InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Decisions Regarding Fed Monetary Policy
In a press release published on November 2, the Fed announced its decision to: (i) leave unchanged the interest rate paid on required and excess reserve balances at 0.50 percent; and (ii) take no action to change the discount rate (the primary credit rate), which remains at 1.00 percent. This decision came in response to a monetary policy statement released earlier Wednesday by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), following its vote to “maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent” for the seventh consecutive meeting. More information regarding open market operations may be found on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's website.
The Ninth Circuit Holds that Enforcing a Security Interest is Not Necessarily Debt Collection
On October 19, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kozinski, held that merely enforcing a security interest is not “debt collection” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Ho v. ReconTrust Co., Case: 10-56884 (Oct. 20, 2016). In so holding, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with earlier decisions by the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, creating a split that might eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. See e.g. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates Ltd., 396 F.3d 227, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2005); Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg PLLC, 443 F.3d 373, 378-79 (4th Cir. 2006); Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 704 F.3d 453, 461 (6th Cir. 2013).
In Ho, a borrower sued several foreclosure firms after she defaulted on her mortgage loan, alleging that the defendant-companies had violated the FDCPA by sending her default notices stating the amounts owed. The district court dismissed that claim, finding the trustee was not a debt collector engaged in debt collection under the FDCPA. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court observed that a notice of default and a notice of sale may state the amounts due, but they do not in fact demand payment. Moreover, in California, deficiency judgments are not permitted after a non-judicial foreclosure sale, so no money can be collected from the homeowner. Notably, the notices complained of in Ho are required by California law prior to exercising the right to non-judicial foreclosure.
Florida Supreme Court Holds That Each Default Resets Foreclosure Suit Clock
In an opinion issued Thursday in Bartram v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, Nos. SC14-1265, SC14-1266, SC14-1305, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16236 (Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2016), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a mortgagee is not precluded by the five-year statute of limitations for filing a subsequent foreclosure action based on payment defaults occurring subsequent to the dismissal of the first foreclosure action, as long as the alleged subsequent default occurred within five years of the subsequent foreclosure action. In so holding, the Court affirmed the lower appellate court's decision and reinstated litigation.
The dispute in Bartram began with a 2006 foreclosure lawsuit against Bartram after he stopped making payments on his mortgage. In April 2011, with Bartram's suit still pending, his ex-wife filed a declaratory judgment action to quiet title to the property, naming her ex-husband, the bank and the homeowners’ association as defendants. When the original foreclosure suit against Bartram was dismissed on procedural grounds one month later, he sought declaratory judgment that the 5-year statute of limitations had passed. Specifically, he argued that the limitations period began to run when he defaulted in January 2006 and the bank accelerated the loan. Although the trial court sided with Bartram, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the ruling and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. Florida’s high court narrowly construed the question, framing the issue as: “Does acceleration of payments due under a residential note and mortgage with a reinstatement provision in a foreclosure action that was dismissed . . . trigger application of the statute of limitations to prevent a subsequent foreclosure action by the mortgage based on payment defaults occurring subsequent to dismissal of the first foreclosure suit?” As noted above, the Florida Supreme Court held it does not.
CFPB Reissues Guidance on Service Providers
On October 26, the CFPB published Bulletin 2016-02 on service providers to amend previously issued guidance covered in Bulletin 2012-03. Bulletin 2016-02 seeks to clarify that supervised banks and nonbanks have flexibility in managing the risks of service provider relationships. Specifically, the CFPB advises that “the depth and formality of the risk management program for service providers may vary depending upon the service being performed —its size, scope, complexity, importance and potential for consumer harm—and the performance of the service provider in carrying out its activities in compliance with Federal consumer financial laws and regulations.” The CFPB plans to post Bulletin 2016-02 on its website on October 31, 2016.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Spotlights Prepaid Complaints
On October 25, the CFPB released its latest monthly report of consumer complaint trends. This month’s report highlights prepaid complaints, noting that since July 21, 2011, the CFPB has received approximately 6,000 prepaid complaints. According to the report, the “most common issues identified by consumers are problems with managing, opening or closing an account (32 percent) and unauthorized transactions or other transaction issues (30 percent).” Additional prepaid complaints highlighted in the report include: (i) consumers experiencing delays in receiving a replacement card after having notified a company of fraudulent or unauthorized charges to their prepaid cards; (ii) difficulty using a prepaid card after having purchased one; (iii) assessing dormancy fees that depleted the card’s balance; and (iv) balance discrepancies. Consistent with past reports, this month’s issue lists the top ten most-complained-about companies across all financial products, as well as the top seven most-complained about companies for prepaid-related issues. Finally, the report identifies North Carolina as its geographical spotlight, observing that, as of October 1, 2016, the CFPB has received about 27,600 complaints from North Carolina consumers.
