InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Supreme Court blocks student debt relief program
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the Department of Education’s (DOE) student loan debt relief program (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here) that would have provided between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt cancellation to certain qualifying federal student loan borrowers making under $125,000 a year.
The Biden administration appealed an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibited the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Arguing that the universal injunction was overbroad, the administration contended that the six states lack standing because the debt relief plan “does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way.” Moreover, the secretary was acting within the bounds of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) when he put together the debt relief plan, the administration claimed.
In considering whether the secretary has authority under the HEROES Act “to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers,” the Court majority (opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined) held that at least one state, Missouri, had Article III standing to challenge the program because it would cost the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a nonprofit government corporation created by the state to participate in the student loan market, roughly $44 million a year in fees. “The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” the Court wrote.
The Court also ruled in favor of the respondents on the merits, noting that the text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. While the statute allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to student financial assistance programs under the Education Act in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency, it does not permit the Secretary to rewrite that statute, the Court explained, adding that the “modifications” challenged in this case create a “novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” As such, the Court concluded that “the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the [s]ecretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”
In dissent, three of the justices argued that the majority’s overreach applies to standing as well as to the merits. The states have no personal stake in the loan forgiveness program, the justices argued, calling them “classic ideological plaintiffs.” While the HEROES Act bounds the secretary’s authority, “within that bounded area, Congress gave discretion to the [s]ecretary” by providing that he “could ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision’ applying to federal student-loan programs, including provisions relating to loan repayment and forgiveness. And in so doing, he could replace the old provisions with new ‘terms and conditions,”’ the justices wrote, adding that the secretary could provide whatever relief needed that he deemed most appropriate.
The Court also handed down a decision in Department of Education v. Brown, ruling that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of the case as the respondents lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish that any injury they may have suffered from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the program. Respondents in this case are individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan. The respondents challenged whether the student debt relief program violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures as they were not given the opportunity to provide feedback. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
President Biden expressed his disappointment following the rulings, but announced new actions are forthcoming to provide debt relief to student borrowers. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The first is a rulemaking initiative “aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible, using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act.” The administration also announced an income-driven repayment plan—the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan—which will, among other things, cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half (from 10 to 5 percent of discretionary income) and forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments rather than 20 years for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less.
FFIEC releases 2022 HMDA data
On June 29, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) released the 2022 HMDA data on mortgage lending transactions at 4,460 covered institutions (an increase from the 4,338 reporting institutions in 2021). Available data products include: (i) the Snapshot National Loan-Level Dataset, which contains national HMDA datasets as of May 1; (ii) the HMDA Dynamic National Loan-Level Dataset, which is updated on a weekly basis to reflect late submissions and resubmissions; (iii) the Aggregate and Disclosure Reports, which provide summaries on individual institutions and geographies; (vi) the HMDA Data Browser where users can customize tables and download datasets for further analysis; and (v) the Loan/Application Register for filers of 2022 HMDA data.
The 2022 data includes information on 14.3 million home loan applications, of which 11.5 million were closed-end and 2.5 million were open-end. The Snapshot revealed that an additional 287,000 records were from financial institutions making use of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act’s partial exemptions that did not designate closed-end or open-end status. Observations from the data relative to the prior year include: (i) the percentage of mortgages originated by non-depository, independent mortgage companies decreased, accounting for “60.2 percent of first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied home-purchase loans, down from 63.9 percent in 2021”; (ii) the percentage of closed-end home purchase loans for first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied properties made to Black or African American borrowers increased from 7.9 percent in 2021 to 8.1 percent in 2022, while the share of these loans made to Hispanic-White borrowers decreased slightly from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent and the share made to Asian borrowers increased from 7.1 percent to 7.6 percent; and (iii) “Black or African American and Hispanic-White applicants experienced denial rates for first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied conventional, closed-end home purchase loans of 16.4 percent and 11.1 percent respectively, while the denial rates for Asian and non-Hispanic-White applicants were 9.2 percent and 5.8 percent respectively.”
