Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations
Section Content

Upcoming Events

Filter

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

  • Senate and House Committees File Separate Resolutions Disapproving of CFPB Arbitration Rule

    Federal Issues

    On July 20, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and the House Financial Services Committee each announced Congressional Review Act Joint Resolutions of Disapproval against the CFPB’s Arbitration Agreements final rule issued July 10. In a press release issued by the Senate Committee, 24 Republican senators—including Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)—expressed concern that the anti-arbitration measure will discourage cost-effective dispute resolution and push consumers into class action lawsuits causing more harm than good. House Republicans outlined similar concerns in a press release issued the same day. H.J. Res. 111, co-sponsored by all 34 Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee, will seek to nullify the rule, which they believe “punish[es] consumers with decreased access to financial products, increased costs for such products, or both.”

    The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn agency rules by a simple majority if moved within 60 days from the rule’s publication.

    Federal Issues Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Arbitration CFPB Senate Banking Committee CRA House Financial Services Committee Congress Class Action

    Share page with AddThis
  • House Committee Okays Five Additional Flood Insurance Bills

    Federal Issues

    On June 21, the House Financial Services Committee (Committee) approved changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), passing five additional bills. As previously reported in InfoBytes, the committee passed two flood insurance measures on June 15. The approval of these latest bills completes a seven-bill package to reauthorize the NFIP.

    According to the committee’s press release, the five newly passed bills include:

    H.R. 2875 ,the “National Flood Insurance Program Administrative Reform Act of 2017”— introduced by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)— is intended to help NFIP policyholders when challenging claim denials and to also cut down on claim fraud. The bill passed in a 58-0 vote.

    H.R. 1558, the “Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act” —introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Cal.)—was approved by the committee in a voice vote. The bill will “ensure community accountability for areas repetitively damaged by floods” by requiring these flood-prone areas to design mitigation plans.

    H.R. 1422, the “Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act”— introduced by Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.)—allows homeowners to use private flood insurance to satisfy the flood insurance mandate, if the private policies are sufficiently similar to NFIP insurance policies. This bill passed by a vote of 58-0.

    H.R. 2246, the “Taxpayer Exposure Mitigation Act of 2017”—introduced by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)—eliminates the requirement that commercial properties located in flood hazard areas must maintain flood insurance coverage.  Additionally, the measure will “provide for greater transfer of risk . . . to private capital and reinsurance markets,” and will allow state and local governments to develop their own flood maps. The committee approved the bill in a 36-24 vote.

    H.R. 2565, also introduced by Rep. Luetkemeyer, will “require the use of replacement cost value in determining the premium rates for flood insurance coverage.” The committee approved it in a 34-25 vote.

    Federal Issues House Financial Services Committee National Flood Insurance Program Federal Legislation Flood Insurance

    Share page with AddThis
  • CFPB Director Challenges House Financial Services’ Report on Bureau’s Role in Fraudulent Accounts Scandal Investigation

    Consumer Finance

    On June 14, CFPB Director Richard Cordray issued a letter to Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) in response to the House Financial Services Committee’s (Committee) June 6 interim majority staff report on the investigation of the role federal financial regulators played in detecting and remedying a major national bank’s practice of opening unauthorized bank accounts. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a consent order to the bank last September over allegations that the bank employees’ improper sales practice of opening unauthorized accounts as part of an incentive compensation program was unfair and abusive. In his letter, Director Cordray defended the CFPB’s role in the investigation and detailed inaccuracies and errors in the Committee’s report.

