InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: Federal court says state bank, fintech partner must face Maryland’s allegation of unlicensed lending before state ALJ
A federal court late last month told a state-chartered bank and its fintech partner that they must return to a state administrative law proceeding to fight a Maryland enforcement action alleging that their failure to obtain a license to lend and collect on loans violated state law — potentially rendering the terms of certain loans unenforceable.
The Missouri-chartered bank and its partners attempted to remove an action brought by the Office of the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, but the district court determined that removal was not proper and that Maryland’s Office of Administrative Hearings was the appropriate venue.
OCFR initially filed charges in January 2021 in Maryland’s Office of Administrative Hearings against the bank and its partner asserting the bank made installment and consumer loans and extended open-ended or revolving credit in the state without being licensed or qualifying for an exception to licensure. As a result, OCFR said they “‘may not receive or retain any principal, interest, or other compensation with respect to any loan that is unenforceable under this subsection.’” It said that not only are the bank’s loans to all Maryland consumers possibly unenforceable, but also that the bank, or its agents or assigns, could in the alternative be “prohibited from collecting the principal amount of those loans from any of these consumers or from collecting any other money related to those loans.”
The OCFR’s charge letter also said the fintech company that provided services to the bank violated the Maryland Credit Services Business Act by providing advice and/or assistance to consumers in the state “with regard to obtaining an extension of credit for the consumer when accepting and/or processing credit applications on behalf of the Bank without a credit services business license.” Additionally, the OCFR alleged violations of the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act related to whether the fintech company engaged in unlicensed collection activities, thus subjecting it to the imposition of fines, restitutions, and other non-monetary remedial action.
The defendants filed a notice of removal to federal court last year while the enforcement action was still pending before the OAH; OCFR moved to remand the case back to the agency.
In granting the OCFR’s motion to remand, the court concluded that the OCFR persuasively argued that the defendants have not properly removed this case from the OAH for several reasons, including that the OAH does not function as a state court. “Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove to federal court ‘any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.’” However, the court determined that, while defendants correctly observed that the OAH possesses certain “court-like” attributes, its limitations clearly showed that it does not function as a state court.
In reaching this conclusion, the court considered several undisputed facts, including that the OCFR is a unit of the Maryland Department of Labor “responsible for, among other things, issuing licenses to entities wishing to issue loans to consumers in Maryland and investigating violations of Maryland’s consumer loan laws.” The court also said that, while OCFR has authority under Maryland law to investigate potential violations of law or regulation and has the ability to issue cease and desist orders, revoke an individual’s license, or issue fines, it cannot enforce its own subpoenas or orders — and that its decisions are not final and may be appealed to a state circuit court.
The defendants had argued that the case involved a federal question as a result of the complete preemption of state usury laws by Section 27 of the FDI Act. The court said licensure, not state usury law claims, was the issue at hand.
During a status conference held last month to discuss OCFR’s motion to remand, defendants requested an opportunity to file a motion certifying the case for appeal. The court will hold in abeyance its remand order pending resolution of that motion. Parties’ briefings are due by the end of May.
If you have any questions regarding the ruling or its ramifications, please contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: CFPB revises UDAAP manual to include discriminatory practices
On March 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced significant revisions to its Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices exam manual, in particular highlighting the CFPB’s view that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service. Congress has enacted several statutes that outlaw discrimination on specified prohibited bases, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which generally makes it unlawful to discriminate on a prohibited basis when extending credit and which the CFPB is authorized to enforce. With this announcement, the Bureau made clear its view that any type of discrimination in connection with a consumer financial product or service could be an “unfair” practice — and therefore the CFPB can bring discrimination claims related to non-credit financial products (and other agencies that have UDAP authority may follow in the CFPB’s lead).
Special Alert: Latest developments in OFAC sanctions against Russia
Beginning February 21, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has issued significant sanctions in response to the Russian Federation’s military invasion of Ukraine and its recognition of Ukraine’s separatist regions.
