InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Special Alert: Supreme Court Holds that a Person May Collect Defaulted Debts Purchased for Its Own Account Without Triggering the FDCPA
On June 12, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., affirming the Fourth Circuit’s holding that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (“FDCPA” or the “Act”) definition of the term “debt collector” does not necessarily apply to a company collecting debts in default that it purchased for its own account.
The Henson Case
The FDCPA defines the term “debt collector” as those who regularly seek to collect debts “owed…another.” Like the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court reasoned that the FDCPA’s definition focuses attention on “third party collection agents working for a debt owner — not on a debt owner seeking to collect debts for itself” and thus, in the context of the facts presented, the purchaser of the debts at issue did not qualify as a debt collector under the FDCPA.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Debt Collection & Buying practice page for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: OCC Issues Supplement to Third-Party Oversight Guidance, Emphasizes Bank Responsibilities in Managing Risks in Fintech Relationships
On June 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Bulletin 2017-21 as a supplement to Bulletin 2013-29, the OCC’s 2013 risk management guidance related to third-party relationships. The OCC’s latest release answers 14 frequently asked questions (FAQs) and marks the second supplement issued this year to Bulletin 2013-29. Previously, on January 24, 2017, the OCC issued Bulletin 2017-7 to advise national banks, federal savings associations, and technology service providers of examination procedures the OCC would follow during supervisory examinations.
As previously summarized in Buckley Sandler’s Special Alert, Bulletin 2013-29 requires banks and federal savings associations (collectively “banks”) to provide comprehensive oversight of third parties, and warns that failure to have in place an effective risk management process commensurate with the risk and complexity of a bank’s third-party relationships “may be an unsafe and unsound banking practice.” Bulletin 2013-29 outlined a “life cycle” approach and provided detailed descriptions of steps that a bank should consider taking at five important stages of third-party relationships: (i) planning; (ii) due diligence and third-party selection; (iii) contract negotiation; (iv) ongoing monitoring; and (v) termination. Consistent with the life cycle approach established in Bulletin 2013-29, the examination procedures set forth in Bulletin 2017-7 identify steps examiners should take in requesting information relevant to assessing the banks’ third-party relationship risk management at each phase of the life cycle.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Vendor Management and FinTech practice pages for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: CFPB Proposes Amendments to 2015 HMDA Rule
On April 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a proposal to amend the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule. The changes are primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements, and most of the clarifications and revisions would take effect in January 2018. Comments on the CFPB’s proposal are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The CFPB describes the changes as being non-substantive in nature, noting that the proposal is meant to provide “clarifications, technical corrections, or minor changes.” While we describe the more significant proposed amendments below in greater detail, highlights of the proposal include:- Clarification of the definitions of “automated underwriting system,” “closed-end mortgage loan” (specifically, extension of credit), “dwelling” (specifically, multifamily residential structures and communities), “home improvement loan,” and “home purchase loan” (specifically, construction and permanent financing)
- Permission for institutions to report “not applicable” for loan purpose and the loan originator’s Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry ID when reporting certain purchased loans originated before Regulation Z’s loan originator rules took effect
- Clarification of the exclusions for temporary financing and construction loans, commercial or business purpose loans, financial institutions that do not meet the loan-volume threshold, and new funds in advance of consolidation with New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreements (CEMA)
- Provision of a safe harbor for bona-fide errors related to incorrect census tract reporting if the institution properly uses the geocoding tool published on the CFPB website
Click here to read full special alert***
If you have questions about the amendments or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: OCC Issues Highly-Anticipated Guidance for Evaluating Charter Applications from Fintech Companies
On March 15, 2017, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued further guidance regarding how it will evaluate applications by fintech companies to become Special Purpose National Banks (SPNBs). In its release, the OCC summarized the more than 100 comments it received in response to its December 2016 white paper and provided a draft supplement to the OCC Licensing Manual outlining proposed requirements for fintech companies to become SPNBs.
