InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS to Investigate Potential Predatory Practices by Hard Money Lenders
On September 16, the NYDFS announced that they have issued subpoenas to nine “hard money” lenders, groups that originate short-term, high interest loans secured by a borrower’s home or other real estate, as part of a probe into whether such lenders are intentionally structuring loans with the expectation of foreclosing on the property. NYDFS noted that “[w]hile many hard money lenders may be engaged in legitimate financial activities, certain unscrupulous companies appear to be taking advantage of borrowers in tough financial straits by making loans that are designed to fail.” The NYDFS’s investigation is focused on whether the nine lenders are intentionally structuring hard money loans with onerous terms, such as high interest rates, numerous upfront fees, and enormous balloon payments, so that borrowers are driven into to default.
Delaware Chancery Court Upholds Bylaw Creating Exclusive Forum Outside Of Delaware For Disputes
On September 8, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware upheld a bylaw of a Delaware corporation that designated an exclusive forum other than Delaware for resolution of actions against the company and its directors. City of Providence v. First Citizens BancShares Inc., No. 9795-CB, 2014 WL 4409816 (Del. Ch. Sept. 8, 2014). The company adopted the forum selection bylaw on June 10, 2014, the same day it announced a merger agreement with a holding company incorporated and based in South Carolina. The clause states that any (i) derivative action or proceeding brought on behalf of the company, (ii) claim of breach of fiduciary duty brought against a director, officer, or other employee, (iii) action brought under the General Corporation Law of Delaware, and (iv) action brought under the internal affairs doctrine must be brought in the Eastern District of North Carolina (or, if that court does not have jurisdiction, any North Carolina state court with jurisdiction). The plaintiff challenged that provision as invalid under Delaware law and/or public policy. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, relying on analysis used in Boilermakers Local 154 Retirement Fund v. Chevron Corp., 73 A.3d 934 (Del Ch. 2013) (upholding a forum selection clause requiring litigation relating to internal affairs of a company take place in Delaware). The court held that the forum selection clause was facially valid, explaining that the fact that the forum selected was outside of Delaware did not raise any concerns about the clause’s validity, noting that North Carolina was the “second most obviously reasonable forum” because the company is headquartered there. Further, the court noted that the clause stated it was enforceable “to the fullest extent permitted by law,” meaning that any claims that may only be asserted in Delaware were not precluded by the bylaw. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the company’s board breached its fiduciary duties in adopting the bylaw in question and determined that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that it would be “unreasonable, unjust, or inequitable” to enforce the forum selection clause.
Trade Groups Submit Brief in SCOTUS TILA Rescission Case
This week, six financial services trade associations submitted an amicus brief in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 13-684, a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that may resolve a circuit split over whether a borrower seeking to rescind a home mortgage loan under TILA must file suit within three years of consummating the loan, or if written notice within the three years of consummating the loan is sufficient to preserve a borrower’s right of rescission. The brief, submitted in support of Respondents, argues that the latter interpretation would harm not only creditors, but also borrowers and courts, by clouding title to properties, increasing litigation costs, and diverting delinquent borrowers from other productive means to save their homes. The majority of the circuit courts that have addressed the issue have agreed that a borrower must file suit within the three-year rescission period. The trade association brief was filed by BuckleySandler attorneys Jeff Naimon and Sasha Leonhardt.
CFPB Sues For-Profit College For Alleged Predatory Lending
On September 16, the CFPB filed a civil action against a for-profit college for allegedly engaging in an “illegal predatory lending scheme.” Specifically, the CFPB alleges that the school engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by: (i) inducing enrollment through false and misleading representations about job placement and career opportunities; (ii) inflating tuition to require students to obtain private loans in addition to Title IV aid; (iii) persuading students to incur significant debt through private loans that had substantially high interest rates (as compared to federal loans) and required repayment while students attended school; (iv) misleading students to believe that the school did not have an interest in the private loans offered; and (v) knowing its students were likely to default on the private loans made. In addition, the CFPB alleges that the school violated the FDCPA by taking aggressive and unfair action, including pulling students out of class, blocking computer access, preventing class registration, and withholding participation in graduation, to collect payments on the private loans as soon as they became past due. The CFPB is seeking to permanently enjoin the school from engaging in the alleged activity, restitution and damages to consumers, disgorgement, rescission of all private loans originated since July 21, 2011, civil money penalties, and costs and other monetary relief.
The CFPB’s lawsuit was filed after a similar action was filed against the school by the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) alleging that the school engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by: (i) aggressively enrolling students by misrepresenting, among other things, employment and career opportunities, the nature and quality of the education provided, credit transferability, the utility of its career services, and its financial aid; (ii) recruiting students that would not benefit from the programs and/or were legally unable to obtain employment in the field studied; (iii) offering private loans that were guaranteed and/or funded by the school and steering students to such loans; and (iv) engaging in harassing debt collection practices. The Massachusetts AG is seeking to permanently enjoin the school from engaging in the alleged conduct, restitution to students, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees and other monetary relief.
