InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Unofficial Transcripts Of CFPB Webinars On Mortgage Rules
In an effort to address outstanding questions regarding the new mortgage rules that are scheduled to take effect in January 2014, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in two webinars hosted by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Specifically, CFPB staff answered questions regarding the mortgage servicing rules on October 16, 2013 and questions regarding the mortgage origination rules (including the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage and Loan Originator Compensation rules) on October 17, 2013.
The CFPB staff’s slides presenting the questions addressed during the webinars and the audio recordings of their responses are available through the MBA’s Compliance Resource Center. BuckleySandler has prepared transcripts of the servicing and mortgage origination webinars that incorporate the CFPB’s slides. These transcripts are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal opinions, interpretations, or advice by BuckleySandler. The transcripts were prepared from the audio recordings provided by the MBA and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB for accuracy or completeness.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the webinars 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. Additional information about the CFPB mortgage rules is available in our CFPB Resource Center.
- 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
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917
CFPB Mortgage Disclosure Rule Now Expected on November 20, 2013
On November 1, the CFPB announced a field hearing on “Know Before You Owe: Mortgages,” to be held on Wednesday, November 20 at 11 a.m. EST in Boston. In conjunction with the hearing, the Bureau is expected to release its long-awaited final rule combining the Good Faith Estimate and HUD-1 with the mortgage disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act.
The CFPB has stated that the event will feature remarks from CFPB Director Richard Cordray, as well as testimony from consumer groups, industry representatives, and members of the public. The final rule, which was originally expected in October, will not only replace the forms that consumers receive during the mortgage origination process but will also fundamentally alter the regulations governing the preparation and provision of – and liability for – those disclosures. As a result, lenders, settlement agents, and service providers will be required to make extensive changes to their systems, compliance programs, and contractual relationships.
In September, BuckleySandler hosted a webinar covering the key issues in this rulemaking and discussing what industry can do to start preparing now. The webinar featured a discussion with Jeff Naimon, who has spent years assisting the industry with the existing forms. Please contact Jeff for a copy of the webinar materials or with any questions about the expected rule.
Special Alert: OCC Updates Third-Party Risk Management Guidance
On October 30, the OCC issued Bulletin 2013-29 to update guidance relating to third-party risk management. The Bulletin, which rescinds OCC Bulletin 2001-47 and OCC Advisory Letter 2000-9, requires banks and federal savings associations (collectively “banks”) to provide comprehensive oversight of third parties, including joint ventures, affiliates or subsidiaries, and payment processors. It is substantially more prescriptive than CFPB Bulletin 2012-3, and incorporates third-party relationship management principles underlying recent OCC enforcement actions.
The Bulletin 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.” It outlines a “life cycle” approach and provides detailed descriptions of steps that a bank should consider taking at five important stages:
Planning: A third party relationship should begin with an internal assessment of risks relating to third parties in general, and to the intended third party in particular. Such planning should focus on both the potential impact to the bank and the bank’s customers, as well as potential security, regulatory, and legal ramifications.
Due Diligence and Third Party Selection: The Bulletin requires that the bank conduct an adequate due diligence review of the third party prior to entering a contract. Proper due diligence includes a thorough evaluation of all potential third parties, and the degree of diligence should be commensurate with the level of risk and complexity. In particular, banks should look to external organizations such as trade associations, the Better Business Bureau, the FTC, and state regulators when performing diligence on consumer-facing third parties. While prior Bulletin 2001-47 contained a list of potential items for due diligence review, Bulletin 2013-29 describes them in more detail and adds to the specific areas that due diligence should focus on, including:
- Legal and regulatory compliance: The bank should “evaluate the third party’s legal and regulatory compliance program to determine whether the third party has the necessary licenses to operate and the expertise, processes and controls to enable the bank to remain compliant with domestic and international laws and regulations;”
- Fee structure and incentives: The bank should determine if the fee structure and incentives would create burdensome upfront fees or result in inappropriate risk taking by the third party or the bank;
- Risk management systems: The bank should have adequate policies, procedures, and internal controls, as well as processes to escalate, remediate, and hold management accountable for audit and independent testing reviews;
- Human resource management: The bank should review the third party’s training program and processes to hold employees accountable for compliance with policies and procedures; and
- Conflicting contractual arrangements: The bank should check a third-party vendor’s contractual arrangements with other third parties, which may indemnify the vendor and may therefore expose the bank to additional risk.
