InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
States urge Department of Education to protect student loan borrowers
On March 9, NYDFS sent a letter on behalf of a multi-state coalition of financial regulators inviting recently confirmed Department of Education Secretary Dr. Miguel Cardona to partner with the states to ensure protections for student loan borrowers. Specifically, the letter urges Secretary Cardona to reverse two policies instituted by former Secretary Betsy DeVos that the coalition claims “undermine state supervision of private companies that service federal student loans.” The first is a 2018 interpretation (covered by InfoBytes here), which takes the position that state regulation of servicers of loans made under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education Loan Program is preempted by federal law. The coalition argues that the Department’s 2018 preemption interpretation has made “state-level oversight of student loan servicers more burdensome.” As such, the coalition urges Secretary Cardona to promulgate a regulation rejecting federal preemption of state consumer protection laws to ensure borrowers can “benefit from state oversight of student loan servicers.” The letter also discusses former Secretary DeVos’s attempt to use the Privacy Act of 1974 “as a shield from necessary state oversight”—an action the coalition claims leaves states “with no choice but litigation” to obtain documents needed for industry oversight.
Court grants interlocutory appeal in CFPB student loan servicing action
On February 26, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted a student loan servicer’s request for interlocutory appeal as to whether questions concerning the CFPB’s constitutionality stopped the clock on claims that it allegedly misled borrowers. The court’s order pauses a 2017 lawsuit in which the Bureau claimed the servicer violated the CFPA, FCRA, and FDCPA by allegedly creating obstacles for borrower repayment options (covered by InfoBytes here), and grants the servicer’s request to certify a January 13 ruling. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the servicer argued that the Supreme Court’s finding in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (covered by a Buckley Special Alert—which held that that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the CFPB)—meant that the Bureau “never had constitutional authority to bring this action and that the filing of [the] lawsuit was unauthorized and unlawful.” The servicer also claimed that the statute of limitations governing the CFPB’s claims prior to the decision in Seila had expired, arguing that Director Kathy Kraninger’s July 2020 ratification came too late. The court disagreed, ruling, among other things, that “[n]othing in Seila indicates that the Supreme Court intended that its holding should result in a finding that this lawsuit is void ab initio.”
The court’s order sends the ruling to the 3rd Circuit to review “[w]hether an act of ratification, performed after the statute of limitations has expired, is subject to equitable tolling, so as to permit the valid ratification of the original action which was filed within the statute of limitations but which was filed at a time when the structure of the federal agency was unconstitutional and where the legal determination of the presence of the structural defect came after the expiration of the statute of limitations.” Specifically, the court explained that this particular “question does not appear to have been addressed by any court in the United States. . . .Not only is there a lack of conflicting precedent, there is no supporting precedent; indeed, no party has identified any comparable precedent.” Further, “[i]f this court erred in applying the doctrine of equitable tolling, it would almost certainly lead to a reversal on appeal and dismissal of this action,” the court noted.
Massachusetts AG settles with federal loan servicer to resolve allegations of unfair and deceptive practices
On February 10, the Massachusetts attorney general announced a “first-of-its-kind” settlement with one of the nation’s largest federal student loan servicers, resolving allegations that the servicer engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by overcharging borrowers and improperly processing claims for public service loan forgiveness. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the AG filed a complaint in 2017 claiming the servicer, among other things, (i) failed to timely and properly process applications for income driven repayment (IDR) plans, thereby denying borrowers the opportunity to make qualifying payments under forgiveness programs; (ii) failed to properly count qualifying payments under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program; (iii) failed to properly process certification forms in connection with the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grant program, causing grants to be converted into loans; and (iv) collected amounts not legitimately due and owing and failing to refund them.
Under the terms of the settlement, more than 200,000 Massachusetts borrowers will be able to submit a claim for a detailed audit. Should the audit identify a servicing error or misrepresentation, the servicer must “restore borrowers to their rightful statuses” under the federal loan forgiveness programs; however, if corrections cannot be made, the servicer is required to provide monetary relief to borrowers. The servicer is also is required to repay teachers whose grants were converted into loans erroneously and have not already received relief from the Department of Education, and make corrections for borrowers who experienced IDR application processing delays resulting in missed opportunities for making qualifying payments towards loan forgiveness. Further, the servicer must implement an enhanced quality assurance review practice to identify servicing errors, affected borrowers, as well as root causes for the errors.