Last week’s release is the latest in the OCC’s efforts to support the intersection between banking and technology companies. In August 2015, Comptroller Thomas Curry announced the OCC’s intent to assemble a team of policy experts, examiners, attorneys, and other agency staff to begin researching innovative developments in the financial services industry. In March 2016, the OCC published a summary of its initial research and plans to guide the development of responsible financial innovation. In September 2016, the OCC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking clarifying the framework and process for receiverships of national banks without FDIC-insured deposits. That proposal applied to all non-depository national banks, including those with special purpose national bank charters. In October 2016, the OCC detailed its plans to implement a responsible innovation framework and announced the establishment of the Office of Innovation, a dedicated, central point of contact for fintech companies as well as requests and information related to innovation. Finally in December 2016, the OCC published a white paper announcing its intent to create a SPNB charter for fintech companies and invited comments and posed discrete questions for consideration regarding the proposals.Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the guidance or other related issues, visit our Financial Institutions Regulation, Supervision & Technology (FIRST) and FinTech practice pages for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: District Court Confirms Telephonic Consent to Preauthorized ACH Debits Complies with ESIGN and EFTA
On February 17, a U.S. District Court in Nashville, TN found that a creditor complied with both the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act[1] (“ESIGN”) and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act[2] and its implementing regulation, Regulation E[3] (collectively “EFTA”) when it obtained a consumer’s “written” authorization over the telephone to enroll in recurring ACH payments and mailed a paper copy of the authorization to the consumer two days later.[4] This case (“Blatt”) is significant because it clarifies and confirms much of the existing understanding of the interaction between ESIGN and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and provides precedent for advancing the validity of widespread industry practices in other courts.
[1] 15 U.S.C. § 7001, et seq.
[2] 15 U.S.C. § 1693, et seq.
[3] 12 C.F.R. §1005.1, et seq.
[4] Blatt v. Capital One Auto Finance, [Memorandum and Order] No. 2:15-cv-00015, 2017 WL 660677 (M.D.Tenn. Feb. 17, 2017).
***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our FinTech and Auto Finance practice pages for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: Madden Class Action Moves Forward
On February 27, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC,[1] holding that New York’s fundamental public policy against usury overrides a Delaware choice-of-law clause in the plaintiff’s credit card agreement. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims (and related state unfair or deceptive acts or practices claims) against the defendants, a debt buyer that had purchased the plaintiff’s charged-off credit card debt and its affiliated debt collector. The court did not allow plaintiff’s claims for violations of New York’s usury law to proceed, as it held that New York’s civil usury statute does not apply to defaulted debts and that the plaintiff cannot directly enforce the criminal usury statute. The court also granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
[1] No. 11-CV-8149, 2017 WL 758518 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2017).
Click here to read full special alert* * *
If you have questions about the ruling or other related issues, visit our Class Actions practice for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: D.C. Circuit Grants Petition For Rehearing in PHH v. CFPB; Vacates Judgment Based on Bureau’s Unconstitutionality
Buckley Sandler Special Alert
On February 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc of the October 2015 panel decision in CFPB v. PHH Corporation. Among other things, the panel decision declared the Bureau’s single-Director structure unconstitutional and would have allowed the President to remove the CFPB’s Director at will rather than “for cause” as set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of the petition for rehearing being granted, the panel’s judgment is vacated and the full D.C. Circuit will hear PHH’s appeal of the $109 million penalty imposed by the CFPB under the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Oral argument is scheduled for May 24, 2017.
As discussed in detail in our prior alert, the October panel decision unanimously concluded that the CFPB misinterpreted RESPA, violated due process by disregarding prior interpretations of the statute and applying its own interpretation retroactively, and failed to abide by RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations. However, only two of the three judges on the panel concluded that the CFPB’s status as an independent agency headed by a single Director violated the separation of powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The third panel member, Judge Henderson, dissented from this portion of the opinion on the grounds that it was not necessary to reach the constitutional issue because the panel was already reversing the CFPB’s penalty on other grounds.