CFPB Finalizes Rule To Oversee Larger Nonbank International Money Transfer Providers
On September 12, the CFPB finalized a rule that allows it to supervise larger participants in the international money transfer market. In particular, this rule, which finalizes the proposed rule the CFPB issued in January 2014, allows the CFPB to supervise nonbank international money transfer providers that provide more than $1 million in international transfers annually, for compliance with the Remittance Rule under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The final rule will be effective December 1, 2014.
The CFPB will seek to ensure that these providers comply with a number of specific consumer-protection provisions, including the following:
- Disclosures: The CFPB will examine providers to determine that consumers receive the Remittance Rule-required disclosures in English as well as in any other language the provider uses to advertise, solicit, or market its services, or in any language in which the transaction was conducted. These disclosures inform consumers of the exchange rate, fees, the amount of money that will be delivered abroad, and the date the funds will be available.
- Option to Cancel: The CFPB will examine transfer providers to ensure that consumers receive at least thirty minutes to cancel the transfer if it has not yet been received, and that consumers receive a refund regardless of the reason for the cancellation.
- Correction of Errors: The CFPB will insist that remittance transfer providers properly investigate certain errors, and, if a consumer reports an error within 180 days, the CFPB will examine providers to determine that they have investigated and corrected certain types of errors. The CFPB will also examine providers to ensure that they are held accountable for the actions of any agents they use.
The CFPB used the authority granted to it in the Dodd-Frank Act to supervise “larger participants” in consumer financial markets, and this is the Bureau’s fourth larger participant rule. The CFPB indicates that it will use the same examination procedures for nonbank providers as it does for bank remittance providers, and the CFPB intends to coordinate with state examiners in its supervision.
The CFPB estimates that nonbank international money transfer providers transfer $50 billion each year, and 150 million individual international money transactions occur each year through these institutions, with seven million U.S. households transferring funds abroad each year through a nonbank.
CFPB Offers More Details On Plans To Supervise Auto Finance Market
On September 17, the CFPB released new information about its plans to supervise and enforce auto finance companies’ compliance with consumer financial laws, including fair lending laws. As it indicated it would earlier this year, the CFPB released a proposed rule that would allow it to supervise certain nonbank auto finance companies. Also as previously promised, the CFPB published a white paper on its method to proxy for race and national origin in auto finance transactions. Finally, the CFPB published its most recent Supervisory Highlights report, which is dedicated to its supervisory findings at depository institutions with auto finance operations.
The CFPB released the materials in connection with its September 18th field hearing on auto finance issues. These actions come roughly 18 months after the CFPB first provided guidance to auto finance companies regarding its expectations related to dealer “reserve” (or “participation”) and fair lending.
Larger Participant Rule
The Dodd-Frank Act grants the CFPB authority to supervise, regardless of size, nonbanks offering (i) certain mortgage-related products and services; (ii) private education loans; and (iii) payday loans. The CFPB also has the power to supervise “larger participants” in any other market for consumer financial products or services, provided that it first conducts a rulemaking to define “larger participants” within a particular market.
As proposed, the CFPB’s auto finance larger participant rule would allow the agency to supervise any nonbank finance company that has at least 10,000 aggregate annual originations. The rule would define “annual originations” as grants of credit for the purchase of an automobile, refinancings of such credit obligations and any subsequent refinancings thereof, and purchases or acquisitions of such credit obligations (including refinancings). It would also include “automobile leases” and purchases or acquisitions of automobile lease agreements. The rule would define “automobile” to include “any self-propelled vehicle primarily used for personal, family, or household purposes for on-road transportation” and to exclude “motor homes, recreational vehicles (RVs), golf carts, and motor scooters.”
The CFPB estimates the rule as proposed will allow it to oversee roughly 38 auto finance companies that the CFPB believes “originate around 90% of nonbank auto loans and leases.” As proposed the rule would not apply to title lending or the securitization of automobile loans and leases, but the CFPB requests comment on an approach that would include such activities. The rule also would not apply to auto dealers or to depository institutions.
Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.
Proxy Methodology White Paper
Since releasing its guidance on auto finance fair lending—which the CFPB has characterized as a restatement of existing law and which sought to establish publicly the CFPB’s grounds for asserting violations of ECOA against bank and nonbank auto finance companies for alleged “discretionary pricing policies”—the CFPB has faced pressure from industry stakeholders and lawmakers who have challenged the Bureau to provide additional information to support its approach to determining disparate impact.
The CFPB now provides additional information regarding one aspect of that approach—its method to proxy for race and national origin in the auto finance market, where such data is not collected as part of the financing process. The white paper reiterates that in conducting fair lending analysis of non-mortgage credit products in both supervisory and enforcement contexts, the CFPB’s Office of Research (OR) and Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (SEFL) rely on a “Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG)” proxy method. That method combines geography- and surname-based information into a single probability for race and ethnicity. The paper is intended to explain the construction of the BISG proxy currently employed by OR and SEFL and purports to assess the performance of the BISG method using a sample of mortgage applicants for whom race and ethnicity are reported. The CFPB asserts that “research has found that this approach produces proxies that correlate highly with self-reported race and national origin and is more accurate than relying only on demographic information associated with a borrower’s last name or place of residence alone.”
