InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Oregon issues remote work guidance to licensed loan originators
On September 21, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services filed permanent administrative order FSR 3-2022 with the Secretary of State to allow licensed loan originators and employees to work from home. Under the order, Oregon licensed mortgage loan originators “may originate loans from a location other than from a licensed branch office if the location is the licensed mortgage loan originator’s home; the licensed mortgage loan originator is an employee of a mortgage banker or mortgage broker; and the mortgage banker or the mortgage broker complies with OAR 441-860- 0040, as applicable.” Mortgage bankers or brokers must have in place appropriate policies and procedures to supervise licensees working from home, including data security measures to protect consumers’ personal data. Additionally, licensees working from home “are prohibited from engaging in person with consumers for loan origination purposes at the home of the loan originator or employee, unless the home is licensed as a branch.” Licensees may, however, “engage with consumers for loan origination purposes at the home of the loan originator or employee by means of conference telephone or similar communications equipment that allows all persons participating in the visitation to hear each other, provided that participation is controlled and limited to those entitled to attend, and the identity of participants is determinable and reasonably verifiable.” Licensees who work from home are also prohibited from keeping any physical business records at any location other than a licensed location, and must also ensure that all origination records are available at a licensed location.
California updates mortgage licensing requirements
On September 23, the California governor signed SB 1495. The bill, among other things (i) updates requirements that the assurances required as a condition of license renewal would be that the licensee had, during the preceding 2-year period, informed themselves of those developments; (ii) expands the scope of the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program; (iii) refers to the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry in the provisions of the Real Estate Law as the “Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry”’; and (iv) for real estate broker license applicants, moves the component on state and federal fair housing laws to the real estate practice course instead of the legal aspects of real estate course, and delays the revision to the real estate practice course until 2024. The bill also updates definitions of “SAFE Act,” and “mortgage loan originator.” The bill is effective January 1, 2023.
3rd Circuit: Debt buyer not required to be licensed under Pennsylvania law
On September 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling in an FDCPA suit, finding that a defendant debt buyer was not required to be licensed under Pennsylvania law when it attempted to collect interest that had accrued at a rate of more than 6 percent under the original credit card agreement. According to the opinion, the plaintiff opened a credit card with a bank, which had an interest rate of 22.9 percent. The plaintiff defaulted on a debt he accrued on the card, and the debt was subsequently charged-off and sold by the bank to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the defendant violated the FDCPA since the interest rate was limited by the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (CDCA), which states that an unlicensed firm “in the business of negotiating or making loans or advances of money on credit [less than $25,000]” may not collect interest at an annual interest rate over 6 percent. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the defendant was entitled to collect interest above 6 percent because it held a license under a different state law.
On the appeal, the 3rd Circuit found that the CDCA applies to companies that arrange for or negotiate loans with certain parameters, and that there is nothing in the plaintiff’s amended complaint to suggest that the defendant is in the business of negotiating loans. The appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s allegations “indicate that [the defendant] purchases debt, such as [plaintiff’s] credit card account that [the bank had] charged off. But even with that allegation as a starting point, it is not reasonable to infer that an entity that purchases charged-off debt would also be in the business of negotiating or bargaining for the initial terms of loans or advances.” The appellate court further noted that “the amended complaint cuts against such an inference: it alleges that [the bank], not [the defendant], set the annual interest rate for [plaintiff’s] use of the credit card for loans and advances at 22.90%. Thus, with the understanding that negotiate means ‘to bargain’ and not ‘to transfer,’ [the plaintiff’s] allegations do not support an inference that [defendant] is in the business of negotiating loans or advances.”
