InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Acting director sets out CFPB priorities
On January 28, newly appointed CFPB acting Director, Dave Uejio, released a statement he sent to staff announcing his immediate priorities for the Bureau as: (i) relief for consumers facing hardship and economic crisis due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and (ii) racial equity. Acknowledging the recently released Covid-19 Supervisory Highlights (covered by InfoBytes here), Uejio stated he was “concerned” about the findings, which noted issues with mortgage servicing, auto loan servicing, student loan servicing, and small business lending (including banks' practice of only offering Paycheck Protection Program loans to pre-existing customers). Uejio stated that going forward, the Bureau will “take aggressive action to ensure that regulated companies follow the law and meet their obligations to assist consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic,” noting that companies will have already received or should expect to receive a letter dictating “remediat[ion] [to] all of those who are harmed” and should “change policies, procedures, and practices to address the root causes of harms.” Moreover, Uejio will be reversing policies put into place by the previous administration, including reinstating examinations of the Military Lending Act and rescinding “public statements conveying a relaxed approach to enforcement.”
Additionally, Uejio said fair lending enforcement is a “top priority,” calling it “time” for the CFPB to “take bold and swift action on racial equity.” Uejio noted plans to “elevate and expand existing investigations and exams,” as well as add new ones and focus broadly on “unlawful conduct that disproportionately impacts communities of color and other vulnerable populations.”
Bank subsidiary to pay $604 million for RMBS defects
On January 25, the Supreme Court of the State of New York ordered an investment bank subsidiary (defendant) to pay nearly $604 million, plus pre-judgment contractual interest, to an insurance company (plaintiff) for allegedly breaching the representations and warranties contained in a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) for mortgages contained in the residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) it sold in 2007. According to the November 2020 post-trial order, the plaintiff issued irrevocable insurance policies that “unconditionally guaranteed payment of principal and interest to certificate holders of the RMBS transactions.” After the 2008 financial crisis, 51 percent of the original loan balances of the related mortgages held in the insured trust defaulted, and in July 2009, the plaintiff began to send mortgage repurchase demand letters to the defendants. Following the defendant’s refusal to repurchase the loans, the plaintiff subsequently commenced the action, alleging that the defendant breached the representations and warranties contained in the PSA. At trial, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff “convincingly proved” that “more than half of the securitized loans were materially non-conforming” and should be awarded compensation for its losses, as the plaintiff “did not assume the risk of loss that [the non-confirming loans] posed.” However, the court further determined that the plaintiff could not recover damages that were not “directly attributable to the materially non-confirming loans.” After directing the parties to file letters addressing remaining issues before the entry of monetary judgment, the court determined that the repurchase date for determining damages should be 90 days after the repurchase trigger (the date of notice from plaintiff) and not the date of breach. Therefore, based on a repurchase date of October 28, 2009, the court ordered the defendant to pay nearly $604 million in damages to the plaintiff.
11th Circuit: Debt owner not vicariously liable for affiliate’s actions
On January 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a debt owner (defendant) cannot be held liable under the FDCPA or Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) for the allegedly false representations made by another entity acting on its behalf. According to the opinion, after a consumer defaulted on three credit cards, the debts were sold to the defendant, and its affiliate began collection efforts in Florida state court against the consumer. The lawsuits were filed under the defendant’s name, “but [the affiliate] was ‘responsible for reviewing, processing, and entering all hearing results.’” The parties agreed to a settlement agreement and the consumer made his first payment. However, on each subsequent occasion the consumer visited the affiliates’ website, the website displayed a balance over three times as high as the settlement amount. The consumer filed suit against the defendant, alleging multiple violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, concluding that the defendant could not be liable under the FDCPA or the FCCPA, notwithstanding the fact that it qualifies as a debt collector.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court, affirming summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Specifically, the appellate court rejected the consumer’s arguments that the defendant should be held indirectly liable for the affiliate’s representations made on their website. The appellate court noted that if the defendant qualified as a debt collector under the “principle purposes” clause of the FDCPA, “it cannot be held liable based on the use of ‘indirectly’ in the separate and inapplicable ‘regularly collects’ definition.” Moreover, the appellate court rejected the consumer’s argument that the definition of “communication” under the FDCPA supports indirect liability, concluding it is similarly “irrelevant to [the consumer]’s false representation claims under Section 1692e.” Lastly, because the district court properly granted summary judgment on the consumer’s FDCPA claim, “it correctly granted summary judgment on his FCCPA claim as well.”
