InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DOJ announces redlining settlement with New Jersey bank
On September 28, the DOJ announced a settlement with a New Jersey bank to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in the Newark metropolitan area in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. The DOJ’s complaint alleges that from at least 2015 to 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark metropolitan area. The DOJ also alleges that all of the bank’s branches were located outside of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and that these neighborhoods were also largely excluded from the bank’s marketing and outreach efforts.
Under the proposed consent order, the bank will, among other things, (i) invest a minimum of $12 million in a loan subsidy fund for majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts in the Newark metropolitan area, of which at least $150,000 per year will go towards advertising, outreach, consumer education, and credit counseling, and $400,000 will be spent on services to increase access to residential mortgage credit; (ii) establish new branches in neighborhoods of color, including at least one in the city of Newark, that will provide a full range of mortgage products; (iii) assign at least four mortgage loan officers dedicated to serving all neighborhoods in and around Newark; (iv) employ a full-time community development officer to oversee the continued development of lending in neighborhoods of color in the Newark area; and (iii) provide ECOA and fair lending training to employees and officials. The announcement cited the bank’s cooperation with the DOJ to remedy the identified redlining concerns. According to the announcement, this settlement represents the third-largest redlining settlement in DOJ’s history.
Seven largest U.S. banks answer committee questions on overdraft fees and P2P fraud
On September 22, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing entitled “Annual Oversight of the Nation’s Largest Banks” where chief executive officers from the seven largest U.S. retail banks testified on bank activities related to topics including peer-to-peer (P2P) payment networks; mortgage practices; overdraft fees; forced arbitration; and environmental, social, and governance agendas. Among other things, senators pushed the CEOs to take more aggressive action to eliminate overdraft fees and compensate P2P payment fraud victims.
- Overdraft fees. Democratic senators stressed that charges still fall too heavily on low-income and minority customers, with Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) saying that there is “no reasonable explanation to continue to charge overdraft fees on working families.” The CEOs discussed their respective efforts to relax overdraft policies to reduce fees, with one CEO noting that “there are a lot of occasions where if [overdraft protection] is not used, [customers] would be charged a higher fee on the other side.” These fees, he noted, “can often reduce the cost on the other side and stop them from going to payday lenders.” Another CEO added that he believes “giving people a choice and letting them opt in or out is the proper thing to do.” One bank CEO noted that his bank offers two accounts with no fees and provides customers the opportunity to choose in the moment if they want to return or pay for an item.
- P2P platforms. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asked the CEOs if they would give customers their money back if they are defrauded on a certain P2P platform and complain to the bank. The CEOs emphasized that their banks currently reimburse customers for fraud and “unauthorized transactions” and are taking measures to reduce the incidence of fraud, including educating consumers on how to detect scams. “There’s a tremendous amount that we can do as owners of the network to drive down the ability for thieves to take advantage of the network,” one CEO said when asked if banks believe it is their responsibility to make a consumer whole again. “That is what we're working on. That’s what we have to do.” Another CEO pointed out that other P2P platforms have “15 times the number of disputes” coming into the bank than the highlighted platform. One CEO also stressed that banks need to work through partnerships with law enforcement and regulatory agencies “to actually catch the criminals who are perpetuating this fraud against our customers.”
The previous day, the same CEOs discussed similar topics during the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing entitled “Holding Megabanks Accountable: Oversight of America’s Largest Consumer Facing Banks.” Several proposed bills containing provisions that would impact the banks if enacted were also discussed, including those that would (i) improve dispute procedures and disclosures related to reinvestigations of consumer reports (see H.R. 4120); (ii) amend and modernize bank merger laws (see H.R. 5419); and (iii) amend Community Reinvestment Act provisions to improve the assessment process for financial institutions (see H.R. 8833).