DFPI issues first enforcement action against student debt-relief company
On February 3, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced the first-ever enforcement action under its new structure against a student loan debt-relief company and an investigation into others. According to the order, DFPI alleges, among other things, that an Irvine-based debt-relief company violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) by charging consumers fees ranging from $2,100 to $26,510 to “‘wipe away’ their student loans by getting them ‘dismissed’ or ‘discharged,’” which the company could not achieve. Moreover, consumers often financed the payment of the company’s fees, resulting in more debt and the company refused to issue refunds when requested by some consumers. DFPI alleges the company’s actions constitute unlawful and deceptive practices under the CCFPL and violated the TSR’s prohibition of charging fees before performing services. Lastly, DFPI alleges the company was required to obtain a license under the state’s Student Loan Servicing Act (SLSA) because its actions constitute “servicing” student loans under the statute. The order requires the company to refund the fees collected from 18 consumers by March 15 and to pay a civil penalty of $45,000.
DFPI also announced it issued subpoenas to four other student loan debt-relief companies to determine whether the companies engage in or have engaged in any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices and whether their activities require a license. Responses to the subpoenas are due in March.
New York continues to postpone collection on certain debts
On February 1, the attorney general of New York announced an extension of its previous order to halt the collection efforts on certain debts through February 28, 2021. Consumers with student loan debt and medical debt owed to the state will receive an additional 28-day hiatus on payments including a freeze on the accrual of interest on the debts—in order to allow them to deal with the effects of Covid-19. Specifically, the moratorium on collection applies to: (i) “[p]atients that owe medical debt due to the five state hospitals and the five state veterans' home[s]”; (ii) “[s]tudents that owe student debt due to State University of New York (SUNY) campuses”; and (iii) “[i]ndividual debtors, sole-proprietors, small business owners, and certain homeowners that owe debt relating to oil spill cleanup and removal costs, property damage, and breach of contract, as well as other fees owed to state agencies.” New Yorkers who have other types of debt that are owed to the state and who are referred to the Office of the Attorney General may apply for a temporary freeze on collection by submitting an application which can be found here.
Illinois regulator releases educational one pager on Covid-19 relief
In January, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued a one-pager setting forth eviction, mortgage, and student loan information for consumers. The flyer addresses the eviction moratorium, forbearance of mortgage payments, and student loan borrower relief.
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.
CFPB issues Covid-19 supervisory highlights
On January 19, the CFPB released a special edition of Supervisory Highlights detailing the agency’s Covid-19 prioritized assessment (PA) observations. Since May 2020, the Bureau has conducted PAs in response to the pandemic in order to obtain real-time information from supervised entities operating in markets that pose an elevated risk of pandemic-related consumer harm. According to the Bureau, the PAs are not designed to identify federal consumer financial law violations, but are intended to spot and assess risks in order to prevent consumer harm. Targeted information requests were sent to entities seeking information on, among other things, ways entities are assisting and communicating with consumers, Covid-19-related institutional challenges, compliance management system changes made in response to the pandemic, and service provider data. Highlights of the Bureau’s findings include:
- Mortgage servicing. The CARES Act established certain forbearance protections for homeowners. The Bureau pointed out that many servicers faced significant challenges, including operational constraints, resource burdens, and service interruptions. Consumer risks were also present, with several servicers (i) providing incomplete or inaccurate information regarding CARES Act forbearances, failing to timely process forbearance requests, or enrolling borrowers in unwanted or automatic forbearances; (ii) sending collection and default notices, assessing late fees, and initiating foreclosures for borrowers in forbearance; (iii) inaccurately handling borrowers’ preauthorized electronic funds transfers; and (iv) failing to take appropriate loss mitigation steps.