DFPI signs MOUs with EWA companies
On January 27, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it entered into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with five earned wage access (EWA) companies. According to DFPI, the MOUs represent the first agreements of their kind between fintechs and a state regulator, and are intended to “pave a path so [EWA] companies can continue operating in California, in advance of possible registration under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law [CCFPL], which took effect this year and defines the companies as newly covered financial services.” (Buckley Special Alert coverage on the CCFPL available here.) The five EWA companies represent two advance pay models: “an employer-based model which offers early access to wages in partnership with an employer as a benefit and a direct-to-consumer model which does not require employer participation.”
Under the terms of the MOUs, the companies have agreed to deliver quarterly reports providing DFPI with a better understanding of their products and services, as well as the risks and benefits to consumers in the state. Reports will include information concerning “changes to consumer contracts, fees to consumers, consumer complaints, the average number of advances per month, duration before consumer payback, and the number of consumers making no repayment, partial repayments, or requesting cancellations or deferrals, among other stipulations.” The companies have also agreed to regular periodic DFPI examinations and are required to follow industry best practices, including by, among other things, (i) not offering any financial products that are “contingent on any tips the consumer chooses to make or does not make”; (ii) complying with TILA by limiting annual percentage rates on advanced funds to 36 percent; (iii) disclosing to consumers any potential fees that may be assessed prior to advancing the funds; (iv) limiting the amount of funds advanced to a consumer to no more than 50 percent of the consumer’s next paycheck; and (v) allowing consumers to revoke EFT authorization up to three days before a scheduled repayment date.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, last November the CFPB issued an advisory opinion on EWA products, which clarified that “a Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of ‘credit’” under Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The Bureau noted that the “totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau would generally consider to be credit.”
CFPB obtains $15 million judgment against student financial aid operation
On January 21, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting in part and denying in part the CFPB’s motion for partial summary judgment and granting the agency’s motion for default judgment in a 2015 case against a now defunct California-based student financial aid operation and its owner (defendants). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the defendants allegedly engaged in deceptive practices when they, among other things, represented that by paying a fee and sending in an application, consumers were applying for financial aid or the defendants would apply for aid on behalf the students. However, according to the Bureau, the consumers did not receive the promised services in exchange for their payment. The case was stayed in 2016 while the owner defendant faced a pending criminal investigation, until the court lifted the stay in 2019 after finding the possibility of the civil proceedings affecting the owner defendant’s ability to defend himself in the criminal proceeding “speculative and unripe.”
In issuing the order, the court determined, among other things, that the Bureau had established the owner defendant’s liability for deceptive practices under the CFPA, rejecting the owner defendant’s argument that booklets sent to consumers did not qualify as a “consumer financial product or service” within the scope of the Bureau’s enforcement authority. The court further ruled that the owner defendant had made material representations to consumers that were “likely to mislead” them into thinking, among other things, that they would receive individually tailored products, when in reality their individual information never mattered and no specific financial aid advice was ever provided. However, the court denied the CFPB’s motion for summary judgment with respect to solicitation packets sent by the defendants in 2016, ruling that an included FAQ creates “a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether the 2016 solicitation packets misrepresented that [the company’s] program permitted consumers to apply for financial aid or to apply through [the company].”
