InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Nationwide Class Certified in Overdraft Litigation
On May 16, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida certified a nationwide class of plaintiffs alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection statutes with regard to the overdraft practices of a national bank. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036, slip op. (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that the bank created a scheme in which it manipulated debit card transactions to increase the number of overdraft fees charged to customers by re-ordering daily transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, resulting in a higher number of individual overdraft transactions. After a year of class discovery, the court held that the class meets the four prerequisites for certification under Rule 23(a)–numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The defendant argued that the claims made by the plaintiffs were similar to questions raised in the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), where the Court rejected class certification in an employment discrimination suit due to insufficient commonality. The district court disagreed, holding that because the plaintiffs all were subject to the same uniform corporate policy, the reason why each class member was harmed is not at issue, as it was in Dukes. Other bank defendants have faced and continue to face similar allegations in several other suits, including some that have been consolidated with the above action. Several of those defendants have settled, including most recently a $62 million agreement announced on May 11, 2012.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Finds that "Dunning" Notice Enforcing a Security Interest May Give Rise to FDCPA Claim
On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a lower court’s dismissal of an FDCPA claim, finding that the contents of a “dunning” notice from the lender’s foreclosing law firm constitutes an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA. Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Rattertree & Adams, LLP, No. 10-14366, 2012 WL 1500108 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012). The borrowers received a letter and documents from the lender’s law firm demanding payment of the debt on the borrowers’ defaulted mortgage loan and threatening to foreclose on their home if they did not pay the outstanding debt. The borrowers filed a class action lawsuit against the law firm alleging that the communication violated the FDCPA. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the FDCPA. On appeal, the court held that the borrowers’ obligation to pay off the promissory note, which the court distinguished from a security interest, represents a debt under the FDCPA. The court then rejected the law firm’s argument that the purpose of the letter and accompanying documents was not to collect a debt, but rather to inform the borrowers of the lender’s intent to enforce its security interest through possible foreclosure. The court determined that the documents at issue, which contained disclaimers such as “This law firm is acting as a debt collector attempting to collect a debt,” had a dual purpose of providing notice of foreclosure and collecting a debt. In so holding, the court noted that following the law firm’s reasoning would create a giant loophole in the FDCPA wherein the law only would apply to efforts to collect on unsecured debt and would permit collectors to “harass or mislead [secured] debtors without violating the FDCPA.”
Spotlight on Auto Finance (Part 2 of 3): New Database to Combat Fraud Against Military and Veterans
The federal government is increasing scrutiny of financial services companies practices affecting active military members, veterans and their families. Earlier this year, the CFPB along with the FTC, the Department of Defense and the New York Attorney General announced the launch of the Repeat Offenders Against Military (ROAM) database, which will track enforcement actions against companies and individuals who repeatedly scam military personnel, veterans and their families. According to John Redding, Counsel in BuckleySandlers Southern California office, this new effort is an important development that the financial services industry needs to be aware of. He says the firm has been advising clients on how to refine their policies and procedures for doing business with servicemembers and their families. "We are suggesting they be aware of the increased focus on SCRA [Servicemembers Civil Relief Act] issues and, in part because of the new database and other efforts surrounding increased protections, need to review their practices to ensure continued compliance." According to the CFPB, law enforcement officials across the country, including state attorneys general, US attorneys, and judge advocates from all five branches of the armed forces, will be able to search the ROAM database for information about completed civil and criminal actions against businesses that have scammed military personnel, veterans, and their families.
FTC, CFPB, DOJ File Brief in Suit Challenging FCRA Constitutionality
On May 8, the FTC announced that it had joined the CFPB and the DOJ to file a brief supporting the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The brief was filed in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which a consumer alleged that a consumer reporting agency (CRA) violated FCRA by reporting on arrest records that were more than seven years’ old. Responding to these allegations, the CRA argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sorell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), rendered FCRA’s seven-year limitation unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The federal entities’ brief counters that Sorell does not alter the test for commercial speech restrictions established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). It goes on to argue that, under this test, the government has a substantial interest in protecting individuals’ privacy and that FCRA protects this interest while accommodating businesses’ competing interest in obtaining complete information about potential borrowers.
FTC Affirms Holder in Due Course Rule
On May 10, the FTC released an advisory opinion affirming that the Holder in Due Course Rule does not limit or preclude a consumers right to recovery other than to restrict awards to monies paid under a contract. The opinion was prepared in response to a request by consumer groups concerned by court decisions, beginning with Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morgan, 536 N.E.2d 587 (Mass. 1989), that had limited recovery under the Rule to cases in which the consumer is entitled to rescission or similar relief under state law. Noting that such courts have misinterpreted the Rules Statement of Basis and Purpose, the advisory opinion states that the plain language of the Rule is clear and does not limit affirmative recovery to those circumstances where rescission is warranted or where the goods or services sold to the consumer are worthless.
FinCEN Extends Proposed Customer Due Diligence Program Comment Period, Issues Electronic Filing Reminder
On May 4, FinCEN extended the comment period for its proposal to establish a customer due diligence regulation that would require covered financial institutions to institute defined programs to identify the real or beneficial owners of customer accounts. The proposed regulation is designed to enhance federal anti-money laundering and counterterrorism efforts. Interested parties will have an additional thirty days to comment from the time the extension is published in the Federal Register. On May 7, FinCEN reminded financial institutions subject to the Bank Secrecy Act that certain BSA-required filings must be filed electronically beginning July 1, 2012.