DFPI proposal would consider ISAs as student loans
On September 9, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to adopt new regulations and amend current regulations implementing the Student Loan Servicing Act (Act), which provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by DFPI (formerly the Department of Business Oversight) (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed rulemaking also outlines new clarifications to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law, which was enacted in 2020 (effective January 1, 2021) to provide new requirements for student loan servicers (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
In its initial statement of reasons for the new regulations, DFPI noted that since the Act took effect five years ago, additional private student loan financing products have emerged, such as income share agreements and installment contracts, which use terminology and documentation distinct from traditional loans. DFPI commented that while lenders and servicers of these products have asserted that their products do not fall within the definition of a student loan and are not subject to the statute’s requirements, these education financing products serve the same purpose as traditional loans—“help pay the cost of a student’s higher education"—and are therefore student loans subject to the Act, and servicers of these products must be licensed and comply with all applicable laws. The proposed rulemaking, among other things, (i) defines the term “education financing products,” which now fall under the purview of the Act, along with other related terms; (ii) amends various license application requirements, including amended financial requirements for startup applicants; (iii) outlines provisions related to non-licensee (e.g., servicers that do not require a license but that are subject to the Student Loans: Borrower Rights Law) filing requirements; and (iv) specifies that servicers of all education financing products must submit annual aggregate student loan servicing reports to DFPI. The proposed rulemaking also removes certain unnecessary requirements based on DFPI’s experience in administering the Act to reduce the regulatory burden.
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking are due October 28.
California broadens DFPI commissioner’s enforcement authority
On August 26, the California governor signed AB 2433, which broadens DFPI’s unlawful practices oversight and enforcement power over any person currently engaging in or having engaged in the past, in unlicensed activity. Among other things, the bill amends the DFPI commissioner’s enforcement of various laws, such as the California Commodity Law, Escrow Law, California Financing Law (CFL), Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE), Student Loan Servicing Act, and California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. The bill establishes that the commissioner may act “upon having reasonable grounds to believe that a broker-dealer or investment advisor has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill also permits the DFPI to “act upon having cause to believe that a licensee or other person has violated the CFL.” The CFL provides for the licensure and regulation of finance lenders, brokers, and specified program administrators by the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation to issue a citation to the licensee or person and to assess an administrative fine, as specified, among other things. The CFL also regulates certain persons acting under the PACE program, including PACE solicitors and PACE solicitor agents. The new bill establishes that “if the commissioner, upon inspection, examination, or investigation, has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or PACE solicitor agent is violating any provision of that law, or rule or order thereunder, the commissioner or their designee is required to exhaust a specified procedure before bringing an action.” Additionally, bill specifies that certain “procedures apply when the commissioner has cause to believe that a PACE solicitor or solicitor agent has violated any provision of that law or rule or order thereunder.” The bill also mentions the Student Loan Servicing Act, which “provides for the licensure, regulation, and oversight of student loan servicers by the commissioner,” and establishes that the commissioner is required, upon having reasonable grounds after investigation to believe that a licensee is conducting business in an unsafe or injurious manner, to direct, by written order, the discontinuance of the unsafe or injurious practices. This bill specifies “that these procedures also apply if, after investigation, the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a licensee has conducted business in an unsafe or injurious manner.” The bill is effective immediately.
D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking says certain Bitcoin activity subject to money transmission laws
Recently, the District of Columbia’s Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) issued a bulletin informing industry participants engaging in or planning to engage in money transmission involving Bitcoin or other virtual currency “used as a medium of exchange, method of payment or store of value in the District” that such transactions require a money transmitter license. Specifically, the bulletin noted that DISB considers Bitcoin to be money for money transmission purposes. Relying on United States v. Larry Dean Harmon, DISB stated that while “money transmission is vaguely defined in DC Code,” the court’s decision “relied on the common use of the term “money” to mean a “medium of exchange, method of payment or store of value,” and that therefore Bitcoin functions like money. The bulletin also noted that the court found that while the D.C. Money Transmitters Act of 2000 specifically defined certain banking and financial terms, it did not define “money,” thereby reasoning “that the goal of the MTA is to regulate all kinds of transfers of funds, whether fiat currency, virtual currency or cryptocurrencies.”
Additionally, DISB noted that “engaging in the business of ‘money transmission’” includes “transactions where entities receive for transmission, store, and/or take custody, of Bitcoin and other virtual currencies from consumers via kiosks (aka BTMs), mobile applications and/or online transactions.” However, transactions where entities propose to sell and buy Bitcoin and other virtual currencies from consumers in exchange for cash payments via kiosks and/or online transactions are not considered to be money transmission. Entities that plan to engage in covered activities are subject to money transmission licensing requirements, DISB stated, explaining that whether an entity is required to obtain a money transmitter license depends on the individual facts and circumstances of each applicant, which include but are not limited to an applicant’s proposed business plan and flow of funds, as well as an applicant’s business model.