During the hearing (see committee memorandum here), committee members questioned the CEOs on a broad range of topics related to consumer protection compliance, enforcement, diversity initiatives, capital standards, emerging technologies and cybersecurity, merchant category codes for firearm purchases, and banking deserts. The CEOs addressed ways their banks have engaged in “responsible growth” and spoke on measures they have taken to bolster customer relations, including modifying overdraft practices. They also noted they are working on improving data protection and cybersecurity. In discussing P2P digital payment services, one CEO emphasized that “scams are growing daily” and regulators and legislators need to respond. He added that “[i]t’s not enough that we apportion blame after the fact. We need to stop fraud and scams before they occur. Secure [P2P] networks, real-time payments, and potentially FedNow allow for direct authentication with a host bank. They also allow members of the network to identify [] and police against scam accounts. This is not the case with nonbank networks. These networks are not held to the same security standards as banks.” He stated that banks “have zero visibility into where the money went, zero capability to recover the money, and zero capability to close the bad account.”
Agencies announce hurricanes Fiona and Ian disaster relief guidance
On September 29, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, NCUA, OCC, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors issued a joint interagency statement covering supervisory practices for financial institutions affected by Hurricanes Fiona and Ian. Among other things, the agencies informed institutions facing operational challenges that the regulators will expedite requests for temporary facilities, noting that in most cases, “a telephone notice to the primary federal and/or state regulator will suffice initially to start the approval process, with necessary written notification being submitted shortly thereafter.” The agencies also called on financial institutions to “work constructively” with affected borrowers, noting that “prudent efforts” to adjust or alter loan terms in affected areas “should not be subject to examiner criticism.” Institutions facing difficulties in complying with any publishing and reporting requirements should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator. Additionally, the agencies noted that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, or services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas. Institutions are also encouraged to monitor municipal securities and loans impacted by Hurricanes Fiona and Ian.
HUD also announced disaster assistance for areas in Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Fiona. The disaster assistance follows President Biden’s major disaster declaration on September 21. According to the announcement, effective immediately, HUD is issuing 29 regulatory and administrative waivers intended to provide flexibility and relief to impacted communities. The waivers cover the following HUD programs: The Community Development Block Grant Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, Continuum of Care Program, and Emergency Solutions Grant Program. HUD is also providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties effective September 21, as well as for mortgages to Native American borrowers guaranteed under Section 184 Indian Home Loan Guarantee program and home equity conversion mortgages. HUD is also making various FHA insurance options available to victims whose homes require repairs or were destroyed or severely damaged. HUD’s Section 203(h) program allows borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders to obtain 100 percent financing, including closing costs, for homes in which “reconstruction or replacement is necessary.” Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house and the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program also allows homeowners with damaged property to finance the repair of their existing single-family homes. HUD will also share information on housing providers and HUD programs with FEMA and the state, and will provide flexibility to public housing agencies. Similar disaster assistance measures were also announced (see here and here) for areas of Alaska affected by severe storms, flooding, and landslides from September 15-20, and areas in Florida impacted by Hurricane Ian.
The FDIC also issued FIL-42-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Puerto Rico affected by Hurricane Fiona from September 17 and later. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
Additionally, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Ian in Florida “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directed institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the 2012 Bulletin, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close, and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
NYDFS also issued an industry letter advising state-regulated financial institutions to take reasonable and prudent measures to assist consumers and businesses affected by Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico. The guidance recommends that financial institutions (i) waive ATM and overdraft fees; (ii) increase ATM withdrawal limits; (iii) ease restrictions on cashing out-of-state and non-customer checks; (iv) ease credit terms for new loans; (v) increase credit card limits for creditworthy customers; (vi) waive late fees on credit card and other loan balances; (vii) work with customers to defer payments or extend payment due dates on loans to help prevent delinquencies and negative credit reporting caused by disaster-related disruptions; and (viii) work with money transmitters and money services businesses to facilitate and expedite the transmission of funds. The actions are intended to help ease financial burdens for New Yorkers seeking to support individuals located in Puerto Rico, as well as consumers in Puerto Rico who hold New York bank accounts.
CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights targets student loan servicers
On September 29, the CFPB released a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights focusing on recent examination findings related to practices by student loan servicers and schools that directly lend to students. Highlights of the supervisory findings include:
- Transcript withholding. The Bureau found several instances where in-house lenders (i.e., where the schools themselves are the lender) are withholding transcripts as a debt collection practice. According to the Bureau, many post-secondary institutions choose to withhold official transcripts from borrowers as an attempt to collect education-related debts. The Supervisory Highlights states the position that the blanket withholding of transcripts to coerce borrowers into making payments is an “abusive” practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
- Supervision of federal student loan transfers. The Bureau identified certain consumer risks linked to the transfer of nine million borrower account records to different servicers after two student loan servicers ended their contracts with the Department of Education (DOE). The review, which was handled in partnership with the DOE and other state regulators, identified several concerns, such as (i) the information received during the transfer was insufficient to accurately service the loan; (ii) transferee and transferor servicers reported different numbers of total payments that count toward income-driven repayment forgiveness for some borrowers; (iii) information inaccurately stated the borrower’s next due date; (iv) certain accounts were placed into transfer-related forbearances following the transfer, instead of in more advantageous CARES Act forbearances; and (v) multiple servicers experienced significant operational challenges.
- Payment relief programs. The Bureau found occurrences where federal student loan servicers allegedly engaged in unfair acts or practices when they improperly denied a borrower’s application for loan cancellation through Teacher Loan Forgiveness or Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The Bureau claimed that many servicers “illegally misrepresented borrowers’ eligibility dates and the number of payments the borrower needed to make to qualify for relief,” and “provided misinformation about borrowers’ entitlement to progress toward loan forgiveness during the pandemic payment suspension.” The Bureau said it will continue to monitor servicers’ practices to ensure borrowers receive the relief for which they are entitled, and directed servicers to address consumer harm caused by these actions.
The Bureau issued a reminder that it will continue to supervise student loan servicers and lenders within its supervisory jurisdiction regardless of institution type. Student loan servicers, originators, and loan holders are advised to review the supervisory findings and take any necessary measures to ensure their operations address these risks.
CFPB sues online lender to servicemembers
On September 29, the CFPB filed a complaint against a New York-based online lender and 38 of its subsidiaries for allegedly violating the Military Lending Act (MLA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by imposing excessive charges on loans to servicemembers and their dependents. The Bureau alleges that the defendants required consumers to join its membership program and pay monthly membership fees ranging from $19.99 to $29 to access certain “low-APR” installment loans. The complaint says that when the membership fees are combined with loan-interest-rate charges, the total fees exceed the MLA’s allowable rate cap, contending that the MLA serves to protect active duty servicemembers and their dependents by limiting the APR applicable to extensions of credit to 36 percent. The Bureau further claims that the defendants deceived consumers by representing that they owed loan payments and fees that were actually void under the MLA. In addition, the Bureau claims that the defendants refused to allow customers to cancel their memberships and stop paying monthly fees until their loans were paid, despite leading many consumers to believe they could cancel their memberships for any reason at any time, thereby “avoid[ing] such automatic renewals and associated membership fees.” In certain cases, the defendants refused to cancel memberships if a consumer had unpaid membership fees even if the loan was paid off, the Bureau says. The Bureau is seeking permanent injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and other relief.
DC passes debt collection bill
On September 23, the District of Columbia mayor signed B24-0357, which updates the District’s collection laws by expanding protections to cover most consumer debt, in addition to strengthening existing protections for DC consumers. Among other things, the bill: (i) prohibits deceptive behavior from debt collectors, such as making threats; (ii) clarifies that no one can be jailed for failing to pay a debt; (iii) prohibits debt collectors from communicating any information regarding a person’s debt to employers or family members; and (vi) clarifies that debt buyers are required to follow all laws applicable to debt collectors. The law is currently effective.