- Auto loan servicing. The Bureau noted that many auto loan servicers provided insufficient information to borrowers about the impact of interest accrual during deferment periods, while other servicers continued to withdraw funds for monthly payments even after agreeing to deferments. Additionally, certain borrowers received repossession notices even though servicers had suspended repossession operations during this time.
- Student loan servicing. The CARES Act established protections for certain student loan borrowers, including reduced interest rates and suspended monthly payments for most federal loans owned by the Department of Education. Many private student loan holders also offered payment relief options. The Bureau noted however that servicers faced significant challenges in implementing these protections. For certain servicers, these challenges led to issues which raised the risk of consumer harm, including (i) provision of incorrect or incomplete payment relief options; (ii) failing to maintain regular call center hours; (iii) failing to respond to forbearance extension requests; and (iv) allowing certain payment allocation errors and preauthorized electronic funds transfers.
- Small business lending. The Bureau discussed the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), noting that when “implementing the PPP, multiple lenders adopted a policy that restricted access to PPP loans beyond the eligibility requirements of the CARES Act and rules and orders issued by the SBA.” The Bureau encouraged lenders to consider and address any fair lending risks associated with PPP lending.
The Supervisory Highlights also examined areas related to credit card accounts, consumer reporting and furnishing, debt collection, deposits, prepaid accounts, and small business lending.
Massachusetts establishes student loan servicer licensing provisions
On January 14, the Massachusetts governor signed H. 5250, which provides new requirements for student loan servicers. Among other things, these provisions stipulate that servicers are not required to (i) be licensed as a debt collector, or (ii) be registered as a third-party loan servicer provided the servicer does not act, represent, operate, or hold itself out as a third-party loan servicer or a debt collector outside the scope of specified provisions. The bill also requires entities servicing student loans in the Commonwealth to be licensed, but exempts from the licensing requirement banks, credit unions, wholly-owned subsidiaries of banks and credit unions, and nonprofit or public institutions of higher education. H. 5250 also establishes a student loan ombudsman within the office of the attorney general who will be tasked with resolving complaints from student loan borrowers, and assisting student loan borrowers with repayment options, applying for loan discharges and forgiveness, and resolving billing disputes, among other things. Additionally, H. 5250 states that non-exempt student loan servicers must comply with all applicable state and federal regulations, and stipulates that the commissioner may conduct investigations and examinations and suspend licensure should a servicer be found to be in violation of the outlined provisions. In addition, should the commissioner determine that a servicer has committed fraud or engaged in unfair, deceptive, or dishonest actions, the commissioner may take action, including notifying the state attorney general or the student loan ombudsman, suspending or revoking the servicer’s license, and/or imposing an administrative penalty of no more than $50,000 per incident.
Court enters nearly $90 million default judgment against student debt-relief defendants
On December 15, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a default judgment and order against two companies (collectively, “default defendants”) for their role in a student loan debt-relief operation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with the Minnesota and North Carolina attorneys general, and the Los Angeles City Attorney (together, the “states”), announced an action against the student loan debt relief operation (defendants) for allegedly deceiving thousands of student-loan borrowers and charging more than $71 million in unlawful advance fees. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various state laws by charging and collecting improper advance fees from student loan borrowers prior to providing assistance and receiving payments on the adjusted loans. In addition, the complaint asserts that the defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting (i) the purpose and application of fees they charged; (ii) their ability to obtain loan forgiveness; and (iii) their ability to actually lower borrowers’ monthly payments. In September, the court entered final judgments against four of the defendants (covered by InfoBytes here), which included a suspended monetary judgment of over $95 million due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
The new default order enters a $55 million judgment against one of the defaulting defendants and requires the defaulting defendant to pay a $30 million civil money penalty with $50,000 of that sum going directly to each of the states. Additionally, the court entered a judgment of over $165,000 to the other defaulting defendant and total civil money penalties of $2.5 million, with $10,000 going to each of the states directly and an additional $1.25 million to California. The judgment also, among other things, permanently bans the defaulting defendants from telemarketing any consumer financial product or service and from selling any debt-relief service.