InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Supreme Court Rejects Tribal Lenders’ Petition to Avoid CFPB CID
On December 11, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment a petition from online tribal lending entities to appeal a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that ordered the entities to comply with a CFPB investigation related to small-dollar loan products. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the entities argued that due to tribal sovereignty, the CFPB does not have jurisdiction over the small-dollar lending services. The CFPB urged the Supreme Court to deny the petition, arguing that the Court’s review is unnecessary because “[t]he question at this juncture is solely whether the Bureau may obtain information from petitioners pursuant to a CID,” not “whether petitioners are subject to the Bureau’s regulatory authority.”
English Litigation Continues as Mulvaney Delays CFPB Enforcement Cases and Lawmakers Begin New Payday CRA Action
On December 6, Deputy Director of the CFPB, Leandra English, filed an amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and a motion for preliminary injunction with a supporting memorandum. In her amended complaint, English adds, among other things, a constitutional claim alleging that President Trump’s appointment of Mulvaney violates Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which empowers the President to appoint “Officers of the United States,” subject to “the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” According to English, since Mulvaney was appointed without Senate approval and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) allegedly does not provide the President with a separate authority, President Trump does not have the constitutional authority to appoint Mulvaney in the manner he chose.
The amended complaint also alleges that the appointment of Mulvaney under the FVRA is illegal because that act cannot be used to make an appointment to an “independent multi-member board or commission without Senate approval,” and the CFPB Director is, by law, a member of the FDIC’s board. This argument mirrors the argument made in a new complaint filed on December 5 by a New York-based credit union against President Trump and Acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to contest the legality of Mulvaney’s appointment. The defendants have yet to respond to the credit union’s complaint.
With respect to English’s litigation, the defendants are set to respond to the motion for preliminary injunction, which builds off the arguments in the amended complaint, by December 18, and a hearing on the motion is set for December 22.
Mulvaney has continued his work as Acting Director at the CFPB. On December 4, according to sources, he met with reporters to announce his decision to delay at least two active litigation cases as part of his plan to reevaluate the Bureau’s enforcement and litigation practices. The first case concerns a district court dispute between the Bureau and an immigration bond company over whether the CFPB has the authority to enforce a civil investigative demand for personal information about the company’s customers. The second case involves Mulvaney’s decision to withdraw the Bureau’s demand that a mortgage payment company post bond after being ordered to pay a $7.9 million civil money penalty (see previous InfoBytes coverage here). Mulvaney’s December 4 statements also included a freeze on the Bureau’s collection of consumers’ personally identifiable information. These actions follow directions issued by Mulvaney during his first week at the Bureau as previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Mulvaney has also suggested that he would not seek to repeal the Bureau’s final rule concerning payday loans, vehicle title loans, deposit advance products, and longer-term balloon loans but expressed his support for resolution H.J. Res. 122, which was introduced December 1 by a group of bipartisan lawmakers to override the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The final rule is set to take effect January 16, 2018, but compliance is not mandatory until August 19, 2019. A press release issued by the House Financial Services Committee in support of the resolution stated, “small-dollar loans are already regulated by all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Native American tribes. The CFPB’s rule would mark the first time the federal government has gotten involved in the regulation of these loans.”
On December 5, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a letter to Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) stating that CFPB Bulletin 2013-02 (Bulletin) on indirect auto lending and compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a “general statement of policy and a rule” that is subject to override under the CRA. According to GAO, the CRA’s definition of a “rule” includes both traditional rules, which typically require notice to the public and an opportunity to comment, and general statements of policy, which do not. GAO concluded that the Bulletin meets this definition “since it applies to all indirect auto lenders; it has future effect; and it is designed to prescribe the Bureau’s policy in enforcing fair lending laws.” GAO’s decision may allow Congress to repeal the four year old Bulletin through a House and Senate majority vote under the CRA, followed by the President’s signature. Sen. Toomey issued a statement saying, “I intend to do everything in my power to repeal this ill-conceived rule using the [CRA].”
Additionally, and as expected, on December 5, former Director Richard Cordray officially announced his candidacy for governor of Ohio.