CFPB rescinds no-action letter and sandbox policies
On September 27, the CFPB issued a statement in the Federal Register rescinding its No-Action Letter Policy and its Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2019, the CFPB issued three final innovation policies: the No-Action Letter (NAL) Policy, Compliance Assistance Sandbox (CAS) Policy, and Trial Disclosure Program (TDP) Policy. The NAL policy provided a NAL recipient assurance that the Bureau will not bring a supervisory or enforcement action against the company for providing a product or service under the covered facts and circumstances. The CAS policy evaluated a product or service for compliance with relevant laws and offered approved applicants a “safe harbor” from liability for certain covered conduct during the testing period under TILA, ECOA, or the EFTA. Following the rescission, the statement noted that the Bureau will no longer accept NAL or CAS applications by September 30, but will continue to accept and process requests under the TDP. Entities that have made submissions under the NAL or CAS policies will be notified if the Bureau intends to take additional steps on their submissions. According to the statement, the Bureau “determined that the Policies do not advance their stated objective of facilitating consumer-beneficial innovation” and “that the existing Policies failed to meet appropriate standards for transparency and stakeholder participation.”
FHA will consider first-time homebuyer’s positive rental history in mortgage eligibility
On September 27, HUD announced that FHA will consider a first-time homebuyer’s positive rental payment history as an additional factor in determining eligibility for an FHA-insured mortgage. HUD emphasized that adding a positive rental history indicator to FHA’s Technology Open to Approved Lenders (TOTAL) Mortgage Scorecard enables the credit evaluation to be more comprehensive and equitable. “If you’re regularly paying your rent on time, that’s a good indication you will also pay your mortgage on time,” FHA Commissioner Julia Gordon said. “We hope that adding this positive factor to all of the characteristics currently considered in an FHA credit evaluation will increase access to affordable FHA-insured mortgages for first-time homebuyers.” According to FHA’s Mortgagee Letter 2022-17, “positive rental payment history refers to the on time payment by a borrower of all rental payments in the previous 12 months.” Lenders may begin indicating a borrower’s positive rental payment history in the TOTAL Mortgage Scorecard for scoring events on or after October 30, and for case numbers assigned on or after September 20, 2021.
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.”
District Court grants partial summary judgment to debt collector in credit reporting and debt collection action
On September 21, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland partially granted a defendant debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in a credit reporting and debt collection action. The plaintiff disputed debt related to two electric bills for two different residences that were eventually combined into one account. After the plaintiff informed the electric company that she would not be paying the bill, the debt was eventually referred for collection to the defendant. The plaintiff disputed the debt, and the defendant conducted an investigation. The plaintiff continued to contend that the defendant was certifying the debt without proof and claimed the defendant’s agents called her a liar and incorrectly asserted that she had not made payments. The defendant argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s FCRA and FDCPA claims, contending, among other things, that FCRA 1681e(b) “expressly applies to [credit reporting agencies] and not to furnishers.”
The court first reviewed the plaintiff’s FCRA claims as to whether the defendant conducted a reasonable investigation. The court stated that the plaintiff bore the burden to establish whether the defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and noted that because she failed to provide certain evidence to the defendant “there is no genuine dispute that the investigation conducted by [defendant] was not unreasonable” or that the defendant reported accurate information to the CRAs about the debt. With respect to some of the FDCPA claims, the court denied the defendant summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff created a genuine dispute about whether the defendant violated § 1692d (the provision prohibiting a debt collector from engaging in harassment or abuse). According to the opinion, evidence suggests that the defendant’s agents incorrectly informed the plaintiff that she had never made a payment on one of the accounts, called her a liar when she protested this information, and used a “demeaning tone” in their communications. “[A] reasonable jury could conclude that the language would have the natural consequence of abusing a consumer relatively more susceptible to harassment, oppression, or abuse,” the court wrote.
Additionally, the court ruled on Maryland state law claims introduced in the plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment. The court ruled against her Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act claim regarding the alleged use of abusive language, writing that the agents were not “grossly abusive” and that the plaintiff failed to generate a genuine dispute on this issue. Nor did the plaintiff show a genuine dispute as to whether the debt was inaccurate or that the defendant knew the debt was invalid. The court also entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff’s Maryland Consumer Protection Act and Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act claims.