Nevada to regulate student loan servicers and lenders
On June 14, the Nevada governor signed AB 332 (the “Act”) which provides for the licensing and regulation of student loan servicers. The Act also implements provisions for the regulation of private education loans and lenders. Among other things, the Act requires, subject to certain exemptions, persons servicing student loans to obtain a license from the Commissioner of Financial Institutions. Specifically, the Act states that a person seeking to act as a student loan servicer is exempt from the application requirements only if the commissioner determines that the person’s servicing performed in the state is conducted pursuant to a contract awarded by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
The Act also outlines numerous requirements relating to licensing applications, including that the commissioner may participate in the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System and Registry (NMLS), and may instruct NMLS to act on his or her behalf to, among other things, collect and maintain records of applicants and licensees, collect and process fees, process applications, and perform background checks. The commissioner is also permitted to enter into agreements or sharing arrangements with other governmental agencies, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, the State Regulatory Registry, or other such associations. Additional licensing provisions set forth requirements relating to licensing renewals, reinstatements, surrenders, and denials; liquidity standards; and bond requirements. The commissioner is also granted general supervisory, investigative, and enforcement authority relating to student loan servicers and student education loans and may impose civil penalties for violations of the Act’s provisions. The commissioner must conduct investigations and examinations at least once a year (with licensees being required to pay for such investigations and examinations). The Act further provides that the student loan ombudsman shall enter into an information sharing agreement with the office of the attorney general to facilitate the sharing of borrower complaints.
With respect to private education lenders, the Act establishes certain protections for cosigners of private education loans and prohibits private education lenders from accelerating the repayment of a private education loan, in whole or in part, except in cases of payment default. A lender may be able to accelerate payments on loans made prior to January 1, 2024, provided the promissory note or loan agreement explicitly authorizes an acceleration based on established criteria. The Act also sets forth responsibilities for lenders in the case of the total and permanent disability of a private education loan borrower or cosigner, including cosigner release requirements. Additional provisions outline prohibited conduct and create requirements and prohibitions governing lenders’ business practices. Furthermore, private education lenders are not exempt from any applicable licensing requirements imposed by any other specific statute.
The Act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and on January 1, 2024 for all other purposes.
Nevada expands collection agency licensing requirements
On June 16, the Nevada governor signed SB 276 (the “Act”) to revise certain provisions relating to debt collection agencies and make amendments to the state’s collection agency licensing law. While existing law requires collection agencies to be licensed, the amendments expand the type of activities that trigger collection agency licensure. Notably, the Act now requires any “debt buyer” to hold a license, which is defined as “a person who is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing claims that have been charged off for the purpose of collecting such claims, including, without limitation, by personally collecting claims, hiring a third party to collect claims or hiring an attorney to engage in litigation for the purpose of collecting claims.” Mortgage servicers, however, are now exempt unless the “mortgage servicer is attempting to collect a claim that was assigned when the relevant loan was in default.” The amendments also repeal provisions governing foreign collection agencies and now require that such agencies be licensed in the same fashion as domestic collection agencies.
In addition to licensed mortgage servicers the amendments also exclude others from the definition of the term “collection agency,” including an expanded list of certain financial institutions (as well as their employees), persons collecting claims that they originated on their own behalf or originated and sold, and other persons not deemed to be debt collectors under federal law. The term “collection agent” has also been refined to exempt persons who do not act on behalf of a collection agency from requirements governing collection agents.
The Act revises requirements relating to “compliance managers” (formerly referred to as “collection managers”) – including an avenue to request a waiver from the Nevada compliance manager examination requirement if certain experiential requirements are met – and makes changes to certain record retention and application requirements, including amendments to the frequency with which the commissioner reviews a licensee’s required bond amount (annually instead of semiannually). A provision requiring applicants to pursue branch licenses for second or remote locations is also repealed. Instead, collection agencies must simply notify the commissioner of the location of the branch office. Further, collection agencies are now required to display license numbers and certificate identification numbers of compliance managers on any website maintained by the collection agency.
Additionally, the Act now authorizes collection agents to work remotely provided the agents meet certain criteria, including: (i) signing a written agreement prepared by the collection agency that requires the agent to maintain agency-appropriate security measures to ensure the confidentiality of customer information; (ii) refraining from disclosing details about the remote location to a debtor; (iii) refraining from conducting collection activity-related work with a debtor or customer in person at the remote location; (iv) allowing work conducted from the remote location to be monitored; and (v) completing various compliance and privacy training programs. Remote collection agents must adhere to certain practices requirements and restrictions set forth by both the Act and the FDCPA. Collection agencies must also maintain records of remote collection agents, provide oversight and monitoring of collection agents that work remotely, develop and implement a written security policy governing remote collection agents, and establish procedures to ensure collection agents working remotely are not acting in an illegal, unethical, or unsafe manner.
Finally, the Act imposes new prohibitions against collection agencies and their agents and employees. Among other things, a collection agency (and its compliance manager, agents, or employees) is banned from suing to collect a debt when it knows or should have known that the applicable statute of limitations has expired. The amendments further clarify that the applicable limitation period is not revived upon “payment made on a debt or certain other activity relating to the debt after the time period for filing an action based on a debt has expired.” Certain notice must also be given to a medical debtor notifying that such a payment does not revive the applicable statute of limitations. A collection agency may also not sell “an interest in a resolved claim or any personal or financial information related to the resolved claim.”