CFPB Issues Warning Letters to 44 Mortgage Lenders and Brokers for Potential HMDA Reporting Failures
On October 27, the CFPB issued warning letters to 44 mortgage lenders and mortgage brokers informing them that they may not be in compliance with certain provisions of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) and Regulation C. The warning letters state that the recipients may be required to collect, record, and report housing-related lending data, and that they may be violating those requirements. Under HMDA, financial institutions that meet certain criteria are required to collect and report data related to their housing-related activity, including home purchase loans, home improvement loans, and refinancings they originate or purchase, or for which the institutions receive applications. The letters recite HMDA’s coverage criteria for lenders who are not banks, credit unions, or savings associations, suggesting that the CFPB is particularly concerned about HMDA compliance for non-depository mortgage lenders. While the letters state that the CFPB has not made any determinations that the recipients are in violation of HMDA filing requirements, the letters urge recipients to review their practices to ensure compliance with the relevant laws, and encourage recipients to advise the CFPB if the institution has taken steps or will take steps to ensure compliance. The letters advise recipients of the CFPB’s authority to impose civil money penalties for noncompliance with HMDA. In October 2013, the CFPB fined a bank and a nonbank mortgage lender for filing inaccurate HMDA data. In October 2015, the CFPB finalized a rule amending the HMDA reporting requirements under Regulation C, with the majority of the provisions taking effect on January 1, 2018.
CFPB Mortgage Servicing Rule Published in Federal Register
Last week, the CFPB’s final rule amending the mortgage servicing provisions of Regulations X and Z was published in the Federal Register. The amendments were previously covered in BuckleySandler’s August 9 Special Alert. The majority of the final rule will take effect on October 19, 2017, exactly one year after its Federal Register publication date. Certain provisions related to successors in interest and bankruptcy periodic statements will become effective on April 19, 2018. The CFPB’s interpretive rule under the FDCPA addressing industry concerns and conflicts with the servicing rules in Regulations X and Z was simultaneously published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2016.
CFPB Releases First-Ever Project Catalyst Innovation Highlights Report
On October 20, the CFPB released a new report titled “Project Catalyst report: Promoting consumer-friendly innovation-Innovation Insights.” The report provides an overview of Project Catalyst’s work to promote “consumer-friendly innovation and entrepreneurship,” and outlines the importance of ensuring that consumer protections are built into emerging products and services from the outset. The CFPB released the report in conjunction with remarks given by Director Cordray at Money 20/20, an industry conference focused on payments and financial services innovation.
The report emphasizes the CFPB’s “very sensitive” approach to new technologies, such as its “active role in the push for faster payments systems,” as well as its more general efforts “to identify innovative trends in the marketplace to inform our work.” Throughout the report, the CFPB highlights its efforts to establish “effective communication channels” with “innovators,” including the agency’s pilot program with a credit card company to evaluate the effectiveness of certain practices to encourage prepaid card users to develop regular saving behavior. In its last section, the report discusses various “marketplace developments that may hold the potential for consumer benefits.”
The report similarly summarizes ongoing efforts to coordinate with state, federal, and international regulators, cautioning that the agency “will take action as necessary to protect consumers from innovations that may be unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory.” In addressing industry members, both the report and Director Cordray at Money 20/20 discuss the CFPB’s authority to provide greater latitude for companies to test alternatives to standard disclosures over time – using as an example, the CFPB’s trial disclosure waiver policy and its no-action letter policy through which the Bureau “can reduce regulatory uncertainty for consumer-friendly innovations.” The report and Director Cordray call for industry participants to propose alternative means of disclosure to consumers.
CFPB Director Cordray Delivers Remarks at MBA Conference
On October 25, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered remarks to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). Cordray highlighted the CFPB's role in helping the housing economy to recover, including regulatory actions from 2014 to the present. Director Cordray also advised industry participants that they should expect more regulation and oversight over the coming year, explaining that the cost of compliance, though burdensome, was "inevitable" in light of the "far-reaching" effects of the financial crisis that Congress was trying to fix.
Director Cordray revealed three priority areas for enforcement and supervision in the next year: (i) consumer complaints, explaining that the CFPB will now require underperforming servicers to document the technology and process changes used to implement the agency’s recently released servicing regulations, because, among other reasons, the Bureau considers monitoring and addressing the process through which complaints are handled part of "a basic component" of any compliance effort; (ii) redlining, noting that the Bureau has identified “redlining” as a target for its supervisory work in the coming year, and has teamed up with the DOJ to bring “major enforcement actions” against institutions found to be discriminatory in their lending practices; (iii) RESPA violations, announcing that the CFPB will continue to adhere to its 2015 bulletin regarding marketing servicing agreements despite the recent PHH ruling. He further noted that the PHH case "is not final at this point" and that the Bureau "respectfully disagrees" with the finding.
Brazilian Aircraft Maker Resolves FCPA Charges for Over $205 Million
A Brazilian aircraft manufacturer, will pay more than $205 million to the SEC and the DOJ to resolve alleged FCPA violations stemming from payments made through its third-party agents to officials in the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, and Mozambique that allegedly resulted in more than $83 million in profits for the company. Pursuant to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with DOJ, the Brazilian company must pay a penalty of more than $107 million and must retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years. The company will also pay more than $98 million in disgorgement and interest to the SEC, but it may receive a credit of up to a $20 million depending on the amount of disgorgement it pays in a parallel civil proceeding in Brazil. Additional FCPA Scorecard coverage of the company's investigation can be found here, here, and here.