In its paper, the CFPB states that “it does not set forth a requirement for the way proxies should be constructed or used by institutions supervised and regulated by the CFPB” and that the BISG proxy methodology “is not static; it will evolve over time as enhancements are identified that improve accuracy and performance.”
The paper does not address other aspects of the CFPB’s processes or methods used to determine disparate impact, such as (i) the controls applied to ensure sure that the consumers who are being compared are “similarly situated”; or (ii) the basis point thresholds at which the Bureau determines a prohibited pricing disparity exists.
Concurrent with the release of the white paper, the CFPB provided its statistical software code and an example of publicly available census data used to build the race and ethnicity proxy. Of note in its introduction, the CFPB states that it “may alter this methodology in particular analyses, depending on the circumstances involved.”
Supervisory Highlights and CFPB Expectations
Finally, the CFPB released its latest Supervisory Highlights report, which details alleged discrimination in the auto finance market the CFPB has uncovered at banks over the past two years.
The CFPB states that, generally, its examiners found that bank indirect auto creditors “had discretionary pricing policies that resulted in discrimination against African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers. As a result, these borrowers paid more for their auto loans than similarly situated non-Hispanic white borrowers.”
Although it has only publicly announced one enforcement action to resolve such allegations, the CFPB’s report states that non-public CFPB supervisory actions at indirect auto financing institutions resulted in approximately $56 million in remediation for up to 190,000 consumers.
The report again urges auto finance companies to consider three possible ways the CFPB believes institutions can mitigate their fair lending risk by: (i) “monitor[ing] and, if necessary, correct[ing] disparities through a strong compliance management system”; (ii) limiting “the maximum discretionary pricing adjustment to an amount that significantly reduces or eliminates disparities”; or (iii) “compensat[ing] dealers using a non-discretionary mechanism.”
In its press release accompanying the above materials, the CFPB further outlined its expectations for auto finance companies, stating that “given the significance of car ownership in the lives of consumers,” the CFPB expects auto finance companies to:
- Fairly market and disclose auto financing. Specifically the CFPB “would be concerned if consumers are being misled about the benefits or terms of financial products,” and the Bureau is “also looking to ensure that consumers are getting terms they understand and accept.”
- Provide accurate information to credit bureaus. Citing its recent enforcement action against an auto finance company alleged to have inaccurately reported information like the consumer’s payment history and delinquency status to credit bureaus, the CFPB states that it is “looking to prevent inaccurate information from being reported in the future.”
- Treat consumers fairly when collecting debts. The CFPB states that it has received complaints from consumers who claim their vehicles have been repossessed while they are current on the loan or have a payment arrangement in place, and that the CFPB will ensure that collectors are relying on accurate information and using legal processes when they collect on debts or repossess vehicles.
Unofficial Transcripts of the Joint CFPB/Federal Reserve TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures Webinar
To address frequently asked questions regarding the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rules that take effect next August, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in a webinar hosted by the Federal Reserve Board on August 26.
BuckleySandler has prepared a transcript of the webinar that incorporates the CFPB’s slides. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinions, interpretations, or advice by BuckleySandler. The transcript was prepared from the audio recording arranged by the Federal Reserve and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB or the Federal Reserve for accuracy or completeness.
Click here to download the transcript.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the webinar or the rules themselves 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
CFPB Updates TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule Compliance Guide
On September 8, the CFPB released an updated Small Entity Compliance Guide for its TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule, which becomes effective next August. The updates include information on where to find additional resources on the rule, additional clarification on questions relating to the Loan Estimate and 7 day waiting period, and additional clarification on questions relating to the timing for revisions to the Loan Estimate. The new guides follow a recent webinar hosted by the CFPB and the Federal Reserve Board to address rule implementation.
Federal Reserve, CFPB Announce Increased Consumer Credit, Lease Transaction Thresholds
On September 9, the Federal Reserve Board and the CFPB announced an increase in the dollar thresholds in Regulation Z and Regulation M for exempt consumer credit and lease transactions. Transactions at or below the thresholds are subject to the protections of the regulations. Based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers as of June 1, 2014, TILA and Consumer Leasing Act generally will apply to consumer credit transactions and consumer leases of $54,600 or less beginning January 1, 2015—an increase of $1,100 from 2014. Private education loans and loans secured by real property, used or expected to be used as a principal dwelling, remain subject to TILA regardless of the amount of the loan.
Prudential Regulators Seek Comments On Proposed CRA Questions And Answers
On September 8, the OCC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve Board released proposed revisions to the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment. Specifically, the agencies propose to revise three questions and answers that address alternative systems for delivering retail banking service and provide additional examples of innovative or flexible lending practices. In addition, the proposal would revise three questions and answers addressing community development-related issues and add four new questions and answers – two of which address community development services, and two of which provide general guidance on responsiveness and innovativeness. Comments on the proposal are due by November 10, 2014.