Contract Negotiation: All relationships should be documented by a written contract that clearly defines the responsibilities of both the bank and the third party. Among other things, the contract should provide for performance benchmarks, information retention, the right to perform an audit, and OCC supervision. Bulletin 2013-29 expands upon Bulletin 2001-47 with respect to the following areas:
- Legal and regulatory compliance: Contracts should require compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including GLBA, BSA/AML, OFAC, and fair lending, as well as other consumer protection laws and regulations;
- Audits and remediation: Contracts should provide for the bank’s right to conduct audits and periodic regulatory compliance reviews, and to require remediation of issues identified;
- Indemnification: Contracts should include indemnification as appropriate for noncompliance with applicable law, and for failure to obtain any necessary intellectual property licenses;
- Consumer complaints: The bank should specifically require the third party to submit “sufficient, timely, and usable information on consumer complaints to enable the bank to analyze customer complaint activity and trends for risk management purposes;” and
- Subcontractor management: The bank should incorporate provisions specific to the third party’s own use of subcontractors, including obligations to report on conformance with performance measures and compliance with laws and regulations, and should reserve the right to terminate the contract if the subcontractors do not meet the third party’s obligations to the bank.
Ongoing Monitoring: The bank should dedicate sufficient staff to monitor the third party’s activities throughout the relationship as it may change over time. Bulletin 2013-29 expands upon Bulletin 2001-47 in the following notable ways:
- Legal and regulatory compliance: The bank should monitor third-party vendors for compliance with all applicable laws and regulations;
- Early identification of issues: The bank should consider whether the third party has the ability to effectively manage risk by self-identifying and addressing issues;
- Subcontractor management: The bank should continuously monitor a third-party vendor’s reliance on or exposure to subcontractors and perform ongoing monitoring and testing of subcontractors; and
- Consumer complaints: The bank should monitor the “volume, nature, and trends” of consumer complaints relating to the actions of third-party vendors, particularly those that may indicate compliance or risk management deficiencies.
Termination: The Bulletin specifies for the first time a termination “stage” in the third-party relationship management life cycle. Banks should develop a contingency plan for the end of the relationship, either through the normal course or in response to default. The contingency plan may transfer functions to a different third party or in-house.
The Bulletin defines as “critical” any activities involving significant bank functions (payments, clearing, settlements, and contingency planning); significant shared services (information technology); or other activities that (i) could cause a bank to face significant risk as a result of third-party failures, (ii) could have significant customer impacts, (iii) involve relationships that require significant investments in resources to implement and manage, and (iv) could have a major impact on bank operations if an alternate third party is required or if the outsourced activity must be brought in-house.
These “critical” activities should be the focus of special, enhanced risk management processes. Specifically, the bank should conduct more extensive due diligence on the front end, provide summaries of due diligence to the board of directors, ensure that the board of directors reviews and approves third-party contracts, engage in more comprehensive ongoing monitoring of the third party’s performance and financial condition (including, potentially, a look comparable to the analysis the bank would perform when extending credit), ensure that the board of directors reviews the results of ongoing monitoring, and periodically arrange for independent testing of the bank’s risk controls.
Finally, the Bulletin sets forth obligations and responsibilities relating to third-party relationships from the bank employees who manage them to the board of directors, including retention of due diligence results, findings, and recommendations, as well as regular reports to the board and senior management relating to the bank’s overall risk management process.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert 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
- Christopher M. Witeck, (202) 349-8051
- Jon David Langlois, (202) 349-8045
Tentative Settlement Reached In SCOTUS Disparate Impact Case
On October 31, the Philadelphia Inquirer and national media outlets reported that a tentative agreement has been reached to resolve the underlying claims at issue in Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507, an appeal currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that could provide the Court an opportunity to rule on whether a disparate impact theory of liability is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Briefing before the Supreme Court has been ongoing—over the past week respondents filed their brief, as did numerous supporting parties, including a group of state attorneys general—and argument is scheduled for December 4. If the settlement holds, this will be the second time in recent years that a case involving these issues pending before the Court has settled before the Court had an opportunity to hear the case. Attention likely now will turn to litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a HUD rule finalized earlier this year. That rule specifically authorized disparate impact or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The case has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome in Mt. Holly.
