InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Georgia Supreme Court holds legal settlement advances are not loans under state laws
On October 22, the Georgia Supreme Court held that legal settlement cash advances are not “loans” under the state’s Payday Lending Act (PLA) and the Industrial Loan Act (ILA) when the obligation to repay is contingent upon the success of the underlying lawsuit. The decision results from a class action lawsuit bought by clients of a legal funding company. After being involved in automobile accidents, appellants signed financing agreements with a legal funding company, which advanced them funds while their personal injury lawsuit was pending. Per the terms of their financing agreements, appellants were required to repay the funds only if their personal injury lawsuits were successful. They were successful and the settlement company soon sought to recover funds pursuant to the terms of the agreement. The appellants objected and brought suit, alleging, among other things, that the financing agreements they executed violated the state’s PLA and ILA because they were usurious loans and a product of unlicensed activity. The state trial court concluded that the PLA applied to the agreements but that the ILA did not. The state appeals court concluded that neither statute applied, determining that because the repayment obligation was contingent on the success of the lawsuit, it was not a “loan” under either the PLA or the ILA. The state supreme court agreed, holding that “an agreement that involves . . . a contingent and limited obligation of repayment is not a ‘contract requiring repayment,’” as required by the ILA’s definition of “loan.” Similarly, the financing arrangement did not constitute an agreement pursuant to which “funds are advanced to be repaid,” which would make it a loan under the PLA. Appellants also argued that the contingent repayment obligation in the financing agreement was illusory, contending that the legal funding company agrees to such an arrangement only when the risk the lawsuit will fail is “close to null.” The court rejected this claim, however, noting that nothing in the pleadings suggested that the agreements were shams.
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs sues for-profit college for deceptive and predatory lending practices
On October 19, New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced that it filed suit in New York County Supreme Court against a for-profit college alleging deceptive and predatory lending practices that violate NYC Consumer Protection Law and local debt collection rules. The DCA alleges that college recruiters engaged in deceptive practices such as (i) masquerading federal loan applications as scholarships; (ii) steering students towards college loans and referring to them as “payment plans”; and (iii) deceiving students about institutional grants by failing to disclose that they require students to obtain the maximum amount of federal loans available before a grant can be awarded. DCA also alleges that the for-profit college violated debt collection laws by concealing its identity on invoices when collecting debt, and seeking payments from graduates for debts not owed.
CFPB urges 9th Circuit to reverse district court’s order and impose higher penalty in tribal lending action
On October 19, the CFPB filed its opening brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. CashCall, Inc., an action brought by the CFPB to limit the reach of the so-called “tribal model” of online lending. In the original action, the court found that an online loan servicer that operated on tribal lands engaged in deceptive practices by collecting on loans that exceeded the usury limits in various states, and ordered it and its affiliates to pay a $10 million penalty, far short of the Bureau’s request. (Previously covered by InfoBtyes here and here.) The CFPB appealed, arguing that the district court erred by imposing a civil penalty that was “inappropriately low” and by refusing to order appropriate restitution. In its brief, the Bureau argued that the district court misapplied the law when finding that restitution was not “an appropriate remedy.” According to the Bureau, the district court believed it had discretionary power to deny restitution, based on the court’s view of the equities. But the district court had no such discretion, the Bureau asserted, claiming that if a plaintiff proves a violation and resulting harm, it is entitled to restitution under the CFPA. In addition, the Bureau argued that the district court should not have denied restitution on the grounds that the servicer had not acted in bad faith. The Bureau argued that allowing the servicer to earn $200 million in ill-gotten gains while paying a $10 million penalty leaves companies with “little incentive to follow the law.” The Bureau also argued that the loan servicer’s actions were reckless and warranted a higher civil penalty. The district court had concluded that the servicer did not act recklessly because its primary counsel opined that it could contract around state law. In response, the Bureau asserted that the servicer had “ample reason to know” its attempts to circumvent state usury laws posed an unjustifiably high risk that it was “collecting amounts consumers did not owe” after multiple lawyers warned the servicer that its attempts to avoid state law “likely” would not work.”
FHA streamlines claim payment requirements for HECM program
On October 22, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) issued Mortgagee Letter 2018-08, streamlining documentation requirements for Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) servicers when assigning FHA-insured reverse mortgages to HUD for claims payments. Effective immediately, servicers may now submit alternative supporting documentation, such as (i) documentation from a current hazard insurance provider in lieu of a declaration page; and (ii) alternative evidence of a borrower’s death, such as an obituary or healthcare documents in lieu of a death certificate. Servicers must now also submit evidence that any mobile home is “real property” under the laws of the particular state for which the home is located. FHA reminds servicers that claims for insurance benefits must be filed within 60 calendar days after receiving preliminary title approval, and notes that servicers must now provide a detailed explanation of all pre-due and payable corporate advances in the compliance package, including the date of the disbursement, the expense that was paid, and any information related to received repayments. According to a FHA’s press release, streamlining the requirements and reducing the documentation burden will help accelerate the claim payments process for servicers.
