InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Florida Restricts Certain Auto Finance Ancillary Product Practices
On June 13, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 783, which prohibits an “affiliated finance company”—i.e. an auto manufacturer’s or wholesale distributor’s captive finance company, as defined by the law—from (i) refusing to purchase or accept an assignment of a vehicle contract from a dealer or (ii) charging a dealer an additional fee or surcharge for the contract, solely because the contract contains an automotive-related product from a third-party. The restrictions apply only if the third-party product is of “similar nature, scope, and quality” to the product provided by affiliated finance company, or its related manufacturer or wholesale distributor. The bill provides factors for determining whether a product is similar. The new restrictions take effect July 1, 2014.
Florida Revises Requirements For Third-Party Debt Collectors
Effective October 1, 2014, third-party debt collectors seeking to collect debt in Florida will be subject to new requirements. Pursuant to HB 413, which Florida Governor Rick Scott signed on June 13, consumer collection agencies will be subject to disqualifying periods from registration based on the severity and recency of criminal convictions of certain “control persons” of those agencies. Control persons is defined as any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, or other organization that possesses the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of a company, whether through ownership of securities, by contract, or otherwise. The bill also grants the Office of Financial Regulation authority to examine and investigate consumer collection agencies, and establishes new reporting requirements for registrants.
Court Orders Bank To Forfeit Funds Laundered With Assistance Of Branch Teller
On June 18, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland announced that a federal judge ordered a bank to forfeit $560,000 in drug proceeds laundered through the bank on which the bank failed to file currency transaction reports. The DOJ claimed that a member of a drug trafficking organization asked a teller at a Maryland bank branch to convert the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs from small denomination bills to $100 bills, and paid the teller a one percent fee for each transaction for making the exchange without filing a currency transaction report. The government filed a civil action in February 2014 seeking forfeiture and alleging that the money was subject to forfeiture because the bank failed to file currency transactions reports on bank transactions in amounts in excess of $10,000, as required by law. The teller admitted that on each occasion she converted the bills without filing or causing anyone else at the bank to file a currency transaction report. She was sentenced to a month in prison followed by eight months of home detention for failing to file currency transaction reports on suspected drug proceeds, and must perform community service and forfeit the $5,000 she was paid in the scheme.
Wisconsin Federal Court Holds Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections Not Available For Reported Violations Of Banking Laws
On June 4, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin held that a former bank executive cannot pursue a claim that, when the bank terminated his employment, it violated the whistleblower-protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act because those protections apply only to individuals who report violations of securities laws and not to those who report alleged violations of other laws, such as banking laws. Zillges v. Kenney Bank & Trust, No. 13-1287, 2014 WL 2515403 (E.D. Wis. June 4, 2014). A former bank CEO sued the bank and certain affiliated companies and individuals, and claimed that they conspired to terminate his employment and prevent him from earning stock options after he observed conduct that he believed violated federal banking laws and reported the allegedly illegal conduct to the bank's board of directors, the FDIC, and the FTC. The court held that in order to qualify as a whistleblower under Dodd-Frank, the disclosure must relate to a violation of securities laws. Accordingly, because the whistleblower disclosed alleged violations of only banking laws, the whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank did not apply. In doing so, the court explicitly side-stepped the question of whether a person is a whistleblower subject to Dodd-Frank protections if he or she makes a protected disclosure to someone other than the SEC. The court acknowledged the disagreement on that issue, which involves the interplay between the statutory definition of "whistleblower” and the protected actions listed in the statute, explaining that although the statute requires a person to provide information to the SEC in order to qualify as a whistleblower, some of the protected activities do not necessarily involve disclosures to the SEC. To date, some courts have reasoned that Congress could not have intended this result and have concluded that a person who makes a disclosure that falls within the protected activities, whether the disclosure is made to the SEC or not, is a "whistleblower" within the meaning of Dodd-Frank, while other courts have concluded that a person is a "whistleblower" only if the person makes the disclosure to the SEC.
CFPB Director Announces Indirect Auto Finance Proxy Methodology White Paper, Discusses Numerous Other Initiatives
On June 18, in an appearance before the House Financial Services Committee, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that later this summer the CFPB hopes to release a white paper on the proxy methodology it employs to identify alleged discrimination in indirect auto financing. The white paper follows repeated attempts by members of the Committee to force the CFPB to reveal more details about its approach to indirect auto finance enforcement. Director Cordray also revealed that the CFPB is working on a white paper regarding manufactured housing finance.