N.D. Cal. Holds Debit Cards Are "Services" For Purposes Of The CRLA
On October 25, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially denied a bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to dispose of class claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on allegations that the bank reordered debit card transactions in order to maximize overdraft fees collected in connection with such transactions and misled customers regarding this practice in account agreements and monthly checking account statements. Hawthorne v. Umpqua Bank, No. 11-06700, 2013 WL 5781608 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013). Departing from the conclusion reached by two other district courts, the court held that the bank’s debit cards constituted a “service” for purposes of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CRLA), which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts and practices so long as the challenged conduct is part of a transaction involving the intended sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer. Two prior district courts had concluded that overdrafts and overdraft fees were not services sold or leased under the CLRA, but the Hawthorne court reached the opposite conclusion relying on the fact that (i) the CLRA is liberally construed and generally applicable to financial institutions and (ii) its determination that classifying debt cards as a service for consumers was consistent with the convenience benefits consumers receive from such cards. The court granted the bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to a number of plaintiffs’ other claims, including violation of the unfair prong of the UCL, breach of the implied covenant good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
Senate Blocks FHFA Director Nomination
On October 31, the U.S. Senate voted 56-42 on a procedural motion and blocked the advance of President Obama’s nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to serve as FHFA Director. The nomination needed 60 votes to clear the procedural hurdle and advance to a confirmation vote. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) voted “no” in a move to preserve his procedural options for bringing the nominee to the floor again at a later time.
FHFA Announces Substantial RMBS Settlement
On October 25, the FHFA announced that a large bank agreed to pay $4 billion to avoid further litigation over allegations that the offering documents it provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in connection with the sale of billions of dollars in RMBS included materially false statements or material omissions, resulting in massive losses to the enterprises. The FHFA has now resolved four of the 18 RMBS suits it filed in 2011. The FHFA announcement also noted that the bank had reached separate settlements with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac totaling $1.1 billion to resolve disputes over representation and warranties in whole loans purchased by those entities.
HUD Updates Foreclosure Procedures, Pre-Foreclosure Borrower Communication Policies
On October 28, HUD issued two mortgagee letters related to the servicing of certain FHA-insured loans. Mortgagee Letter 2013-38 provides a list of the first legal actions necessary to initiate a foreclosure and the reasonable diligence timeframes for completing foreclosure and acquisition of title in each state. The letter also outlines acceptable delays in those timeframes due to mediation or bankruptcy, or when a separate legal action is necessary to acquire possession of the title. In addition, the letter provides a new schedule of allowable attorney fees by state for services performed in connection with a mortgage default. The updated reasonable diligence timeframes apply to all cases in which the first legal action to initiate foreclosure occurs on or after November 1, 2013. The updated attorney fees are effective for all cases in which certain actions occur on or after November 1, 2013. Mortgagee Letter 2013-39 updates the timelines servicers must follow for collection communications, advises servicers regarding early engagement in loss mitigation, outlines staffing requirements to support timely borrower communications, and provides guidance on the timing, content, and method of delivery for collection letters and other borrower communications. This letter also advises servicers to pay special attention to borrowers at risk of early payment default and re-default, and provides specialized collection techniques for such borrowers. Finally, this letter details the FHA’s expectations for escalating borrower inquiries and complaints that allege (i) improper analysis of borrower information or denials of loss mitigation options, (ii) foreclosures initiated or continued in violation of HUD’s policy, or (iii) any other violations of HUD collections and loss mitigation policies. This guidance is effective for all mortgages in default as of January 1, 2014.
Fannie Mae Announces Servicing Policy Changes
On October 30, Fannie Mae issued Servicing Guide Announcement SVC-2013-22, which describes various servicing policy updates. First, effective on or after February 1, 2014 for condominium insurance policy renewals, Fannie Mae is prohibiting the use of master or blanket insurance policies that cover multiple unaffiliated projects. Second, effective immediately for mortgage loan modifications, Fannie Mae is requiring that principal forbearance is payable upon the earliest of the maturity of the mortgage loan modification, sale or transfer of the property, refinance of the loan, or payoff of the interest-bearing unpaid principal. Third, effective January 1, 2014 for property inspection reimbursements, the Announcement updates the maximum amounts Fannie Mae will reimburse servicers for property inspections, outlines servicer responsibilities related to reimbursement requests, and clarifies the escalated case resolution process. Finally, the Announcement reminds servicers of their obligation to comply with both the Selling Guide and Servicing Guide, and informs servicers that requirements for maintaining eligibility and related fees were recently updated in the Selling Guide.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Preview Next ULDD Phase, Update Current Phase
On October 29, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac jointly published a Uniform Loan Delivery Dataset (ULDD) Phase 3 preview, which is intended to provide lenders and vendors with an early look at the next phase’s specification to help them prepare for implementation in the fourth quarter of 2015. The joint preview identifies 15 new data points—13 related to the CFPB’s new ability-to-repay rule and two other data points that were deferred from Phase 2. In addition, the joint publication provides additional implementation notes and guidance on the 17 new data points that will be implemented in ULDD Phase 2 in 2015 (the exact implementation date will be announced by the end of the first quarter of 2014).