7th Circuit holds individual who denies owing a debt can qualify as a consumer under FDCPA
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held that an individual is a “qualified consumer” under the FDCPA, even when he is alleged by debt collectors to owe debts that he claims he does not owe. According to the opinion, a credit card was fraudulently opened in the plaintiff appellant’s name and was charged off, after default, to a debt collector who filed suit in an attempt to collect the debt. After the small-claims collection case was dismissed, the plaintiff appellant sued the debt collector for alleged violations of the FDCPA and the Illinois Collection Agency Act. The district court dismissed the action, holding that, to be a “consumer” under FDCPA, the individual must “allege he actually owed a debt.” On appeal, the 7th Circuit reversed. It held that the plain language of FDCPA covers individuals “allegedly obligated to pay” a debt, which includes “obligations alleged by the debt collector as well.” As a result, individuals who are alleged by debt collectors to owe debts are consumers under the FDCPA, even if they deny having any connection to the debt or any obligation to pay it.
7th Circuit affirms summary judgment for mortgage servicer in ECOA lawsuit
On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a mortgage servicer, holding that the plaintiff homeowners failed to show racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) when the servicer required the homeowners to bring the prior loan current before assuming it. According to the opinion, the homeowners purchased a home from the previous homeowner with an existing mortgage. Soon after the purchase, the homeowners learned that the previous owner had stopped making his mortgage payments and that the bank had begun to foreclose on the home. After receiving notice of foreclosure, the homeowners tried repeatedly to assume the previous owner’s mortgage which the mortgage servicer conditioned on the homeowners bringing the loan current. Unable to do so, the homeowners sued, bringing various state and federal law claims, including under ECOA, after an employee of the servicer allegedly made a remark that implied that the homeowners were not being allowed to assume the loan because of their race. The district court rejected the claims and entered summary judgment for the mortgage servicer.
On appeal, the 7th Circuit affirmed, concluding that the homeowners failed to counter the servicer’s representation that they never produced a complete application. Moreover, the court held that the alleged statement, which attributed the servicer’s decision to a race, was vague and “require[d] too much speculation to conclude that their race” was a determining factor in the requirement to satisfy the outstanding loan payments, a requirement that was otherwise consistent with the loan agreement.
OFAC issues temporary extension of Ukraine-related General Licenses
On October 19, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced the issuance of Ukraine-related General Licenses (GL) 13F and 15A, which extend the expiration date of previous Ukrainian-based general licenses to December 12 for wind-down transactions for certain companies that otherwise would be prohibited by Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations.
GL 13F supersedes GL 13E and authorizes, among other things, activities “ordinarily incident and necessary” for (i) the divestiture of the holdings of specific blocked persons to a non-U.S. person; and (ii) the facilitation of transfers of debt, equity, or other holdings involving specified blocked persons to a non-U.S. person. GL 15A, which supersedes GL 15, relates to permissible activities with the designated company and its subsidiaries, and applies to the maintenance and wind-down of operations, contracts, and agreements that were effective prior to April 6.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Ukraine sanctions.
FFIEC releases updated BSA/AML InfoBase website
On October 18, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released a newly updated Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) InfoBase website, which provides examiners and financial institutions access to BSA/AML examination procedures and resources, including the BSA/AML Examination Manual. According to the FFIEC, the InfoBase will “provide just-in-time training for new regulations and for other topics of specific concern to examiners within the FFIEC's member agencies.”
Federal Reserve Governor discusses fintech’s role in financial inclusion
On October 17, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke at the “FinTech, Financial Inclusion—and the Potential to Transform Financial Services” conference hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and the Aspen Institute Financial Security Program to discuss ways in which fintech can improve financial access for underserved families and small businesses. Brainard argued that, although new technologies can lower transaction costs, access to accounts and credit—while beneficial—does not, by itself, overcome the barriers to financial inclusion. Brainard stressed that continued progress toward financial inclusion is likely to require solutions designed with an understanding of issues the underserved face, such as examining why many unbanked or underbanked people intentionally choose not to maintain a bank account and recognizing the need to support faster payment systems for those living paycheck to paycheck. Brainard cautioned, however, that new fintech products may create consumer data security and privacy issues, and that fintech may struggle to reach communities lacking the infrastructure for digital service delivery. The challenge as regulators, she stated, “is to ensure trust in financial products and services by maintaining the focus on consumer protection, while supporting responsible innovation that provides social benefits.”
CFPB launches innovation webpage
On October 16, the CFPB announced the launch of its new webpage for innovation, which aims to engage with entrepreneurs and the innovation community to promote competition, innovation, and consumer access within financial services. The webpage is a result of the Bureau’s new Office of Innovation (previously known as Project Catalyst) and includes information regarding the Global Financial Innovation Network and the Bureau’s proposed revisions to the Trial Disclosure Program Policy (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here). The webpage also encourages groups to “pitch a pilot” to work with the Bureau on consumer-friendly innovation ideas.