Since Buckley’s last update on February 25, there have been a number of developments in the sanctions against Russia, which include:
- A prohibition on the importation into the United States of Russian crude oil and certain petroleum products, liquified natural gas, and coal
- A ban on new investment by U.S. persons in the Russian energy sector
- The imposition of asset blocking sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov, numerous oligarchs and families with ties to Putin, and Russian-backed disinformation services
- Sanctions targeting Russia’s U.S. foreign reserves by prohibiting all dealings with Russia’s Central Bank, National Wealth Fund, and Ministry of Finance
- The issuance of the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, which codify the prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024, discussed below, and include several interpretations and general licenses
- The issuance of a general license that exempts “transactions related to energy” from certain prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024
Special Alert: NYDFS guidance on cybersecurity and virtual currency responds to events in Ukraine
The New York Department of Financial Services last week issued guidance on its cybersecurity and virtual currency regulations in response to the Russian military actions in Ukraine and recently imposed sanctions. NYDFS specifically raised the specter of elevated cyber risk due to ongoing cyberattacks against Ukraine, which could spill over to other networks, as well as potential direct attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure.
Updated cybersecurity regulation guidance
NYDFS suggested that regulated entities with programs pursuant to its cybersecurity regulation (23 NYCRR 500) have the potential to mitigate increased cyber threats and should take the following steps:
- Review cybersecurity programs for compliance, with particular attention to certain safeguards and core cybersecurity hygiene measures, including access control, vulnerability management, and privileged access review
- Review, update, and test incident-response and business-continuity plans and ensure they address ransomware events
- Review and implement practices pursuant to the June 2021 Ransomware Guidance
- Re-evaluate plans to maintain essential services and protect critical data in the event of an extended outage or service disruption
- Conduct a full test of backup and recovery abilities
- Provide additional cybersecurity awareness training and reminders for all employees
NYDFS also advised that regulated entities should keep track of known threat actors and take extra precautions when doing business in Russia and Ukraine, including segregating Russian and Ukrainian networks. Regulated entities must report cybersecurity events that meet the criteria of 23 NYCRR 500.17(a) as promptly as possible and within 72 hours, and should also report cybersecurity events immediately to law enforcement, including the FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Guidance in response to recent sanctions
In the last week, the Biden administration imposed significant new sanctions targeting Russian assets, the Russian financial market, and Russian business dealings in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (See InfoBytes coverage here.) NYDFS reiterated that regulated entities should fully comply with U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as Part 504 of its regulations regarding transaction monitoring and filtering. In order to comply with the new sanctions, NYDFS recommended that regulated entities take the following steps immediately:
- Monitor all communications from NYDFS, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and other federal agencies on a real-time basis to keep tabs on the latest developments
- Modify transaction monitoring and filtering programs as necessary to capture new sanctions as they are proposed
- Monitor all transactions, particularly trade finance transactions and funds transfers, and identify and interdict transactions prohibited by U.S. sanctions.
- Update OFAC compliance policies and procedures on a continuous basis to incorporate the recent sanctions and any new sanctions that may be imposed.
Updated virtual currency regulation guidance
NYDFS also cautioned that sanctioned entities may attempt to use virtual currency to evade sanctions. It said regulated entities must ensure they have “tailored policies, procedures, and processes to protect against the unique risks that virtual currency present” and are complying with the relevant state and federal laws, including the OFAC Sanctions Compliance Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry and New York virtual currency regulation (23 NYCRR 200). Additionally, regulated entities should monitor the effectiveness of virtual currency-specific control measures, including sanctions lists, geographic screening, geolocation tools/IP address identification and blocking capabilities, and transaction monitoring and investigative tools, including blockchain analytics tools.
Buckley will continue to monitor the ongoing situation in Ukraine and provide updates in conjunction with significant developments.