The Act becomes effective immediately for the purpose of adopting any regulations and performing any preparatory administrative tasks that are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and on October 1, 2023 for all other purposes. “Debt buyers” have until January 1, 2024 to submit a collection agency license application pursuant to the new provisions.
Court orders credit union to pay $5 million to settle overdraft allegations
On June 27, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted final approval of a class action settlement, resulting in a defendant credit union paying approximately $5.2 million to settle allegations concerning illegal overdraft/non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees and inadequate disclosure practices. As described in plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval, the defendant was sued in 2020 for violating the EFTA (Regulation E) and New York General Business Law (NY GBL) § 349. According to plaintiffs, defendant charged overdraft fees and NSF fees that were not permitted under its contracts with its members or Regulation E. Plaintiffs’ Regulation E and NY GBL liability theories are premised on the argument that defendant’s “opt-in form did not inform members that these fees were charged under the ‘available balance’ metric, rather than the ‘actual’ or ‘ledger’ balance metric”—a violation of Regulation E and NY GBL § 349. The plaintiffs’ liability theory was that defendant’s “contracts did not authorize charging overdraft fees when the ledger or actual balance was positive.”
Under the terms of the settlement, defendant is required to pay $2 million, for which 25 percent of the settlement fund will be allocated to class members’ Regulation E overdraft fees, 62.5 percent will go to class members’ GBL overdraft fees, and 12.5 percent will be allocated to class members’ breach of contract overdraft fees. Defendant is also required to pay $948,812 in attorney’s fees, plus costs, and $10,000 service awards to the two named plaintiffs. Additionally, the defendant has agreed to change its disclosures and will “forgive and release any claims it may have to collect any at-issue fees which were assessed by [defendant] but not collected and subsequently charged-off, totaling approximately $2,300,000.”
4th Circuit upholds sanctions against debt relief operation
On June 23, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a default judgment entered against a debt relief operation and related individuals accused of violating the TCPA and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). Plaintiff-appellee alleged she received multiple telemarketing phone calls regarding debt relief offered through lower interest rates on credit cards from the defendants (including the appellants). During discovery, defendants allegedly engaged in “evasive discovery tactics” and “relentless sandbagging,” which resulted in a magistrate judge entering multiple orders to compel. Defendants allegedly continued to call the plaintiff-appellee for more than a year after she filed her initial complaint. Additional defendants (including some of the appellants) were added via amended complaints as she discovered defendants had allegedly “formed a vast and complex web of corporate entities.”
The district court eventually sanctioned the appellants and struck their defenses for, among other things, engaging in a “pattern of concealing discoverable material” and failing to obey court orders. Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the sanctions were too harsh and came as a surprise, the discovery abuses were “inadvertent,” and the plaintiff-appellee had not been prejudiced. Plaintiff-appellee then filed a renewed motion for sanctions outlining continued violations by appellants. Eventually, the district court entered a default judgment against the appellants for failing “to respond fulsomely and accurately to discovery requests and to comply with court orders pertaining to those requests.” The sanctions imposed an $828,801.36 judgment plus costs.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellants acted in bad faith and entered default judgment against them. The appellate court explained that there are certain circumstances, including this action, “where the entry of default judgment against a defendant for systemic discovery violations is the natural next step in the litigation, even without an explicit prior warning from the district court.” The appellate court further concluded the record contradicted each of the appellants’ arguments and held appellants “had fair ‘indication that sanctions might be imposed against [them]’ for their continued discovery and scheduling order violations.” With respect to appellants’ arguments that the district court awarded damages for the same purported calls pursuant to both the TCPA and the WVCCPA, the 4th Circuit found that penalties under these statutes are not exclusive and that they separately penalize different violative conduct. “[D]amages under the WVCCPA may be awarded in addition to those under the TCPA for a single communication that violates both statutes,” the appellate court wrote, adding that a plaintiff can also “recover separate penalties under separate sections of the TCPA even if the violations occurred in the same telephone call.”
Agencies release 2023 list of distressed, underserved communities
On June 23, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC released the 2023 list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies where revitalization or stabilization activities are eligible to receive Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration. According to the joint release, the list of distressed nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies and underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies are designated by the agencies under their CRA regulations and reflect local economic conditions such as unemployment, poverty, and population changes. Under CRA, banks are encouraged to help meet the credit needs of the local communities listed. For any geographies that were designated by the agencies in 2022 but not in 2023, the agencies apply a one-year lag period, so such geographies remain eligible for CRA consideration for another 12 months.
