InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
5th Circuit rules against SEC’s use of ALJs
On May 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of a petitioners’ case violated their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and relied on unconstitutionally delegated legislative power. The appellate court further determined that SEC administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutionally shielded from removal. In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit vacated the SEC’s judgment against a hedge fund manager and his investment company arising from a case, which accused petitioners of fraud under the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Advisers Act in connection with two hedge funds that held roughly $24 million in assets. According to the SEC, the petitioners had, among other things, inflated the funds’ assets to increase the fees they collected from investors. Petitioners sued in federal court, arguing that the SEC’s proceedings “infringed on various constitutional rights,” but the federal courts refused to issue an injunction claiming they lacked jurisdiction and that petitioners had to continue with the agency’s proceedings. While petitioners’ sought review by the SEC, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Lucia v. SEC, which held that SEC ALJs are “inferior officers” subject to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (covered by InfoBytes here). Following the decision, the SEC assigned petitioners’ proceeding to an ALJ who was properly appointed, “but petitioners chose to waive their right to a new hearing and continued under their original petition to the Commission.” The SEC eventually affirmed findings of liability against the petitioners, and ordered the petitioners to cease and desist from committing further violations and to pay a $300,000 civil penalty. The investment company was also ordered to pay nearly $685,000 in ill-gotten gains, while the hedge fund manager was barred from various securities industry activities.
In vacating the SEC’s judgment, the appellate court determined that the SEC had deprived petitioners of their right to a jury trial by bringing its action in an “administrative forum” instead of filing suit in federal court. While the SEC challenged “that the legal interests at issue in this case vindicate distinctly public rights” and therefore are “appropriately allowed” to be brought in agency proceedings without a jury, the appellate court countered that the SEC’s enforcement action was “akin to traditional actions at law to which the jury-trial right attaches.” Moreover, the 5th Circuit noted that while “the SEC agrees that Congress has given it exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to bring securities fraud enforcement actions within the agency instead of in an Article III court[,] Congress has said nothing at all indicating how the SEC should make that call in any given case.” As such, the 5th Circuit opined that this “total absence of guidance is impermissible under the Constitution.”
Additionally, the 5th Circuit raised concerns about the statutory removal restrictions for SEC ALJs who can only be removed for “good cause” by SEC commissioners (who are removable only for good cause by the president). “Simply put, if the President wanted an SEC ALJ to be removed, at least two layers of for-cause protection stand in the President’s way,” the appellate court concluded. “Thus, SEC ALJs are sufficiently insulated from removal that the President cannot take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The statutory removal restrictions are unconstitutional.”
The dissenting judge disagreed with all three of the majority’s constitutional conclusions, contending that the majority, among other things, misread the Supreme Court’s decisions as to what are and are not “public rights,” and that “Congress’s decision to give prosecutorial authority to the SEC to choose between an Article III court and an administrative proceeding for its enforcement actions does not violate the nondelegation doctrine.” The judge further stated that while the Supreme Court determined in Lucia that ALJs are “inferior officers” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause in Article II, it “expressly declined to decide whether multiple layers of statutory removal restrictions on SEC ALJs violate Article II.” Consequently, the judge concluded that he found “no constitutional violations or any other errors with the administrative proceedings below.”
CFPB affirms states may enforce CFPA and other federal laws
On May 19, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule addressing states’ authority to bring enforcement actions for violations of federal consumer financial protection laws, including the CFPA. Though the Bureau is charged with, among other things, administering, interpreting, and enforcing federal consumer financial laws, a category that includes the CFPA itself, the agency said it is not the only enforcer of these laws. According to the interpretive rule, “states can enforce [federal consumer financial laws] to the full extent authorized under those laws—including against entities that are not covered persons or service providers (and thus not subject to liability under section 1036(a)(1)(A)) and including against national banks and Federal savings associations.”
The interpretive rule establishes:
- States can enforce any provision of the CFPA, which includes making it unlawful for covered persons or service providers to violate any provision of federal consumer financial protection law. This provision covers the CFPA itself, in addition to its 18 enumerated consumer laws and certain other laws, along with any rule or order prescribed by the Bureau under the CFPA, an enumerated consumer law, or pursuant to certain other authorities.
- States can pursue claims and actions against a broad range of entities. The interpretive rule states that “the limitations on the Bureau’s authority in sections 1027 and 1029 generally do not constrain States’ enforcement authority.” States can bring actions against a broader cross-section of companies and individuals.
- States may pursue actions under section 1042 even if the Bureau is pursuing a concurrent enforcement action against the same entity. States are not restricted from bringing enforcement actions in coordination with the Bureau, and may also bring an enforcement action to stop or remediate harm that is not addressed by an action taken by the Bureau against the same entity. “Nothing in the [CFPA] precludes these complementary enforcement activities that serve to protect consumers at both the national and state levels,” the Bureau said in its announcement.