If you have any questions regarding the NYDFS guidance or the recent Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia, please visit our Privacy, Cyber Risk & Data Security or Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering & Sanctions practice pages, or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: Russian invasion of Ukraine triggers significant sanctions (updated)
Over past few days, and following weeks of clear signals that sanctions would be imposed in response to military activity, the Biden administration issued significant new sanctions in response to the Russian Federation’s military invasion of Ukraine and its recognition of Ukraine’s separatist regions. The recent measures:
- Freeze the U.S. assets of numerous Russian banks and their subsidiaries, including Russia’s second largest bank, VTB, the company behind the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and multiple Kremlin-connected individuals
- Cut off Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, from the U.S. financial system by prohibiting transactions involving Sberbank and imposing correspondent account-related prohibitions
- Prohibit transactions in new debt and equity of 13 large Russian enterprises
- Target secondary market dealings in Russian government debt
- Impose a near complete prohibition on dealings with the separatist regions of Ukraine
Special Alert: Russian invasion of Ukraine triggers significant sanctions
On February 21 and 22, following weeks of clear signals that sanctions would be imposed in response to military activity, the Biden administration issued significant new sanctions in response to the Russian Federation’s recognition of separatist regions of Ukraine and incursions of Russian troops. The new measures impose property-blocking sanctions on two state-owned banks (including their subsidiaries), target secondary market dealings in Russian debt, and impose a near complete prohibition on dealings with the separatist regions of Ukraine. Additionally, the Department of the Treasury took steps that enable it to impose sanctions on any person determined to be operating in Russia’s financial services sector. This appears to be an initial phase of sanctions activity and should military activity continue or escalate, it is likely that sanctions would similarly increase in stringency.
The evolving nature of the U.S. sanctions response is evidenced by a recent announcement that the Biden administration will soon impose sanctions targeting Nord Stream 2 AG, the company behind the $11.3 billion pipeline project that was intended to carry gas from Russia to Germany. Buckley will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates.
Special Alert: CFPB proposes small business loan data collection regime
Over a decade ago, Congress enacted an amendment to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to implement a new regime for small business loan data collection similar to the regime that exists in the mortgage industry. Last week, a month before a court-imposed deadline, the Bureau issued its long-awaited proposed rule. The proposal was largely consistent with prior Bureau statements regarding its approach, but nonetheless contained some surprises that reflect the change in leadership at the CFPB. Lenders will need to carefully assess the impact of the proposed rule on their business.
The proposed rule, which is mandated under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, would require a broad swath of lenders to collect data on loans they make to small businesses, including information about the loans themselves, the characteristics of the borrower, and demographic information regarding the borrower’s principal owners. This information would be reported annually to the Bureau, and eventually published by the Bureau on its website, with some potential modifications.
The statute’s stated intent is to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.” CFPB Acting Director Dave Uejio echoed these themes in prepared remarks, suggesting that the proposal was a step towards “a fairer, more transparent small business lending market.” But the Bureau itself acknowledges that it is engaged in a balancing exercise, weighing the intended benefits of the rule against the cost imposed on lenders (and by extension, borrowers), the risk to privacy interests, and the risk of unintended consequences that accompany any major regulatory intervention. The public, including lenders potentially subject to the rule, have 90 days to submit comments on whether the Bureau got the balance right.
The proposed rule would cover most of the small business lending market
By its terms, the statute would apply broadly to any “financial institution” that extended credit to any women-owned, minority-owned, or small business. But the statute also allowed the Bureau to exempt any “class of financial institutions” from its requirements. Last fall, as part of a process required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Bureau suggested that it might exempt lenders based on their size (i.e., those beneath thresholds of $100 million or $200 million in assets), their loan activity (i.e., those making 25, 50, or 100 or fewer loans annually), or based on either threshold. The proposed rule lands at the broadest end of this possible spectrum, abandoning any exemptions based on size altogether and adopting the lowest of the proposed activity levels. Any financial institution that originates at least 25 “covered credit transactions” for “small businesses” in each of the two preceding years would be subject to the rule.
Any loan, line of credit, credit card, or merchant cash advance, including agricultural-purpose credit and those that are also covered by HMDA, would be considered a “covered credit transaction.”[1] Notably, the Bureau suggested in its SBREFA Outline that it would exclude merchant cash advances, but declined to do so in the proposal, concluding that the segment is growing and presents unique fair lending risk.
