InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Warren and Brown question CFPB on auto lending policies
On March 12, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger expressing concerns over the Bureau’s oversight of the auto lending market. The Senators contend that the Bureau has not taken any auto lending enforcement actions since Kraninger became director, despite reports expressing concern with the volume of outstanding auto debt and “auto lenders [] engaging in predatory practices and cutting back safeguards.” The Senators were “particularly concerned with the targeting of subprime consumers by non-bank lenders through indirect financing.” The letter seeks information regarding the Bureau’s plans to “fulfill its mission of stopping abusive practices and protecting consumers from this emerging threat,” including (i) whether the Bureau believes that the “incentive structure” between dealers and lenders in indirect financing can create risks for consumers; (ii) whether the Bureau believes lenders are intentionally charging higher rates because of arrangements with auto dealers; (iii) the types of actions the Bureau would take when it identifies a problematic relationship between a lender and a dealer; and (iv) a list of past enforcement actions by the Bureau against lenders who incentivized dealers to offer consumers a larger loan than the market value of the vehicle. In addition, the letter seeks information on the ways that the Bureau evaluates lender underwriting practices and whether it maintains a database with average LTV ratios, length of loan terms, and related data points for each lender. Finally, the Senators asked for clarifications on how the Bureau would evaluate whether auto lenders are engaging in abusive practices in light of its revised “abusiveness” standard and whether the Bureau has identified fair lending concerns with auto lenders. The letter requests that the Bureau respond to the questions by March 26.
CFPB releases HMDA FAQs
On March 6, the CFPB released seven updated FAQs to assist reporting institutions in complying with HMDA and Regulation C. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s issued the 2020 edition of the “Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting It Right!” in February. The FAQs offer guidance for reporting the following data points: (i) universal loan identifier (ULI); (ii) legal entity identifier (LEI); (iii) ethnicity, race, and sex; (iv) discount points; and (v) construction and construction/permanent transactions. Highlights are listed below:
- Regulation C does not “require a financial institution to provide the ULI on loan documents.” It requires a financial institution to “collect, record, and report a ULI for applications for covered loans that is receives, covered loans that it originates, and covered loans that it purchases for each calendar year.”
- “For applications taken by telephone…a person collecting the race or ethnicity information [is required] to orally state the information in the collection form unless the information pertains uniquely to applications taken in writing, for example, the italicized language in the sample data collection form.”
- “[A] financial institution should not correct the race or ethnicity as reported by the applicant, even if the applicant has entered clearly incorrect or inappropriate information.”
- “Where a natural person applicant does not provide ethnicity, race, or sex information for a mail, internet, or telephone application, and a financial institution does not have an opportunity to collect this information during an in person meeting during the application process, the financial institution may report either that the information was not collected on the basis of visual observation or surname (code 2) or that the requirement to report this data field is not applicable (code 3).”
- “For construction and permanent loans where the construction loan is a separate transaction, the financial institution reports only the loan term of the permanent loan. Because the separate construction loan is designed to be replaced by permanent financing, it is excluded as temporary financing.”
CFPB provides consumers with Covid-19 guidance
The CFPB is maintaining a website with steps consumers can take to protect themselves from the financial impact of Covid-19. The website includes guidance on steps to take in the event of difficulty meeting mortgage payment obligations, working with housing counselors, questions relating to credit reporting, and other resources.
Fed agencies issue Covid-19 guidance
On March 9, the Federal Reserve, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and CSBS issued a joint release encouraging institutions to “work constructively with borrowers and other customers in affected communities” and stating that “prudent efforts consistent with safe and sound lending practices should not be subject to examiner criticism.” The agencies also acknowledged that institutions would face staffing and other challenges and committed to expedite requests to provide more convenient availability of services and work to minimize the disruption and burden of examinations and inspections.
