 million settlement includes $100 million in damages to New York State and $400 million to consumer relief programs.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank recently settled with the California Attorney General for misrepresentations while selling RMBS to California’s public employee and teacher pension fund.
Pennsylvania judge partially dismisses action against investors of an online lending scheme
On January 26, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania partially dismissed an action brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against out-of-state investors of an online payday lender and the lender for violating Pennsylvania’s Corrupt Organizations Act (COA). The Attorney General alleged that an online payday lender and the investors “designed, implemented, and profited from a consumer lending scheme to circumvent the usury laws of states.” The alleged conduct, which the court referred to generally as “rent-a-bank” and “rent-a-tribe” schemes, involved the online lender partnering with an out-of-state bank and later with tribal nation to act as the nominal lenders of the loans. The investors moved to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and that the Attorney General failed to plead sufficient allegations with respect to the investors’ involvement in the “rent-a-bank” scheme. The court rejected the jurisdictional arguments, holding that even though the investors were a Delaware LLC with no physical connection to the state, their participation in a scheme targeting Pennsylvania consumers constituted sufficient minimum contacts. However, the court dismissed the “rent-a-bank” aspects of the complaint as to the investors because it found that the Attorney General failed to allege that they were anything more than passive investors in the scheme.
Superior Court denies student loan servicer’s motion to dismiss Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit
On February 28, a Suffolk County Superior Court denied a Pennsylvania-based student loan servicing agency’s (defendant) motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General, which alleged the defendant overcharged borrowers and improperly processed claims for public service loan forgiveness. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to the court, the loan servicer’s argument that it is “an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity from lawsuits was not convincing; it noted that not only had the defendant failed to qualify as a state entity but it demonstrated “substantial financial and operational independence” from the state.
Furthermore, the court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that the action was not permitted because the Department of Education is an indispensable party to the suit and that the Massachusetts Attorney General’s claims “are preempted ‘to the extent’ that they ‘conflict with the requirements of federal law.’” The judge opined that the Department of Education is not an indispensable party even though some of the injunctive relief sought may conflict with the Department of Education’s rights under its loan servicing contract or regulatory requirements.
Buckley Special Alert: Mulvaney says the CFPB will depend heavily on state Attorneys General for enforcement of consumer protection laws
Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in a February 28 speech, outlined the Bureau’s overall direction and strategic priorities, and described plans to coordinate with state Attorneys General in enforcing federal consumer financial protection law. Mulvaney made the remarks in Washington, D.C., at the winter meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG).
* * *
Click here to read the full special alert.If you have questions about the remarks or other related issues, please visit our State Attorneys General and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice pages, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.