Just as it did in its SBREFA Outline, the Bureau would adopt the Small Business Administration’s definition of “small business,” except that the Bureau’s definition would use a simplified size threshold of $5 million or less in gross annual revenue. This divergence will require SBA approval, which Uejio expressed confidence in getting.
The proposal’s collection requirements are triggered whenever a lender subject to the rule under the activity threshold receives a “covered credit application.” This term is defined broadly to include “any oral or written request for a covered credit transaction that is made in accordance with procedures used by [the] financial institution for the type of credit requested.” Reevaluation requests, extension requests, and renewal requests would not be considered applications (unless the request seeks additional credit amounts), nor would inquiries and prequalification requests.
The rule would require the collection of 21 data points
The statute sets forth thirteen specific data points to be collected by lenders that the Bureau refers to as “mandatory data points:”
- Whether the applicant is minority-owned
- Whether the applicant is women-owned
- Unique identifier for each application
- Application date
- Loan type (i.e., product type, guarantees, and term)
- Loan purpose
- Amount applied for
- Amount approved or extended
- The action on the application (i.e., originated, approved but not accepted, denied, withdrawn, or incomplete)
- Action date
- Census tract
- Gross annual revenue
- Race, sex, and ethnicity of the principal owners
The collection of information about the principal owner’s[2] race, sex, and ethnicity is a major change from the SBREFA Outline, which suggested that the Bureau would likely propose the collection of such information solely based on applicant self-reporting. As the Bureau recognized at the time, “requiring reporting based on visual observation or surname could create unwarranted compliance burdens in the context of small business lending.” The proposal reverses course, and would require lenders who meet with any principal owner to determine the ethnicity and race of the principal owner if the applicant declines to provide that information. As the statute requires, the data collected regarding the principal owners’ race, sex, and ethnicity—as well as whether the business is minority-owned or women-owned—must not be shared with underwriters, unless restricting access is not feasible.[3]
The statute also authorized the Bureau to require additional data that would advance the purposes of the statute (so-called “discretionary data points”). The CFPB’s proposed discretionary data points are consistent with this administration’s prioritization of fair lending enforcement:
- Pricing
- Time in business
- NAICS Code
- Number of employees
- Application method (e.g., in-person, phone, mail, online)
- Application recipient (e.g., direct or through a third party)
- Reasons for denial (providing nine specific reasons and a text box for any other reason)
- Number of principal owners (i.e., 0-4)
The SBREFA Outline envisioned the first four above; the last four were introduced in the proposal. Of particular note, pricing data is granular: for fixed-rate loans, the rate; for variable-rate loans, the margin, index value, and index name; for merchant cash advances and similar products, the difference between the amount advanced and the amount paid; and for all transactions, origination charges, broker fees, whether the fees were paid directly to the broker or to the financial institution for delivery to the broker, noninterest charges imposed over the first year, whether the financial institution could have included a prepayment penalty under its policies, and whether it did impose a prepayment penalty.
Will everything be published?
Lenders must collect and report to the Bureau annually, which will publish the data on its website — subject to modifications or deletions that it determines advance a privacy interest. The Bureau has not yet proposed modifications or deletions, but intends to issue a policy statement on its approach after it has received one full year of data.
In the meantime, however, the Bureau has made clear that it will disclose the identity of financial institutions and is generally not persuaded that competitive or reputational harms to financial institutions or increased litigation are a basis to withhold publication of data. Instead, the Bureau has indicated that its principal concern is avoiding the risk that an applicant could be re-identified through specific data points.
How will the rule impact small business lending?
The proposal would apply to thousands of small business lenders offering a wide range of products. The Bureau acknowledges the collection and reporting of this information will impose costs on lenders, some of which it expects to be passed along to borrowers.