Senate Democrats’ minority report criticizes the CFPB
On March 10, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) released a minority staff report titled “Consumers Under Attack: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Director Kraninger.” Specifically, the report faulted the Bureau for, among other allegations, purportedly protecting payday lenders, failing to properly scrutinize student loan servicers, and failing to enforce civil rights protections. The report was released the same day Kraninger testified before the Senate Banking Committee (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the report argues that the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rule and supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here and a Buckley Special Alert) “does more to provide safe harbors for debt collectors than protect consumers” by not banning the collection of time-barred debt. The report also reiterates concerns over Kraninger’s decision to no longer defend the CFPB’s constitutionality (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as her decision last year to delay certain ability-to-repay provisions of the agency’s 2017 final rule covering “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (covered by InfoBytes here), which has led to stays of enforcement actions.
Regulatory agencies issue pandemic planning statement
On March 6, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, and the CFPB—through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council—issued an Interagency Statement on Pandemic Planning, which, among other things, updates 2006 and 2007 guidance on the need for business continuity plans (BCPs) that address the effects of pandemics. The interagency statement encourages banks to develop plans that, among other things, limit disruption of operations, minimize staff contact by utilizing remote access, and plan for staffing challenges by cross-training bank staff. The statement recommends that the BCPs of financial institutions should include: (i) a preventive program; (ii) a documented strategy that applies to the stages of the pandemic; (iii) a “comprehensive framework of facilities, systems, or procedures to ensure that the institution’s critical operations will continue” (iv) a testing program; and (v) an oversight program to ensure ongoing review and updates to the plan.” The statement also lists websites that offer information on pandemic planning activities. The FDIC and the OCC also published advisories, FIL-14-2020, and OCC 2020-13, respectively.
On March 9, the agencies issued a joint press release encouraging the financial institutions to “meet the financial needs of customers and members affected by” COVID-19. Also, the U.S. Senate sent a letter to trade associations encouraging them to provide job security for employees who self-quarantine or must miss work to take care of sick family members, and to ensure staff will not be required to use all sick leave/vacation leave or “report for work when such leave is exhausted.” The letter urges the entities to work with their customers by waiving late fees and overdraft fees among other measures. The Connecticut Department of Banking issued its own guidance as well regarding temporary remote work, and on March 5, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions issued similar guidance.
Kraninger fields COVID-19 questions at Senate hearing
On March 10, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger testified at a Senate Banking Committee hearing regarding the Bureau’s Semi-Annual Report to Congress. The hearing examined the report (covered by InfoBytes here), which outlines the Bureau’s work from April 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019.
In her opening remarks, Kraninger pointed to the newly announced measures that the Bureau has initiated to carry out the CFPB’s mission to prevent consumer harm, including the advisory opinion program, the updated Responsible Business Conduct bulletin, and proposed legislation to begin a whistleblower award program. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In response to questions about the constitutionality of the CFPB’s structure, Kraninger stated that she was “incredibly encouraged” when the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Seila Law as it should provide “certainty and clarity.” Kraninger also addressed the Bureau’s COVID-19 preparedness by saying that the financial regulators are in “routine contact with the institutions we regulate” and that they maintain a steady flow of information with the Treasury Department, as well as with OPM, CDC, and FEMA to ensure coordinated operations. A number of Senators asked about the effects of COVID-19 on the economy, including with respect to new scams designed to take advantage of panicked consumers, consumers losing pay and benefits due to employer shut downs, and whether financial institutions are making accommodations for consumers during this time. Kraninger responded that financial institutions will have “supervisory flexibility” to help consumers and ensured that the CFPB is taking steps such as encouraging the public to attend the Bureau’s events via webcast. She also confirmed that the Financial Stability Oversight Council, of which she is a member, will meet this month. Other covered topics included small dollar loans and payday lending, supervision and enforcement, and the timeline for rulemaking on amendments to the qualified mortgage and ability to repay requirements. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Maryland Court of Appeals reverses trial court approval of settlement for interfering with CPD action
On March 3, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s approval of a proposed settlement in a class action based on fraudulently induced assignments of annuity payments. The class members were recipients of structured settlement annuities from lead paint exposure claims who responded to ads by a structured settlement factoring company (company). The class members then transferred the rights to their settlement annuity contracts to the company, which paid the class members lump sums for the rights at a discount. The class filed a lawsuit against the company in 2016, alleging that it had engaged in fraud in procuring the annuity contract transfers. Around the same time, the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland AG’s Office (CPD) had filed suit against the company alleging violations of the State Consumer Protection Act. Several months after both actions were filed, the CFPB filed a similar suit against the company based on the same alleged misconduct. All three actions sought similar kids of relief with respect to the same individuals, though the bases for seeking relief and the nature and amount of relief sought differed among the actions.