    The Committee’s report notes that immediately after the September 8 CFPB announcement, the House Financial Services Committee began a “comprehensive investigation” to answer two questions: (i) “how and why [the bank] allowed these fraudulent activities to occur at a disturbing scale across the [b]ank for well over a decade”; and (ii) “whether or not federal financial regulators were effective in detecting and remedying [the bank’s] fraudulent branch sale practices.” According to the report, “[o]ver the course of six months, the CFPB only produced 1,010 pages of records comprised almost entirely of records easily obtainable from [the bank] or the OCC”—both of which, the report contends, have cooperated fully with the investigation. In April 2017, the CFPB received a subpoena but allegedly provided records previously produced by the bank. Due to a lack of cooperation, the Committee staff recommended the possibility of issuing deposition subpoenas to CFPB employees to investigate Director Cordray’s alleged failure to respond, as well as the suggestion of bringing contempt proceedings against Director Cordray to enforce compliance with the subpoena.

    Director Cordray responded that, among others things, the majority staff of the Committee refused to receive a September 2016 follow-up briefing from Bureau staff and failed to respond to his offer to publicly testify at a Committee hearing. Furthermore, Director Cordray states that the CFPB has submitted over 57,000 pages of records “in an effort to comply with the Committee’s broadly worded requests.” He notes the complaint about the documents in the CFPB’s production being “redundant of documents received from either [the bank] or the OCC, though the same point could be made in reverse,” and that his staff has repeatedly sought guidance from the Committee to narrow the scope but has yet to receive a response.

    In response to the Committee’s query as to why it took more than a decade to uncover the bank’s practice of opening unauthorized accounts, Director Cordray responded that the Bureau opened its doors in 2011—more than 10 years after the bank’s activities commenced according to the Committee’s report—and wasn't fully operational until 2014.

    Consumer Finance Litigation Mortgages CFPB House Financial Services Committee

    Share page with AddThis
  • House Financial Services Committee Advances Two Flood Insurance Measures, Delays Action on Other Bills

    Federal Issues

    On June 15, the House Financial Services Committee announced it had passed two flood insurance measures during a meeting to consider several bills to reform and reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    The Committee approved the 21st Century Flood Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 2874) by a vote of 30-26. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), is designed to (i) improve the financial stability of the NFIP; (ii) improve the development of more accurate flood risk estimates through new technology and better maps; (iii) “increase the role of private markets in the management of flood insurance risks”; and (iv) “provide for alternative methods to insure against flood peril.”

    Also approved by a vote of 53-0 was the National Flood Insurance Program Policyholder Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 2868). The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), is designed to protect NFIP policyholders from “unreasonable premium rates” and require FEMA to analyze “the unique characteristics of flood insurance coverage of urban properties” such as cooperative housing projects.

    The Committee will consider additional measures the week of June 19.

    Federal Issues House Financial Services Committee National Flood Insurance Program

    Share page with AddThis
  • House Passes Financial CHOICE Act of 2017

    Federal Issues

    On June 8, by a vote of 233-186 with no Democrats voting in favor of the bill and one Republican voting against, the House passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10), as amended, which would repeal or modify provisions of Dodd-Frank and restructure the CFPB. Committee Report 115-163 accompanying House Resolution 375, which provided for consideration H.R. 10 and recommended that the resolution be adopted, outlines the provisions introduced to overhaul existing financial regulations. Included were five additional amendments incorporated into H.R. 10 introduced by members of Congress:

    • Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.): “Revises provisions subjecting certain FDIC and National Credit Union Association functions to congressional appropriations, relating to appointments of positions created by [H.R. 10], and providing congressional access to non-public [Financial Security Oversight Council] information”;
    • Rep. Joseph Hollingsworth (R-Ind.): “Allows closed-end funds that are listed on a national securities exchange, and that meet certain requirements to be considered ‘well-known seasoned issuers’”;
    • Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.): “Expresses the sense of Congress that consumer reporting agencies and their subsidiaries should implement stronger multi-factor authentication procedures when providing access to personal information files to more adequately protect consumer information from identity theft”;
    • Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.): “Requires the Department of Treasury” to submit a report to Congress regarding its efforts to work with Federal bank regulators, financial institutions, and money service businesses to ensure that legitimate financial transactions along the southern border move freely”; and
    • Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), “Requires the [General Services Administration] to study the [Consumer Law Enforcement Agency’s] real estate needs due to changes in the Agency’s structure. It would then authorize the GSA to sell the current CLEA building if CLEA’s real estate needs have changed and there is no government department or agency that can utilize the building.”