FHA requires info on language preference, homeowner education in mortgage originations
On June 27, FHA announced lenders will have to submit information about borrowers’ language preferences and homeownership education or housing counseling history through the Supplemental Consumer Information Form when originating mortgages for FHA insurance. According to FHA, borrowers may choose to provide all, some, or none of the information requested on the form, and lenders must transmit any information the borrower disclosed. The information collected from the form will allow the administration to have a better aggregate view of language preferences, which FHA stated, “will influence its future actions to continue breaking down language and other barriers to homeownership.” On June 13, FHA also announced the availability of Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese versions of more than 30 single family mortgage documents and related resources associated with FHA programs.
CFPB levies $25 million penalty for EFTA violations
On June 27, the CFPB entered a consent order against a Nebraska-based payment processor and its Delaware-based subsidiary for alleged violations of the EFTA (Regulation E), and the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair acts and practices. According to the Bureau, in 2021 the respondent’s employees allegedly used sensitive consumer financial information while conducting internal testing, without employing the proper information safety protocols. The internal tests allegedly created payment processing files that were treated as containing legitimate consumer bill payment orders. According to the Bureau, the erroneous bill payment orders were allegedly sent to consumers’ banks for processing, which resulted in approximately $2.3 billion in mortgage payments being debited from nearly 500,000 borrower bank accounts without their knowledge or authorization. The Bureau alleged in its order that some consumers accounts were depleted, “depriving Affected Consumers of the use of their funds, including by being prevented from making purchases or completing other legitimate transactions, and many were charged fees, including fees for insufficient funds or overdrawn accounts.” While neither admitting nor denying any of the allegations, the respondent has agreed to pay a $25 million penalty, stop activities the Bureau deemed unlawful, and adopt and enforce reasonable information security practices.
CFPB puts spotlight on “banking deserts” in the south
On June 21, the CFPB published a data spotlight, titled Banking and Credit Access in the Southern Region of the U.S., addressing banking and credit access, particularly mortgage lending, in in the south (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee). Considering the prevalence of “banking deserts” in the south, the report seeks to identify gaps and opportunities to increase financial access in the region. The report also includes a comparative analysis of rural and nonrural areas. For example, in rural communities and communities of color, the Bureau reports that “even though 23 percent of the population lives in a rural county, only 14 percent of home purchase loans in 2021 went to those areas. Between 2018 and 2021, only 9 percent of home purchase loans went to Black rural borrowers in the region, even though they represent 24 percent of the region’s rural population.” Moreover, the report notes that home loan applications from rural southerners are more likely to be denied than in the rest of the country. The Bureau also states that mortgage interest rates further set the rural south apart, as they tend to be higher, on average, than interest rates nationally. The Bureau’s initial analysis shows that credit scores alone do not explain these lower levels of lending.
With respect to banking access, the data spotlight highlights the association between the presence of a bank branch and access to necessary financial services—a common concern reported from stakeholders from the south. The Bureau reports that with only 3.6 branches per 10,000 people in the south (as compared to 5.0 branches per 10,000 people nationally), financial services access is limited, particularly when combined with inaccessible online banking due to limited broadband. The report also highlights how small businesses employ nearly half of the region’s workforce; thus, small business lending is a crucial resource to the south. In support of small business lending, the report references resources for business owners to leverage. (As previously covered by InfoBytes, when the Small Business Lending Rule goes into effect, the Bureau believes that it will provide “visibility” into small business lending.) The report further includes a reminder that “lenders have the ability to create Special Purpose Credit Programs, which enable the development of directed lending programs to reach historically underserved populations.” The Bureau goes on to state that even when branch locations are present, top barriers include minimum balance requirements, distrust of banks, high fees, and barriers to meeting identification requirements.
A second report, the Consumer Finances in Rural Areas of the Southern Region, was also published the same day. The report analyzes southern consumer financial profiles, compared to other geographies, including credit scores, financial distress, medical debt, and other debt categories. Among other things, the report highlights the unique position of mortgage borrowers from the rural south. Findings include that the share of chattel loans (for which the land underneath the home is not used as collateral) is seven times higher in the rural south than in other parts of the country. These borrowers are reportedly more venerable to both repossession and rent hikes or eviction. Also, student loan borrowers in the rural south tend to have lower monthly payments and delinquent balance amounts than the respective national averages, but given the area’s lower median incomes, borrowers in this region face a much higher student loan debt burden. Other findings include that rural southerners are less likely to have a credit card or an outstanding mortgage, which is partially reflective of the lower likelihood of successfully taking out credit, even within credit score tiers. According to the report, rural southerners are also more likely to pay higher interest rates on average and are more likely to have medical collections, with medical collections as the most common type of delinquency. These findings, the Bureau says, are an attempt to provide a “starting point” to better understand the financial situations, needs, and challenges of consumers in the south.