Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • States urge Supreme Court to review FTC’s restitution authority

    Courts

    On January 30, a coalition of attorneys general from 22 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed an amicus brief in support of the FTC in a U.S. Supreme Court action that is currently awaiting the Court’s decision to grant certiorari. Last December, the FTC filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Court to reverse an opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last August, which held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not give the FTC power to order restitution when enforcing consumer protections under the FTC Act. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The AGs assert, however, that restitution is a critical FTC enforcement tool that provides direct benefits to the amici states and their residents. Arguing that the 7th Circuit’s decision will impede federal-state collaborations to combat unfair and deceptive practices—citing recent FTC restitution amounts that directly benefited consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin—the AGs stress that without the authority to seek restitution, the states “may be forced to redirect resources to compensate for work that would have previously been performed by the FTC.” The AGs also discuss the states’ interest in the “uniform application of federal law.” The 7th Circuit’s decision “upends decades of settled practice and precedent,” the AGs contend, and may provide the opportunity for defendants to “forum shop” as they seek to transfer their cases to take advantage of a decision that may work in their favor. As a result, the decision has created confusion where none previously existed, the AGs claim.

    As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed a brief in a separate action also pending the Court’s decision to grant certiorari that similarly addresses the question of whether the FTC is empowered by Section 13(b) to demand equitable monetary relief in civil enforcement actions. In this case, the petitioners are appealing a 9th Circuit decision, which upheld a $1.3 billion judgment against them for allegedly operating a deceptive payday lending scheme. The 9th Circuit rejected the petitioners’ argument that the FTC Act only allows the court to issue injunctions, concluding that a district court may grant any ancillary relief under the FTC Act, including restitution.

    Courts State Issues FTC Act Appellate Seventh Circuit Ninth Circuit Enforcement Restitution State Attorney General U.S. Supreme Court

  • Maryland court of appeals: Law firm’s collection activities do not qualify for “professional services” exemption

    Courts

    On January 28, the Court of Appeals of Maryland held that not all services provided by a law firm or a lawyer fall within the “professional services” exemption under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA). In this case, a homeowners association (HOA) retained a law firm to collect delinquent HOA assessments, fines, penalties, and attorney’s fees. After nine years of collection efforts, the plaintiff homeowners filed a lawsuit against the HOA, alleging the debt collection practices violated the CPA and the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA). The HOA then filed a third-party complaint against the law firm for indemnification. The circuit court granted the HOA summary judgment on the CPA claim, stating that the CPA specifically exempts lawyers from liability, and as such, the HOA could not be vicariously liable for the law firm’s actions. The court also ruled against the plaintiffs’ MCDCA claim. The Court of Special Appeals, however, held that the circuit court erred in ruling that the law firm’s “professional services” exemption shielded the HOA from either direct or vicarious liability for deceptive trade practices, reversed and remanded the circuit court’s MCDCA ruling, and reinstated the HOA’s third-party complaint against the law firm pursuant to an indemnification clause contained within professional services agreement.

    The Court of Appeals granted a writ of certiorari to consider whether all services provided by a law firm fall within the CPA’s “professional services” exemption, and whether this exemption extends to an HOA facing liability arising from the law firm’s debt collection conduct. The Court of Appeals concluded that a law firm’s conduct is not covered by the exemption if (i) the law firm’s services “could be provided by any licensed debt collection agency” regardless of whether the agency is affiliated with a law firm or a lawyer; or (ii) the alleged conduct violates the MCDCA. “[A] license to practice law is not a license to engage in deceptive or unfair debt collection activities with impunity,” the Court of Appeals wrote. The Court of Appeals also addressed the question of whether the exemption also applies to the law firm’s client, and concluded that the “the plain language of the exemption does not apply to vicarious liability claims against a lawyer’s client” and that expanding the interpretation of the exemption to cover additional classes of individuals “is contrary to the purpose and intent of the CPA.”

    Courts State Issues Debt Collection Consumer Protection

  • CFPB, DOE sign MOU on student loan complaint data

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 3, the CFPB and the Department of Education (Department) announced a new agreement to share student loan complaint data. (See press releases here and here.) The newly signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the first information sharing agreement between the agencies since the Department terminated two MOUs in 2017. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Department cancelled the “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and the U.S. Department of Education Concerning the Sharing of Information” and the “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Supervisory and Oversight Cooperation and Related Information Sharing Between the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” and at the time rebuked the Bureau for overreaching and undermining the Department’s mission to serve students and borrowers.