The order requires the defendants to pay a $10 million civil money penalty and more than $4.7 million in restitution. The court will also issue an injunction to prevent the defendants “from committing any future fraud” once the Bureau submits a proposed order. Additionally, default judgment was entered against the defendants on the merits of the Bureau’s claims, which included allegations that the defendants failed to provide privacy notices to consumers as required by Regulation P.
Court revives RESPA kickback suit
On January 26, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and relief stemming from a 2020 dismissal order, which previously dismissed RESPA claims in a kickback suit. The case originally alleged a mortgage lender entered into an arrangement with a settlement service company to trade referrals for kickbacks, which resulted in the plaintiffs being overcharged for their settlement services. In 2020, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the alleged payments fell under RESPA’s safe harbor provision permitting compensation to be paid for services performed. In re-opening the case, the court acknowledged that the dismissal of the case was premised on two “clear” errors with respect to RESPA’s safe harbor provision. First, the court noted that it previously misconstrued that the settlement service company was the recipient of the alleged kickbacks, when in actuality, the lender received the kickbacks. Second, the court determined that the plaintiffs were correct in asserting that the court failed to consider allegations in their amended complaint that the lender did not render any services to the settlement service company to warrant the payments it received. The court concluded it had made an error by “concluding that the alleged kickback payments were protected under RESPA’s safe harbor provision.” The court also revived the plaintiffs’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims after determining they were plausibly pled.
OFAC amends communist Chinese military companies general license and related FAQs
On January 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 1A, “Authorizing Transactions Involving Securities of Certain Communist Chinese Military Companies,” which supersedes and replaces GL 1 (covered by InfoBytes here). GL 1A permits transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13959 involving “publicly traded securities, or any securities that are derivative of, or are designed to provide investment exposure to such securities, of any entity whose name closely matches, but does not exactly match, the name of a Communist Chinese Military Companies List as defined by section 4(a) of E.O. 13959, as amended.” OFAC also published related frequently asked questions 878 and 879, the latter of which clarifies that GL 1A does not authorize transactions with subsidiaries of companies on the Communist Chinese Military Companies List.
DFPI: Certain bitcoin ATMs/kiosks not subject to MTA licensure
Recently, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to bitcoin automated teller machines (ATMs) and kiosks. The letter explains that the sale and purchase of bitcoin through ATMs/kiosks in third-party retail locations described by the applicant company are not subject to licensure under the MTA because the sale and purchase of bitcoin from the company’s own inventory through a kiosk does not meet California’s definition of “money transmission.” In each instance, the transaction would only be between the consumer using the ATM/kiosk and the company, the bitcoin would be sent directly to the customer’s virtual currency wallet, and any bitcoin sold would be provided exclusively from the company’s own inventory. DFPI reminded the company that its determination is limited to the activities specified in the letter and does not extend to any other activities that the company may engage in. Moreover, the letter does not relieve the company from any FinCEN, federal, or state regulatory obligations.
SBA issues Covid-19 guidance for various loans
On January 28, the Small Business Association (SBA) issued an information notice providing an update on the tax treatment of payments related to certain 7(a) loans, 504 loans, and microloans under Section 1112 of the CARES Act. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2020, the SBA released a guidance document covering the issuances of 1099-MISC forms for 7(a) loans, 504 loans, and microloans. However, due to Section 278(c) of the Covid-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, the SBA now states that lenders “are no longer required to file Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, with the IRS or furnish this form to the small businesses on whose behalf the SBA made Section 1112 payments.” Moreover, the SBA issued procedural notices covering the use of electronic signatures for 7(a) loans and 504 loans and microloans through April 30. Additionally, the SBA issued an extension on the temporary procedures for microloan closings through April 30.
Maryland regulator extends foreclosure restrictions
On January 28, the Maryland commissioner of financial regulation issued guidance that extends the “re-start date” for the initiation of residential foreclosures to March 1, 2021. The guidance is issued pursuant to the Maryland governor’s executive order 20-12-17-02, which amended and restated previous executive orders covered here, and here.