    See previous InfoBytes here and here for additional coverage.

    The bill now advances to the Senate where it is unlikely to pass in its current form—a fact acknowledged by both Democrats and Republicans.

    Federal Issues House Financial Services Committee Financial CHOICE Act Congress Federal Legislation Dodd-Frank FDIC NCUA FSOC CFPB Treasury Department

    Share page with AddThis
  • White House Issues Statement Supporting Substitute Amendment to H.R. 10; CBO Releases Cost Estimate

    Federal Issues

    On June 6, the White House Administration issued a statement supporting the Substitute Amendment to the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017. In the statement, the White House announced it is “committed to reforming the Nation’s financial system” and believes the substitute amendment drafted by House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) reflects the Administration’s Core Principles in a number of ways. Specifically, the Administration supports the following provisions outlined in H.R.10: (i) eliminating taxpayer bailouts; (ii) simplifying regulations and holding regulators accountable; (iii) facilitating capital formation to encourage economic growth; (iv) allowing identified financial institutions to “opt out of certain regulatory requirements”; (v) reducing the independence of the CFPB; (vi) increasing the use of cost-benefit analysis by financial regulators; and (vii) easing regulatory burdens for community banks.

    “The administration supports these provisions, and looks forward to working with Congress to undo additional mandates from the Dodd-Frank law that unnecessarily raise costs and limit choices for consumers,” the White House asserted in the statement.

    On the same day the White House issued its statement, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a requested analysis of Hensarling's amendment for H.R. 10. The CBO discovered that the changes from the version the House Financial Services Committee initially approved would reduce deficits by an additional $9.5 billion, for a total reduction of $33.6 billion over the 2017-2027 period. CBO stated the majority of the budgetary savings comes from “eliminating the FDIC’s authority to use the Orderly Liquidation Fund and changing how the [CFPB] and certain other regulators are funded.” However, CBO noted it would cost an estimated $11.6 billion over the referenced time period to implement the bill.

    Federal Issues POTUS Financial CHOICE Act Federal Legislation House Financial Services Committee CFPB Dodd-Frank

    Share page with AddThis
  • House to Consider Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 the Week of June 5

    Federal Issues

    On May 26, the House announced that the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 is scheduled to hit the House floor the week of June 5. House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), drafted a Substitute Amendment and a corresponding summary of changes, which clarify that “rules promulgated under provisions of law repealed by H.R. 10 are no longer in effect.” Notably Hensarling agreed to strike Section 735, which would repeal the Durbin Amendment from the second discussion draft of the Act. The Durbin Amendment—an amendment to the EFTA added by section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Act—requires the Federal Reserve Board to cap interchange fees that banks with assets of $10 billion or more may receive from payment card networks in debt card transactions. The decision to strike the Durbin Amendment happened despite bank support for the repeal.

    Changes to the bill also include the following, among others: (i) Section 341 will be amended to clarify that “gaps or ambiguities found by a reviewing court in a statutory or regulatory provision are not to be construed as a delegation of rule-making authority to an agency, and that a reviewing court is not to use such a gap or ambiguity as grounds for expansively interpreting the agency’s authority or deferring to the agency’s interpretation of law;” and (ii) Section 571’s amendment will suspend HMDA data reporting requirements until January 1, 2019. Looking ahead, the House Rules Committee set a June 2 deadline for lawmakers to file amendments.