The hearing covered numerous additional topics, some of which overlapped with those addressed during Mr. Cordray’s recent appearance before the Senate Banking Committee. Among the new issues raised before the House Committee, Mr. Cordray expressed openness to developing a limited advisory opinion process for the CFPB. In response to a question from Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Mr. Cordray explained that the CFPB regularly provides informal advisory opinions. He acknowledged other agencies’ use of advisory opinions and their potential benefit, and indicated that advisory opinions could be a useful tool for the CFPB on certain specific issues. Nevertheless, he resisted committing to the implementation of a formal advisory opinion process. The Committee recently approved, along party lines, legislation that would require the CFPB to establish an advisory opinion process.
In response to criticism from Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) about the pace of an anticipated Military Lending Act (MLA) rulemaking, Mr. Cordray promised that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) proposal to revise the Military Lending Act regulations is nearly ready for submission to the OMB. The DOD recently released a report that previewed the forthcoming rulemaking.
Finally, Director Cordray also fielded a significant volume of questions regarding the CFPB’s collection and use of data, a continuing area of focus for the Committee’s Republican majority.
CFPB Deputy Director's Remarks May Indicate Evolving Approach To Mortgage Rules Enforcement
On June 18, CFPB Deputy Director Steve Antonakes opened the CFPB’s first public Consumer Advisory Board (CAB) meeting with remarks about implementation of the CFPB’s mortgage rules and the Bureau’s approach to enforcing those rules.
Over the past year, the CFPB has attempted to publicly outline and clarify its expectations for mortgage originators and servicers as those companies seek to comply with a host of new rules and requirements while continuing to face significant market challenges. The CFPB’s initial public position, particularly with regard to the new servicing rules, was that “in the early months” after the rules took effect, the CFPB would not look for strict compliance, but rather would assess whether institutions have made “good faith efforts” to come into “substantial compliance.”
Mr. Antonakes made news in February when he attempted to clarify that position in remarks to a Mortgage Bankers Association conference. There he stated “[s]ervicers have had more than a year now to work on implementation” of “basic practices of customer service that should have been implemented long ago” and that “[a] good faith effort . . . does not mean servicers have the freedom to harm consumers.” He went on to state that “[m]ortgage servicing rule compliance is a significant priority for the Bureau. Accordingly, we will be vigilant about overseeing and enforcing these rules.”
Mr. Antonakes took a somewhat softer tone in his remarks during the CAB meeting, stating that the CFPB’s goal “is not some one-sided aim to maximize consumer protection or industry deterrence at all costs.” He cautioned that “there is such a thing as doing too much” and explained that the Bureau’s true goal is to find “an appropriate balance where incentives for homeowners, creditors, and servicers are aligned.”
The CFPB has not announced any public enforcement actions related to its new mortgage rules. And the Bureau’s goal of aligning incentives is not necessarily inconsistent with Mr. Antonakes’s past remarks about vigilant enforcement. Although servicers—and originators—may take some solace in the shift in tone, by any measure the “early months” of implementation are coming to a close and the CFPB’s actual compliance and enforcement stance may only become apparent through its mortgage examinations and enforcement actions.
DOJ, CFPB Fair Lending Enforcement Actions Target Credit Card Repayment Programs, Marketing Of Add-On Products
On June 19, the CFPB and the DOJ announced parallel enforcement actions against a federal savings bank that allegedly violated ECOA in the offering of credit card debt-repayment programs and allegedly engaged in deceptive marketing practices in the offering of certain card add-on products. The bank will pay a total of $228.5 million in customer relief and penalties to resolve the allegations.
ECOA Violations
The CFPB and DOJ charge that the bank excluded borrowers who indicated that they preferred communications to be in Spanish or who had a mailing address in Puerto Rico, even if the consumers met the promotion’s qualifications. The CFPB and DOJ assert that as a result, Hispanic populations were unfairly denied the opportunity to benefit from the promotions, which constitutes a violation of the ECOA’s prohibition on creditors discriminating in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of characteristics such as national origin.
To resolve the joint fair lending actions, the bank entered into separate consent orders with the CFPB and the DOJ. As detailed in the DOJ order, the bank will make $37 million in payments, credits and waivers to affected borrowers. The bank already has provided the benefits of the offers or their equivalent value to approximately 84,000 borrowers, totaling $131.8 million in relief. In total the bank will provide $169 million in relief, making the settlement the largest ever fair lending credit card action. The CFPB did not assess a civil money penalty for the ECOA violations because the bank self-reported the potential violations, self-initiated remediation to affected borrowers, and cooperated in the investigation. The CFPB did require the bank to review its credit offering strategies and enhance fair lending training and compliance.