    The new MOU clarifies the roles and responsibilities for each agency and permits the sharing of student loan complaint data analysis and other information and recommendations. Among other responsibilities, the Department will direct complaints related to private loans governed by TILA to the Bureau, and both agencies will discuss complaints regarding federal student loans with program issues that may have an impact on federal consumer financial laws. The agencies will also conduct quarterly meetings to discuss complaint observations and borrower characteristics, as well as complaint resolution information when available. Additionally, the MOU addresses permissible uses and confidentiality of exchanged information and the development of tools for sharing data analytics.

    The MOU was released a few days after Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger expressing frustration with the Bureau’s oversight of federal student loan servicers and delay in reestablishing an MOU with the Department that would allow the Bureau to resume examining federal student loan servicers.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance CFPB Department of Education MOUs Consumer Complaints Student Lending

  • CFPB issues semi-annual report to Congress

    Federal Issues

    On February 3, the CFPB issued its semi-annual report to Congress covering the Bureau’s work from April 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019. The report, which is required by the Dodd-Frank Act, addresses, among other things, problems faced by consumers with regard to consumer financial products or services; significant rules and orders adopted by the Bureau; and various supervisory and enforcement actions taken by the Bureau. In her opening letter, Director Kathy Kraninger reported that she has focused, “whenever appropriate and possible” on two areas: (i) encouraging saving, by establishing a program called “Start Small, Save Up”; and (ii) unleashing innovation by reducing regulatory constraints and revising innovation policies and promoting cooperation between state and federal regulators, as demonstrated with the launch of the American Consumer Financial Innovation Network last year.

    Among other things, the report highlights credit scores, credit reporting, and the consumer credit card market as areas in which consumers face significant problems. The report notes that credit reports and credit scores greatly affect credit available to consumers. With respect to the availability of general purpose credit cards the report cites Bureau findings that in 2018, consumers with high credit scores had an 83 percent approval rate, whereas consumers with subprime credit scores had only a 17 percent approval rate. In addition to these areas of focus, the report notes the issuance of one significant final rule—Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans; Delay of Compliance Date; Correction Amendments—last year. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Several less significant rules were also finalized, including (i) Technical Specifications for Submissions to the Prepaid Account Agreements Database; (ii) Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks (Regulation CC); and (iii) Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)–2019 Final Rule.

    Federal Issues CFPB Credit Cards Supervision Credit Report ACFIN Credit Scores Congress Dodd-Frank Payday Rule Fintech Consumer Finance

  • FTC settles deceptive ranking charges with lead generator

    Federal Issues

    On February 3, the FTC announced a settlement with operators of a lead generator website (respondents) that compares and ranks consumer financial products such as student loans, personal loans, and credit cards. According to the FTC’s complaint, the respondents violated the FTC Act by allegedly making false representations to consumers that their rankings were objective, honest, accurate, and unbiased, when in fact, the defendants allegedly offered higher rankings to companies that paid for placement. In addition, the complaint alleges that certain highly ranked companies dropped placement spots after refusing to pay for their positions. The complaint further contends that the respondents allegedly claimed that customer reviews were impartial, but in reality most reviews were written by company employees or their family friends, or others associated with the company, or by fabricated consumers. Without admitting or denying the allegations, the respondents have agreed to pay $350,000 under the terms of the proposed settlement, and are prohibited from making future misrepresentations connected with the “advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service.”

    Federal Issues FTC Lead Generation UDAP Deceptive Enforcement FTC Act

  • French aerospace company to pay more than $3.9 billion to resolve foreign bribery cases

    Financial Crimes

    On January 31, a French aerospace company that manufactures civilian and military aircraft agreed to pay combined penalties of more than $3.9 billion to U.S., French, and UK authorities. The company resolved foreign bribery charges with all three jurisdictions, as well as U.S. violations of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and its implementing regulations, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). (See deferred prosecution agreement and information filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.)  The resolutions covered bribes paid in countries including China, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Ghana.

    With respect to the FCPA, according to the DOJ’s announcement, beginning in at least 2008 and continuing through at least 2015 the company engaged in a global “scheme to use third-party business partners to bribe government officials, as well as non-governmental airline executives.” The bribes were offered to decision makers, including foreign officials, “in order to obtain improper business advantages and to win business from both privately owned enterprises and entities that were state-owned and state-controlled.” The AECA and ITAR violations involved “fil[ing] numerous applications for the export of defense articles and defense services to foreign armed forces[,]” but failing to provide the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) “with accurate information related to commissions paid by [the company] to third-party brokers who were hired to solicit, promote or otherwise secure the sale of defense articles and defense services to foreign armed forces.”  As part of the deferred prosecution agreement, the company agreed to cooperate with the DOJ’s ongoing investigations and prosecutions and enhance its compliance program. The DOJ also recognized the company’s cooperation and remediation.