The class and the company proceeded towards a negotiated settlement, to which the trial court signed a proposed final order, certifying the class and approving the settlement, despite CPD’s opposition to both issues. Following the court’s approval, the company moved for summary judgment in its case against the CPD, which the court granted because it held CPD’s claim for restitution for the same individuals was barred by res judicata; CPD’s claim for injunctive relief and civil penalties is still currently awaiting trial.
Following an appeal, the Court of Appeals granted the company’s petition to consider whether “class members [may] lawfully release and assign to others their right to receive money or property sought for their benefit by [CPD] or [CFPB] through those agencies’ separate enforcement actions” under state and federal consumer protection laws, respectively.
The Court of Appeals held that the lower court erred in approving the settlement, stating that consumers “have no authority, through a private settlement, whether or not approved by a court, to preclude CPD from pursuing its own remedies against those who violate . . . [Maryland’s] Consumer Protection Act, including a general request for disgorgement/restitution.” In particular, the Court of Appeals held that the parties cannot preclude CPD from pursuing the remedies of disgorgement and restitution, as that would directly contravene CPD’s statutory authority to sanction the company for wrongful conduct. For this reason, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s approval of the settlement must be reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.
CFPB sues regional bank for sales practices
On March 9, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a regional bank for alleged violations of TILA, the Truth in Savings Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act relating to the bank’s sales practices. According to the complaint, the bank had instituted a “cross-sell” sales strategy along with sales goals to increase sales to customers. The complaint alleges that, although the bank knew that sales employees “engag[ed] in misconduct in order to meet goals or earn additional compensation,” the bank purportedly “took insufficient steps to properly implement and monitor its program, detect and stop misconduct, and identify and remediate harmed consumers.” The complaint alleges two claims for “abusiveness” in violation of the CFPA, which are the first such allegations since the Bureau issued a policy statement in January regarding its “abusiveness” standard, covered in InfoBytes here. Among other things, the Bureau seeks injunctive relief, monetary relief, disgorgement, and a civil money penalty. After the complaint was filed, the regional bank issued a press release rejecting the charges in the CFPB’s complaint.
5th Circuit: Non-party plaintiff cannot bring action to enforce violation of CFPB consent order
On March 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a debt collector (defendant) accused of violating the FDCPA and the terms of a CFPB consent order. According to the opinion, the defendant attempted to collect a credit card debt from the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not recognize. In December 2014, the defendant filed suit to collect the past due debt. In the meantime, the CFPB issued a consent order against the defendant for violations of the FDCPA (covered by InfoBytes here) while the parties awaited trial. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the CFPB regarding the validity of the debt, but the Bureau closed that complaint after verifying the defendant’s ownership of the plaintiff’s debt. The plaintiff responded by filing his own lawsuit in March 2017, claiming the defendant violated the FDCPA by (i) “lacking validation of his debt prior to his January 2016 trial”; (ii) failing to timely validate his debt in violation of provisions of its consent order with the CFPB; and (iii) “misrepresenting that it intended to prove ownership of his debt if contested.” The district court granted summary judgment for the defendant based on the plaintiff’s failure to prove actual damages.
On appeal, the appellate court determined that the district court erred in ruling that the plaintiff failed to plead actual damages, finding that “the FDCPA does not require proof of actual damages to ground statutory damages.” However, the appellate court did not reverse the district court’s decision. Instead, the appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff’s debt validation claims were time-barred because he did not file suit within the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. Regarding the other two claims, the appellate court stated that while the claims were not time-barred, the plaintiff lacked standing because “private persons may not bring actions to enforce violations of consent decrees to which they are not a party.” The CFPB’s consent order with the defendant specified that the CFPB was the enforcer of the order, and its text could not be read to invoke a private right of action permitting the plaintiff’s suit. Accordingly, the appellate court affirmed summary judgment against the plaintiff on these remaining two claims.