    Federal Issues Financial CHOICE Act House Financial Services Committee Dodd-Frank

    Share page with AddThis
  • House Democrats Seek Full Review of Financial CHOICE Act by Appropriate Committees; Investor Group Claims Act Will Undercut Shareholder Rights

    Federal Issues

    As previously covered in InfoBytes, on May 4 the House Financial Services Committee approved the revised Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, in a party-line vote, 34-26. Earlier this month the Ranking Members of two House committees sent letters to their respective Chairmen, urging their committees to not waive their jurisdiction over H.R. 10 and allow their respective committees to debate and vote on the legislation given its wide ranging effects on the U.S. economy. Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-Va.) of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce stated in his letter that Democrats on the Education and the Workforce Committee “have expressed great concern over the attempts to weaken oversight and enforcement power of the [CFPB] and the important role it plays regarding the integrity of student loan finance services.” Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) of the House Committee on the Judiciary urged the Chairman in his letter that “[i]t is particularly critical that our Committee examine and vote on this legislation given numerous provisions squarely within our Rule X jurisdiction that will prevent government agencies from protecting the rights of consumers and hold the financial marketplace more accountable.” As reported previously in InfoBytes, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) also called for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to assert jurisdiction over H.R. 10.

    Additionally, on May 17, an advocacy group of institutional investors called upon the House of Representatives to oppose H.R. 10, saying the bill will undercut shareholder rights. The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) submitted a letter to all members of the House, urging them to oppose the bill. It was signed by CII and 53 institutional investors that collectively hold more than $4 trillion in assets, including representatives from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, and New York State Teachers’ Retirement System. The letter said the bill would rollback curbs on “abusive” executive pay practices, restrict shareholder rights in board elections, and raise the cost of proxy advisers. The letter also cautioned that the bill would impede the SEC’s oversight of financial markets by requiring “excessive cost-benefit analysis” and including “unwise limits on enforcement.”

    Federal Issues Financial CHOICE Act House Financial Services Committee CFPB Federal Legislation

    Share page with AddThis
  • Legislation Reintroduced to Make CFPB Spending Accountable to Congress

    Federal Issues

    On May 19, Rep. Andy Barr, (R-Ky.) reintroduced legislation that would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to make the CFPB’s budget subject to congressional appropriations. As set forth in a press release issued by Rep. Barr’s office, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats’ Spending Act (H.R. 1486), first introduced in March 2015 to the House and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, would give Congress power over what Rep. Burr terms an “unaccountable agency.” “I am reintroducing the TABS Act because the Bureau deserves the same scrutiny and the same checks and balances as any other federal agency,” said Rep. Barr. “Congressional oversight and accountability will ensure that the Bureau stays true to its mission of consumer protection, and avoids politically motivated overreaches, wasteful spending, and unnecessary regulations.” Currently, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve. As previously covered in InfoBytes, House Republicans are also trying to overhaul existing financial regulations with the approval of the Financial CHOICE Act (H.R. 10) by the House Financial Services Committee, which would subject the Bureau to greater congressional oversight and tighter budgetary control.

    Federal Issues CFPB House Financial Services Committee Financial CHOICE Act Federal Legislation

    Share page with AddThis
  • Rep. Cummings Calls for House Oversight Committee to Assert Jurisdiction Over Financial CHOICE Act

    Federal Issues

    As  covered in last week’s InfoBytes, on May 4 the House Financial Services Committee approved the revised Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, in a party-line vote, 34-26. In a May 3 letter to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the Ranking Minority Member on that Committee,  urged the Committee “not to waive its jurisdiction over the Financial CHOICE Act, H.R. 10”—which he argues includes “numerous provisions that clearly fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee.” Rep. Cummings also states in his letter that the proposed legislation would “destroy key financial regulations and consumer protections” and “place our economy at greater risk of another crisis.” Accordingly, he argues that “[i]t is imperative that the Committee review and vote on [H.R. 10’s] dangerous proposals.”

    Federal Issues Congress Financial CHOICE Act House Oversight Committee House Financial Services Committee

    Share page with AddThis

Pages