    Financial Crimes DOJ FCPA Bribery Of Interest to Non-US Persons UK Serious Fraud Office AECA ITAR

  • FHFA updates Fannie, Freddie seller/servicer eligibility

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On January 31, the FHFA proposed updated minimum financial requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) single-family mortgage sellers and servicers. The updates are designed to provide transparency and consistency of capital and liquidity requirements for sellers and servicers with different business models. A key improvement to the 2015 minimum financial requirements (covered by InfoBytes here), FHFA stated, is that the updated standards will establish financial requirements for servicing Ginnie Mae mortgages. FHFA further noted that the new minimum liquidity standards will only be applied to non-depository institutions—depository institutions will continue to rely on their existing regulatory standards to meet the GSEs’ capital and liquidity requirements. FHFA will accept comments on the proposal for 60 days, and anticipates finalizing the requirements in the second quarter of 2020, with an expected effective date six months after finalization.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FHFA Fannie Mae Freddie Mac GSE Ginnie Mae Mortgages Mortgage Servicing

  • Fed clarifies bank control structure under BHC and HOLA

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On January 30, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a final rule to simplify and increase the transparency of existing rules for determining if a company has control over a banking organization under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) and the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA). According to the Fed, the final rule—proposed last April (covered by InfoBytes here)—establishes “a comprehensive and public framework to determine when a company controls a bank or a bank controls a company” through the use of several key factors including “the company’s total voting and non-voting equity investment in the bank; director, officer, and employee overlaps between the company and the bank; and the scope of business relationships between the company and the bank.” A tiered presumptions visual accompanied the final rule, which outlines the determination of control based on the level of voting ownership at four different thresholds: less than 5 percent; 5 to 9.99 percent; 10 to 14.99 percent; and 15 to 24.99 percent. In addition, the Fed noted that the final rule “generally applies the same standards in the context of the BHC Act and HOLA” in terms of the definition of “control.” Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard issued a statement supporting the final rule, but stressed the importance of monitoring banking organizations’ ownership structures in light of the “control framework” and industry trends in order to identify issues affecting financial stability and competition. Brainard further emphasized that the “control framework” should be monitored in terms of how it interacts with other regulations involving ownership thresholds. The final rule takes effect April 1.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues Federal Reserve Bank Holding Company Act Home Owners' Loan Act

  • Court certifies breach of contract class against bank

    Courts

    On January 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified a class of mortgage borrowers in a breach of contract suit against a national bank (defendant). In doing so, the court approved a class defined as consumers who (i) had a mortgage loan with the defendant; (ii) qualified for a modification of their loan between 2010 and 2018 “pursuant to the requirements of government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), [or] the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)”; (iii) though they qualified, were not offered a loan modification by the defendant due to defendant’s flawed calculations of eligibility; and (iv) had their homes foreclosed upon and sold by the defendant. According to the order, the plaintiffs claimed that in 2013 the “defendant discovered a calculation error that had caused certain fees to be misstated and had resulted in incorrect mortgage modification denials,” but the problem was not fully resolved until 2018.

    The court also granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in order to add a plaintiff “whose property was secured by an FHA instrument.” The plaintiffs reasoned that they should have a representative for the FHA contracts as well as a representative for the GSE contracts, in case it is argued that the FHA and GSE contracts are so different that each requires its own representative.

    Courts HAMP Class Action GSE Foreclosure FHA Mortgages Breach of Contract

  • Agencies to modify Volcker Rule’s “covered funds” requirements

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On January 30, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to modify and streamline the “covered funds” requirements under Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, commonly known as the Volcker Rule (Rule). As previously covered by InfoBytes, last fall the regulators signed off on final revisions to the Rule to simplify and tailor its restrictions on a banking entity’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds. Specifically, the proposed amendments would modify the restrictions for banking entities investing in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with covered funds, including simplifying provisions related to foreign public funds, loan securitizations, and small business investment companies. The amendments would also, among other things, (i) limit the extraterritorial impact of the Rule on certain foreign funds offered by foreign banks to foreign investors; (ii) modify and propose several existing exclusions to allow banking entities to invest in or sponsor certain types of funds—subject to certain safeguards—such as credit funds, venture capital funds, family wealth management vehicles, and customer facilitation funds; and (iii) permit intraday extensions of credit, payment, clearing, and settlement transactions between a banking entity and covered funds the banking entity advises or sponsors, or with which the banking entity has certain other relationships. Comments will be accepted through April 1.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC Federal Reserve CFTC OCC SEC Bank Holding Company Act Of Interest to Non-US Persons

Pages

Upcoming Events