But the most significant impact of the rule will be the Bureau’s eventual publication of the data. In its view, publication of granular data on specific lending decisions will advance the statutory goals of facilitating fair lending enforcement and business and community development. But concerns over reputational harms and increased fair lending scrutiny may also cause lenders to eliminate subjective elements of underwriting that are a traditional, and often appropriate, feature of small business underwriting. If the eventual effect of the rule is to, as one commenter put it, “artificially flatten prices,” the rule could lead to a small business lending market that is less innovative and less sensitive to actual credit risk than the market that exists today.
The public has 90 days to submit comments regarding the CFPB’s proposal.
If you have any questions regarding the CFPB’s proposed rule, please visit our Fair Lending and Fair Servicing page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
[1] The proposal would exclude certain other types of credit, including trade credit, public utilities credit, securities credit, and incidental credit. The rule would also not cover factoring, leases, consumer-designated credit used for business purposes, and credit secured by certain investment properties (specifically 1-4 individual dwelling units).
[2] A principal owner is any individual who owns 25% or more of the small business.
[3] If not feasible, the institution must provide notice to the applicant of its intention to share this information.
Special Alert: Colorado enacts comprehensive consumer privacy law
On July 7, the Colorado governor signed SB 21-190 to create the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) and establish a framework for personal data privacy rights. Colorado now joins Virginia and California as the third state in the nation to enact comprehensive consumer privacy laws. In 2018, California became the first state to put in place significant consumer data privacy measures under the California Consumer Privacy Act (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), and earlier this year in March, Virginia enacted the Consumer Data Protection Act (covered by InfoBytes here).
Highlights of the CPA include:
Special Alert: CFPB specifies pandemic foreclosure protections and signals tight supervision and enforcement around servicer efforts
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Covid-relief mortgage servicing rule issued yesterday steered away from a nationwide foreclosure freeze as initially proposed, instead creating heightened protections for those borrowers who became seriously delinquent during the pandemic. The distinction may not prove to be a game-changer for servicers, however, which will be obligated to carefully document outreach efforts and decisions to advance borrowers into foreclosure — with little margin for error.
The bureau’s final rule, which takes effect Aug. 31, obligates a servicer to continue specifying, with substantial detail, any loss mitigation options that may help the borrower resolve their delinquency. It also largely preserves the proposed streamline modification option on the basis of an incomplete loss mitigation application, although most servicers already have been offering many of these modifications since the early days of the pandemic.
Special Alert: CFPB proposes to halt foreclosure starts from August 31 until 2022 and create new loss mitigation requirements for servicers
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Monday issued a proposal that would broadly halt foreclosure initiations on principal residences from August 31, 2021 until 2022, and change servicing rules to promote consumer awareness and processing of Covid-relief loss mitigation options. Although the proposal would give servicers some flexibility in streamlining the modification process, most already have been offering many of these types of modifications since the early days of the pandemic. The proposal also would create new and detailed obligations for communicating with borrowers to ensure they are aware of their loss mitigation options for pandemic-related hardships.
The CFPB indicated that a final rule implementing the proposal will take effect Aug. 31 — a tight timeline to address public comments, which are due May 10. The proposal comes as the housing market is strengthening, loans in Covid-related forbearance are dropping, the unemployment rate is ticking down, and the nation’s vaccination program is gathering momentum.
Restrictions on foreclosure initiation through Dec. 31 for principal residences
The CFPB proposes prohibiting servicers from making the first notice or filing for foreclosure from the effective date on Aug. 31, 2021 until after Dec. 31, 2021, on all principal residences, regardless of whether the loan default was related in any way to the Covid-19 pandemic. Regulation X currently requires a servicer to generally refrain from making the first notice or filing to initiate foreclosure until the borrower reaches the 120th day of delinquency. Although the CFPB has previously taken the position that a borrower generally is not obligated to make a lump sum payment upon expiration of the forbearance period (See for example: Slides - Housing Counseling Webinar Forbearance Options and Resources - March 22, 2021 (hudexchange.info)), the proposal acknowledges that borrowers who enter forbearance programs and do not make payments during the forbearance period become increasingly delinquent on their mortgage obligation. As a result, without additional action, servicers likely would have a right under Regulation X to initiate foreclosure in the event a borrower comes off of a forbearance plan and does not cure the delinquency through reinstatement, deferral, or some other loss mitigation alternative to foreclosure. The proposal said a temporary foreclosure prohibition would address this concern.