The Bureau stated the interpretive rule is a “part of the CFPB’s expansion of its efforts to support state enforcement activity,” and noted that it “plans to consider other steps to promote state enforcement of federal consumer financial protection law, including ways to facilitate victim redress.”
CFPB seeks consistent enforcement of consumer financial law
On May 16, the CFPB launched a new system for providing transparent guidance on how the agency intends to administer and enforce federal consumer financial laws. Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2022-01 discusses the broad variety of agencies responsible for enforcing federal consumer financial law, including the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, and 18 other “enumerated consumer laws” (some of which provide for private enforcement). The circulars will serve as policy statements under the Administrative Procedure Act for other agencies with consumer financial protection responsibilities such as the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and NCUA. Because other federal agencies, including the DOJ, the FTC, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Departments of Transportation and Agriculture, also have certain enforcement responsibilities, the Bureau stressed the importance of ensuring entities subject to the jurisdiction of multiple agencies receive consistent expectations regardless of a company’s status. Specifically, the circulars “will provide background information about applicable law, articulate considerations relevant to the CFPB’s exercise of its authorities, and advise other parties with authority to enforce federal consumer financial law.” The Bureau announced it has identified several issues that would benefit from clear and consistent enforcement and strongly encouraged other agencies to reach out to the Bureau with suggestions for new circulars. Circulars will be authorized by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and published on the Bureau’s website and in the Federal Register. The Bureau also welcomes feedback on any issued circulars.
Arizona obtains $1.6 million in restitution from debt collection operation
On May 10, the Arizona attorney general announced it filed a stipulated consent judgment in the Superior Court of Arizona against a defendant, the owner and manager of a debt collection operation. The AG’s original action was part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collection”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
According to the AG’s press release announcing the consent judgment, the defendant’s debt collection operation allegedly called consumers and made false claims and threats to convince people to pay debts the operation had no authority to collect. The complaint contended that employees frequently used spoofing software to reinforce claims that they were law enforcement officers, government officials, process servers, and law firm personnel to intimidate consumers into paying the alleged debts, and told consumers to immediately respond or be held in contempt of court. Employees also allegedly threatened to file lawsuits, garnish wages and tax returns, place liens on homes and car titles, freeze bank accounts, send law enforcement to consumers’ homes and/or places of employment, and arrest consumers.
Under the terms of the consent judgment, the defendant is required to pay more than $1.6 million in consumer restitution and up to $900,000 in civil penalties, and is permanently enjoined, restrained and prohibited from participating in the debt collection industry. Court approval of the stipulated judgment is pending.
FTC temporarily halts unlawful credit repair operation
On May 6, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a temporary restraining order against a credit repair operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation violated the FTC Act, the CROA, and the TSR by, among other things; (i) making misrepresentations regarding credit repair services; (ii) making misrepresentations regarding a money-making opportunity associated with a government benefit related to Covid-19; (iii) making untrue or misleading representations to consumers, which included increasing their credit score; (vi) charging for the performance of credit repair services that the defendants agreed to perform prior to such services being fully performed; (v) making untrue or misleading statements with respect to their sales pitch on credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity to consumer reporting agencies, creditors, and potential creditors; and (vi) charging illegal advance fees. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking a permanent injunction, the appointment of a receiver, immediate access to business premises, an asset freeze, and other equitable relief.
CFPB delivers 2021 fair lending report to Congress
On May 6, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress, which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2021 to fulfill its fair lending mandate. Much of the Bureau’s work in 2021 focused on addressing racial injustice and long-term economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the report, the Bureau continued to prioritize promoting fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, with a particular focus on fair lending supervision efforts in areas related to “mortgage origination and pricing, small business lending, student loan origination work, policies and procedures regarding geographic and other exclusions in underwriting, and [] the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning models.” Fair Lending Director Patrice Alexander Ficklin said that while she is “encouraged by the possibility of utilizing vehicles like special purpose credit programs to expand access to credit,” she remains “skeptical of claims that advanced algorithms are the cure-all for bias in credit underwriting and pricing.” The report addressed enforcement and supervision work, highlighting four fair lending-related enforcement actions taken last year related to (i) illegal redlining practices; (ii) failure to provide accurate denial reasons on adverse-action notices; (iii) UDAAP violations related to the treatment of “gate money” for incarcerated individuals; and (iv) fees and payments associated with immigration bonds. The report also discussed initiatives concerning small business lending and data collection rulemaking, automated valuation models rulemaking, and a final rule amending certain provisions in Regulation X related to Covid-19 protections offered by mortgage servicers. Additionally, the report discussed an interpretive rule concerning ECOA’s prohibition on sex discrimination, stakeholder engagement on matters concerning fair lending compliance and policy decisions, HMDA reporting, and interagency engagement and reporting, among other topics. The report noted that going forward, the Bureau intends to sharpen its focus on digital redlining and algorithmic bias to identify emerging risks as more tech companies influence the financial services marketplace. According to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, “[w]hile technology holds great promise, it can also reinforce historical biases that have excluded too many Americans from opportunities.”