State Law Update: Oklahoma, Georgia, New York
Oklahoma Updates Uniform Consumer Credit Code. On May 1, Oklahoma enacted House Bill 2742, which amends the state’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code. The bill increases the dollar threshold for transactions exempt from the Code from $45,000 to $50,000 and requires that the threshold be adjusted annually henceforth. With regard to mortgages particularly, the bill (i) expands the language required to be included in the disclosure statement, (ii) requires that the creditor mail the disclosure statement at least seven business days before the transaction, and (iii) requires the creditor to send a new statement at least three days before closing if the interest rate changes. It further requires that (i) a consumer cannot be charged any fee prior to receipt of the statement, except for a fee to obtain a credit report; and (ii) a consumer can waive the disclosure statement timing requirements. The law also increases the penalties for violations of the mortgage disclosure statement or right to rescind rules and requires that, within 30 days of the sale or transfer of a mortgage loan, the new creditor must notify the borrower that the loan has been transferred and provide contact and other relevant information.
Georgia Enacts Mortgage-Related Bills. On May 1, Georgia enacted two mortgage-related bills. House Bill 110 permits local jurisdictions to create vacant and foreclosed property registries and establishes uniform requirements for such registries. The law takes effect July 1, 2012. House Bill 237 expands the state’s mortgage fraud law to cover the foreclosure process.
New York Extends Temporary Mortgage Servicer Rules. On May 2, the New York Department of Financial Services published an extension of its emergency rules to implement the 2008 Mortgage Lending Reform Law. The rules will remain in effect through July 11, 2012, unless further extended or permanently adopted.
Spotlight on Auto Finance (Part One of Three): A New Road for Auto Finance Companies
Traditionally, non-bank lenders looked to the states and the FTC for industry regulations. But, this has changed with the introduction of the CFPB. Recent reports show that the federal government is stepping up efforts to regulate and review auto finance companies, many of whom have never been subject to bank-style examinations.
“The CFPB has created a new layer of regulation,” according to John Redding, Counsel in the Southern California office of BuckleySandler. “Auto lenders have to be alert and aware of their fair and responsible lending risks.”
Redding says one of the ways to minimize these risks is to be proactive when reviewing a company’s policies, procedures, discretionary underwriting and pricing practices. The CFPB is likely to conduct statistical reviews for loans that the company has made or purchased to ensure there is no unexplained or improper disparity between protected and non-protected classes , so companies should consider performing such analyses in advance of the regulator conducting such an analysis.
“This will help mitigate risks for the companies by identifying areas that may present risk and allowing them to proactively take steps to modify policies and practices. When the regulators are conducting an exam, companies will have to explain why the business is conducted as it is, including steps taken to ensure fair and responsible lending to all consumers, regardless of status, and address any issues that may arise,” says Redding.
The bottom line: Recognize that there are new regulators and more scrutiny on the industry and begin taking steps to perform these important reviews now.
Redding suggests the following steps auto finance companies can take to prepare for the CFPB:
- Evaluate the institution’s risk profile and prepare an operations and compliance strategy
- Update policies and procedures (review CFPB exam guidelines)
- Monitor, address, and retain records regarding consumer complaints
- Monitor third-party sources of complaints
- Appoint an ombudsman
- Conduct internal audits
- Consider patterns and practices that emerge regarding operations
- Focus on areas that may lead to consumer harm, as well as technical violations
- Include the compliance team to monitor, analyze and advise on specific proposals
Lawmakers Request CFPB Budget Details
On May 2, Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to CPFB Director Cordray following up on their initial request and the CFPB’s response, seeking additional details regarding the CFPB’s budget and plans. Although Congress does not appropriate funds to the CFPB, the members argue that the CFPB still must provide the committee with detailed budget information. The CFPB, according to the letter, cannot act as other non-appropriated federal banking regulators because the CFPB budget impacts the national debt while the others do not. In an attempt to exercise some oversight over CFPB spending, the members seek (i) a financial operating plan for the agency; (ii) a detailed fiscal year 2013 budget justification, (iii) performance measures, (iv) a commitment to notify Congress prior to seeking funds from the Federal Reserve Board, (v) information about the CFPB headquarters design and renovation, and (vi) the process for determining employment needs.
CFPB Announces Director of Diversity Office, Outlines Planned Activities
On April 30, the CFPB announced that Stuart Ishimaru will lead its Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. A former Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, Mr. Ishimaru will lead an office that plans to (i) develop standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of CFPB-regulated entities, (ii) provide advice on the impact of CFPB policies and regulations on minority and women-owned businesses, (iii) coordinate with the Director to create and implement solutions to civil rights violations, and (iv) develop and implement standards of equal employment for the CFPB. In announcing Mr. Ishimarus hiring, Director Cordray stated that the financial industry has not traditionally reflected all of its customers and the new office will work with banks and nonbanks to develop systems that encourage diversity.