The CFPB indicated it is considering creating exemptions from this restriction that would allow for the commencement of foreclosure proceedings if the borrower is not eligible for any nonforeclosure loss mitigation options or has failed to respond to servicer outreach.
It is possible that loan investors who had expected to instruct servicers to foreclose on defaulted loans will raise a legal challenge to the broad proposed foreclosure restriction, which appears to be principally based upon the CFPB’s authority to issue regulations creating mortgage servicer obligations as “appropriate to carry out [the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s] consumer protection purposes.” It is an open question whether a blanket prohibition on foreclosures — including those unrelated to the pandemic — and applicable to all mortgage servicers is within the CFPB’s statutory authority under RESPA or the Dodd-Frank Act
Modifications based on evaluation of an incomplete loss mitigation application
The proposal also would allow servicers to offer borrowers with a Covid-19 related hardship a loan modification based on an incomplete application, as long as the modification met the following criteria:
- Term and payment limitations: The modification may not cause the borrower’s principal and interest payment to increase and may not extend the term of the loan by more than 480 months from the date of the modification.
- Non-interest-bearing deferred amounts: Any amounts that the borrower may delay paying until the loan is refinanced, the property is sold, or the loan modification matures, must not accrue interest.
- Fee restrictions: No fees may be charged for the loan modification and all existing late charges, penalties, stop-payment fees, and similar charges must be waived upon acceptance (the CFPB said it was aware that certain agencies, including the Federal Housing Administration, only require waiver of fees incurred after the beginning of the pandemic, and that such modifications would not fall within this safe harbor).
- Covid-related hardship: The loan modification is made available to borrowers experiencing a Covid-19-related hardship, which is very broadly defined in the regulation as “a financial hardship due, directly or indirectly, to the Covid-19 emergency.”
- Delinquency cure: The modification must be designed to end any preexisting delinquency.
Interestingly, investors and agencies have largely eliminated documentation requirements in response to the pandemic, and servicers have been successfully offering streamlined loan modifications under Regulation X’s current requirements. The lack of documentation requirements has seemingly blurred the lines of what constitutes a complete loss mitigation application.
Additional borrower outreach required
The proposed rule would require servicers, for one year after the effective date, to give borrowers Covid-forbearance-related information regarding the current Regulation X early intervention requirements, as follows:
- For borrowers not currently in forbearance, when live contact is made with the borrower, and the investor makes available to that borrower a Covid--related forbearance program, the servicer must inquire whether the borrower has a Covid-related hardship, then list and briefly describe available programs and actions the borrower must take to be evaluated for them. The CFPB noted that this could include listing federal, state, and/or investor-specific options.
- If the borrower is on forbearance, during the last live contact made pursuant to the early intervention rules prior to the program’s expiration, the servicer must inform the borrower of the date on which the current forbearance period ends and each type of post-forbearance option that is available to the borrower to resolve the post-forbearance delinquency, along with the actions that must be taken to be evaluated for such options. Importantly, this list would include all available loss mitigation options—not simply Covid-specific options.
The proposed rule would also require a servicer to contact the borrower no later than 30 days before the end of the forbearance period to determine if the borrower wishes to complete the loss mitigation application and proceed with a full loss mitigation evaluation. If the borrower requests further assistance, the servicer must exercise reasonable diligence to complete the application before the end of the forbearance program period.
The compliance requirements the proposal contemplates seems likely to present additional complexity and liability for mortgage servicers as they gear up to address the upcoming wave of delinquent borrowers who will be coming out of Covid-related forbearances.
If you have any questions regarding the CFPB’s proposal, please visit our Mortgages practice page or our Covid-19 Legal Resources & Capabilities page or contact a Buckley attorney with whom you have worked in the past.