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the decision or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: President Signs Executive Order Calling For Review of Financial Regulations
On February 3, President Trump signed an executive order (the Executive Order) directing the Treasury Secretary and the heads of the member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to review financial laws and regulations—including the Dodd-Frank Act and regulations implementing that law—thereby setting into motion a process by which the 2010 financial law could be significantly scaled back.
Under the Executive Order, the Secretary of the Treasury – who has yet to be confirmed – has 120 days to review and report to the President which existing laws, treaties, regulations, guidance, reporting and recordkeeping requirements promote the “core principles” listed below and those that do not. The core principles include:
- restoring public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and rationalize the Federal financial regulatory framework
- fostering economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry
- enabling American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets
- advancing American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings
- preventing taxpayer-funded bailouts, and
- empowering Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the order or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: CFPB Consent Orders Address Wide Range of Real Estate Referral Practices Under Section 8(a) of RESPA
On January 31, the CFPB announced consent orders against mortgage lender Prospect Mortgage, LCC (“Prospect”), real estate brokers Willamette Legacy, LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Mid-Willamette, and RGC Services, Inc. d/b/a Re/Max Gold Coast Realtors (together, “the Brokers”), and mortgage servicer Planet Home Lending, LCC (“Planet”), based on allegations that a wide range of business arrangements between the parties violated the prohibition on “kickbacks” in Section 8(a) of RESPA.
In a press release accompanying the settlements, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the Bureau “will hold both sides of these improper arrangements accountable for breaking the law, which skews the real estate market to the disadvantage of consumers and honest businesses.” The consent orders address a number of practices that have long been the source of uncertainty within the industry. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging in the orders that referrals are an inherent part of real estate transactions, the Bureau provided little constructive guidance as to how lenders, real estate brokers, title agents, servicers, and other industry participants should structure referral arrangements to comply with RESPA.
RESPA Section 8(a)
Section 8(a) of RESPA provides that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.”
Notably, the CFPB’s consent orders make no reference to Section 8(c)(2), which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting … the payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed.” In a much discussed decision, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the CFPB’s $109 million penalty against PHH Corporation in October 2015 based on, among other things, the CFPB’s failure to establish that payments for the service at issue (reinsurance) exceeded the fair market value of the service. The CFPB is currently seeking rehearing of this decision from the full D.C. Circuit, as discussed in our summaries of the Bureau’s petition for en banc reconsideration, responses from PHH and the Solicitor General, a motion to intervene filed by several State Attorneys General, and, most recently, PHH’s reply to both the Solicitor General and the motions to intervene.
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the order or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Special Alert: Trump Administration Initiates "Regulatory Freeze"
On January 20, Reince Priebus, Chief of Staff to President Trump, issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies initiating a regulatory review to be headed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”). Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) has been nominated to fill that position.
On behalf of the President, the memorandum asks the following of the agency and department heads:
- No new regulations: “[S]end no regulation to the Office of the Federal Register (the ‘OFR’) until a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2017, reviews and approves the regulation.”
- Withdraw final but unpublished regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, immediately withdraw them from the OFR for review and approval.”
- Delay the effective date of published but not yet effective regulations: “With respect to regulations that have been published in the OFR but have not taken effect, as permitted by applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum” and consider notice and comment to further delay the effective date or to address “questions of fact, law, or policy.” Following the delay, regulations that “raise no substantial questions of law or policy” would be allowed to take effect. For those regulations that do raise such questions, the agency or department “should notify the OMB Director and take further appropriate action in consultation with the OMB Director.”
Rulemakings subject to statutory or judicial deadlines are exempt, and the OMB Director has the authority to grant further exemptions for “emergency situations or other urgent circumstances relating to health, safety, financial, or national security matters, or otherwise.”
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the “freeze” or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.