Add-On Product Marketing Violations
The CFPB further alleges that its examiners identified several deceptive marketing practices used by the bank to promote five credit card add-on products. The CFPB alleges that the bank’s and its service providers misrepresented the products by (i) marketing them as free of charge when the fee was avoidable only in certain specific circumstances; (ii) failing to disclose consumers’ ineligibility, causing certain consumers to purchase products from which they could receive no benefit; (iii) failing to disclose that consumers were making a purchase, leading consumers to believe they were receiving a benefit or updating their account; and (iv) marketing as a limited time offer products that were not so limited.
Under the CFPB consent order, the bank will refund $56 million to approximately 638,000 consumers who were subjected to the allegedly deceptive marketing practices, and will pay a $3.5 million civil money penalty. The bank also must develop an enhanced add-on product compliance plan that includes, among other things, a revised vendor management policy.
Latest CFPB RESPA Enforcement Action Targets Employee Referrals
Last week, the CFPB announced its latest RESPA enforcement action, adding to one of the CFPB’s most active areas of enforcement. In this case, the CFPB required a New Jersey title company to pay $30,000 for allegedly paying commissions to more than twenty independent salespeople who referred title insurance business to the company. The matter was referred to the CFPB by HUD.
The CFPB asserts that from at least 2008 to 2013, the title company offered commissions of up to 40% of the title insurance premiums the company received. The CFPB explained that paying commissions for referrals is allowed under RESPA if the recipient of the payment is an employee of the company that is paying the referral, but claimed in this case that the individuals involved were actually independent contractors and not bona fide employees. The CFPB determined that although the individuals received W-2 forms from the title company, the company “did not have the right or power to control the manner and means by which the individuals performed their duties.”
In determining the penalty amount, the CFPB took into consideration the company’s ability to pay and remain a viable business. Notably, the consent order removes the “employer-employee” exception for this company on a going forward basis, including under existing employment contracts. The order prohibits the company from paying any employee “any fee, kickback, or thing of value that is contingent on the referral of title insurance business or other settlement services, notwithstanding the ‘employee exception’ contained in 12 C.F.R. §1024.14(g)(vii).” The order also establishes certain compliance, record keeping, and reporting requirements.
Ohio Supreme Court Holds Registered Mortgage Loan Act Lenders May Make Single-Installment Loans
On June 11, the Ohio Supreme Court held that single-installment, interest bearing loans are permitted under the Mortgage Loan Act (MLA), and that the Short-Term Lender Act (STLA) does not prohibit registered MLA lenders from making such loans. Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Scott, 2013-0103, 2014 WL 2609830 (Ohio Jun. 11, 2014). In this case, an MLA-registered lender sued a borrower seeking to recover the unpaid principal balance on a single-installment loan, as well as interest and fees. The appellate court held that the MLA does not authorize payday-like single-installment loans and that, by enacting the STLA, the General Assembly intended to prohibit all loans of short duration outside the confines of the STLA. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that the MLA’s definition of “interest-bearing loan” does not require that such loans be multiple installment loans, and that here the loan agreement expressed the debt as the principal amount, and the interest was computed based upon the principal balance outstanding daily, in compliance with the MLA. The court also held that, although the STLA would not permit the loan at issue here because its terms would violate the STLA’s restrictions on the loan term, interest, and fees, the lender was not registered under the STLA, and nothing in the STLA limits the authority of MLA registrants to make loans permitted by the MLA.
Payday Lenders Sue Government Over Operation Choke Point
On June 5, the Community Financial Services Association and one of its short-term, small dollar lender members filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming the FDIC, the OCC, and the Federal Reserve Board have participated in Operation Choke Point “to drive [the lenders] out of business by exerting back-room pressure on banks and other regulated financial institutions to terminate their relationships with payday lenders.” The complaint asserts that the operation has resulted in over 80 banking institutions terminating their business relationships with CFSA members and other law-abiding payday lenders. The lenders claim that the regulators are using broad statutory safety and soundness authority to establish through agency guidance and other means broad requirements for financial institutions, while avoiding the public and judicial accountability the regulators would otherwise be subject to if they pursued the same policies under the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) notice and comment rulemaking procedures. The lenders assert that in doing so, the regulators have violated the APA by (i) failing to observe its rulemaking requirements; (ii) exceeding their statutory authority; (iii) engaging in arbitrary and capricious conduct; and (iv) violating lenders’ due process rights. The lenders ask the court to declare unlawful certain agency guidance regarding third-party risk and payment processors and enjoin the agencies from taking any action pursuant to that guidance or from applying informal pressure on banks to encourage them to terminate business relationships with payday lenders.