Connecticut fines collection agency $100,000 and revokes license
On August 18, the Connecticut Banking Commissioner revoked a consumer collection agency’s license after finding that it failed to provide requested information during an examination. Following an examination in May, the commissioner issued a “Notice of Automatic Suspension, Notice of Intent to Revoke Consumer Collection Agency License, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty and Notice of Right to Hearing” to the collection agency warning that if it failed to request a hearing within 14 days “the allegations would be deemed admitted.” According to the order, due to the collection agency’s failure to respond to the notices, the commissioner was “unable to determine that the financial responsibility, character, reputation, integrity and general fitness of Respondent are such to warrant belief that the business will be operated soundly and efficiently.” The collection agency also allegedly failed to maintain a surety bond that ran in accordance with its consumer collection agency license. The commissioner revoked the collection agency’s license to operate in the state, ordered it to cease and desist from violating Section 36a-17(e) of the 2022 Supplement to the General Statutes which requires it to make its records available, and imposed a $100,000 civil penalty.
California issues remote work guidance to CFL licensees
On August 26, the California governor signed AB 2001, which amends the California Financing Law (CFL) regarding remote work. According to the bill, a licensee would be authorized “under the CFL to designate an employee, when acting within the scope of employment, to perform work on the licensee’s behalf at a remote location, as defined, if the licensee takes certain actions, including that the licensee prohibits a consumer’s personal information from being physically stored at a remote location except for storage on an encrypted device or encrypted media.” Currently, the CFL provides that a licensee cannot engage in loan business or administer a PACE program in any office, room, or place of business that any other business is solicited or engaged in, or in association or conjunction therewith, under certain circumstances. Additionally, “a finance lender, broker, mortgage loan originator, or program administrator licensee shall not transact the business licensed or make any loan or administer any PACE program provided for by this division under any other name or at any other place of business than that named in the license except pursuant to a currently effective written order of the commissioner authorizing the other name or other place of business.”
Colorado issues remote work guidance to collection agencies
On August 19, the Colorado attorney general published updated guidance on remotely working for employees of entities regulated by the Consumer Credit Unit. Memorandum HB 22-1410, which was signed by the governor on June 7, amended Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code so that a supervised lender licensee may permit its employees to work from a remote location, so long as the licensee complies with certain requirements. The memorandum also provided that the March 2020 guidance issued by the Consumer Credit Unit Administrator for employees of regulated entities during the COVID-19 pandemic “remains in effect for regulated entities not covered by HB22-1410, including collection agencies, debt management providers, and student loan servicers, and will remain in effect until the last day of the 2023 legislative session of the 74th General Assembly, May 10, 2023.” The memorandum also noted that “due to concerns regarding the COVID-19 outbreak, individuals who work for regulated entities may be required, or wish, to work from home to avoid further spread of the outbreak, even though their homes are not licensed as branches.”
The memorandum also disclosed that the state will not take any administrative, disciplinary, or enforcement actions for individuals working at home in what are technically unlicensed branches as long as certain criteria are met: (i) “The Colorado activity is conducted from the home location of an individual working on behalf of an entity who is licensed, registered, or files notification with the Administrator”; (ii) “The individual is working from home due to a reason connected to the Covid-19 outbreak and has informed the regulated entity in writing”; (iii) “None of the Colorado activity will be conducted in person with members of the public at the home location”; (iv) “Individuals working from home will not advertise, receive official mail directly, or permanently store any books or records at their remote location”; (v) “The Colorado licensee shall at all times exercise reasonable supervision of the licensable activity being performed at the home office and ensure sufficient safeguards to protect consumer information and data security”; and (vi) “The individual ceases conducting the activity from the home location as soon as reasonably possible, consistent with recommendations from the CDC, CDPHE, and applicable state health departments.”
Colorado reminds collection agencies about medical law
On August 16, the Colorado attorney general published a memorandum reminding collection agency licensees and interested parties that HB21-1198 becomes effective September 1. HB21-1198, among other things, amends the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to add a new unfair practice—attempting to collect a debt that violates certain HB21-1198 requirements. The bill also creates requirements for notice and certain limitations on collections of medical debt. Specifically, the bill enacts healthcare billing requirements for indigent patients who are treated, but not reimbursed, through the state’s indigent care program and sets forth requirements before any collection proceeding may be initiated against an indigent patient.