National retailers must pay $5.5 million to resolve deceptive product representation
On May 10, the DOJ announced that two national retailers agreed to pay a $2.5 million and a $3 million civil penalty (see here and here) to resolve allegations that they engaged in false labeling and marketing tactics by presenting rayon textile products as bamboo. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DOJ on behalf of the FTC, filed complaints (see here and here) against the defendants, which alleged that since at least 2015, the companies made false or unsubstantiated representations in violation of the FTC Act by improperly labeling and marketing textile fiber products as “made of bamboo” in both product titles and descriptions. In addition to paying the civil money penalties, the defendants are prohibited from making deceptive claims, including false and/or unsubstantiated claims, relating to bamboo fiber products, and are prohibited from engaging in future violations of the FTC Act, Textile Act and Textile Rules.
SEC awards whistleblowers $3.5 million
On May 6, the SEC announced awards totaling nearly $3.5 million to four whistleblowers whose information and assistance led to successful SEC enforcement actions. According to the redacted order, three joint whistleblowers provided SEC staff with information that led to the opening of a new investigation, which resulted in a successful enforcement action. These joint whistleblowers’ information also caused another agency to open an investigation and led to a separate successful action. Another whistleblower provided insights based on an independent analysis of information that focused the staff’s attention on allegations that were not previously known to staff that advanced the investigation. The SEC has awarded approximately $1.3 billion to 273 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012.
CFPB fines bank $10 million over garnishment practices
On May 4, the CFPB announced a consent order against a national bank for allegedly engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA by processing out-of-state garnishment orders against its customers’ bank accounts. According to the consent order, since August 2011, the respondent allegedly garnished approximately 3,700 out-of-state accounts. Customers whose accounts were garnished paid at least $592,000 in garnishment fees, the CFPB contended. The respondent allegedly, among other things, misrepresented to customers that their rights to have certain funds exempted from garnishment were governed by the law of the issuing court’s state when, actually, in most states, customers’ own state laws applied. The respondent also allegedly unfairly required customers to “direct” it not to contest garnishment orders and to waive the bank’s liability for its actions regarding the out-of-state garnishment orders, which prevented customers from pursuing legal claims against the respondent for improperly handling garnishment notices. Additionally, the respondent allegedly deceptively represented to customers that since they signed a deposit agreement that included broad language directing respondent not to contest the legal process, customers waived their right to hold the respondent liable for improperly responding to garnishment notices. Under the terms of the consent order, the respondent must, among other things: (i) refund $592,000 in garnishment-related fees to harmed customers; (ii) establish a compliance plan designed to ensure that its garnishment-related conduct pertaining to out-of-state garnishment notices and state exemptions complies with all applicable federal consumer financial laws; (iii) cease communicating to customers that they have purportedly waived any rights regarding garnishment notices as a result of entering into respondent’s deposit agreement; and (iv) pay a $10 million civil penalty to the Bureau.
Remittance provider denies CFPB allegations
On May 2, a global payments provider recently sued by the New York attorney general and the CFPB responded to allegations claiming the “repeat offender” violated numerous federal and state consumer financial protection laws in its handling of remittance transfers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint claimed the defendant, among other things, (i) violated the Remittance Rule requirements by repeatedly failing “to provide fund availability dates that were accurate, when the Rule required such accuracy”; (ii) “repeatedly ignored the Rule’s error-resolution requirements when addressing notices of error from consumers in New York, including in this district, and elsewhere;” and (iii) failed to establish policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with money-transferring laws, in violation of Regulation E. The complaint further asserted that the defendant violated the CFPA “by failing to make remittance transfers timely available to designated recipients or to make refunds timely available to senders,” and that the defendant failed to adopt and implement a comprehensive fraud prevention program mandated by a 2009 FTC order for permanent injunction (covered by InfoBytes here).
The defendant refuted the charges, calling the allegations “false, inflammatory and misleading.” According to the defendant, “before the CFPB filed its lawsuit against the Company on April 21, 2022, [it] had never before been subject to any enforcement action by the CFPB, nor had [it] ever been publicly accused of violating any of the laws or regulations under the CFPB’s purview.” The defendant also took issue with the Bureau’s suggestion that it had “uncovered widespread and systemic issues involving ‘substantial’ consumer harm,” contending that “data from the CFPB’s own consumer complaint portal strongly suggest otherwise. For example, a search of the CFPB’s Consumer Complaint Database shows that in the nine years that the Remittance Rule has been in place, only 351 complaints were made to the CFPB against [the defendant] for failing to deliver money when promised. These complaints represent 0.0001% of the over 325 million transactions subject to the Remittance Rule that [the defendant] processed during that time period. In New York, the total number of complaints in the CFPB Database for that time period was 28, approximately three per year. There have simply never been widespread or systemic violations by [the defendant] of the Remittance Rule.”