CFPB Urges Supreme Court to Reject Tribal Lenders' Petition
On November 9, the CFPB filed a brief with the Supreme Court opposing the petition for a writ of certiorari submitted by online tribal lending entities. The lenders are challenging a January decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the entities to comply with a CFPB investigation (previously covered by Infobytes). The litigation stems from the issuance of a civil investigative demand (CID) by the CFPB to online lending entities owned by Native American tribes. The entities argue that due to tribal sovereignty, the CFPB does not have jurisdiction over the small-dollar lending services in question. The district court and the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) did not expressly exclude tribes from the CFPB’s enforcement authority and therefore, the entities cannot claim tribal sovereign immunity.
In its brief opposing the certiorari petition, the CFPB argues that the Ninth Circuit’s holding does not conflict with any prior Supreme Court or court of appeals decision, making further review unwarranted. The CFPB also argues, among other things, that Supreme Court review is unnecessary because “[t]he question at this juncture is solely whether the Bureau may obtain information from petitioners pursuant to a CID,” not “whether petitioners are subject to the Bureau’s regulatory authority.”
Cordray Speaks at Consumer Advisory Board Meeting
On November 2, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered prepared remarks at the Consumer Advisory Board (CAB) Meeting in Tampa, Florida addressing, among other things, the new rule (Rule) covering payday loans and certain other installment products (previously covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert). Cordray indicated that the Rule is intended to reform a market where many borrowers end up rolling over their loans multiple times, incur fees, and have trouble ultimately paying off their original balance. Cordray encouraged the CAB to discuss the Rule, noting the Bureau previously received over 1.4 million public comments on the proposal. Cordray also touched on topics regarding (i) financial security of older consumers, including reverse mortgages; (ii) complexities with delivering products to consumers with limited English proficiency ; and (iii) the Bureau’s September report, “Financial Well-Being in America,” which discussed the results of a nationwide survey measuring individual financial well-being.
Illinois AG and FTC Reach $9 Million Settlement With Phantom Debt Collector
On October 31, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced settlements with three operators of a fake debt collection scheme in Chicago. According to the Attorney General’s office, the three individuals and associated companies identified people who had recently applied for or received a short-term loan and then posed as a law firm to collect on the debt. The companies also sold fictitious loan debt portfolios to other debt buyers, who then attempted to collect on the fake debts. The settlements require the operators to surrender at least $9 million in assets (which will be used to refund impacted consumers) and, among other things, ban them from the debt collection business and from selling debt portfolios.
CFPB Consumer Advisory Board Public Meeting Notice
The CFPB Consumer Advisory Board will host a public meeting on Thursday, November 2, at 10:00am EST in Tampa, Florida. According to the notice, published in the Federal Register on October 17, the board will discuss Know Before You Owe: Reverse Mortgages; financial well-being; trends and themes; and payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans.
Attendees must RSVP by noon, November 1, to CFPB_CABandCouncilsEvents@cfpb.gov.
FTC Obtains Default Judgment Against Operations That Allegedly Sold Counterfeit Payday Loan Debt Portfolios
On October 17, the FTC issued a press release announcing a default judgment in an action brought against two Kansas-based operations and their owner (defendants), who allegedly violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by selling lists of counterfeit payday loan debt portfolios to debt collectors. The allegations claimed that in numerous instances, the portfolios listed “loans that the identified lenders have not, in fact, made to the identified consumers,” and that the defendants “have not purchased, or otherwise obtained, any rights to collect loan debts originated by the lenders listed . . ., nor have they engaged in any transaction that authorizes them to collect, sell, distribute, or transfer any valid loans originated by those lenders.” As a result, numerous consumers were contacted by various debt collectors demanding repayment of the fake debts, and in some instances, consumers made payments to either stop the collection calls or because they feared becoming delinquent. Under the terms of the default judgment, the defendants (i) must pay more than $4.1 million as equitable monetary relief; (ii) are banned from handling sensitive financial information, such as “bank account numbers, credit or debit card numbers, or social security numbers”; and (iii) are prohibited from misrepresenting material facts.
OCC Rescinds Guidance on Deposit Advance Products, Cites Overlap With CFPB Payday Rule
On October 5, the OCC rescinded its 2013 Guidance on Supervisory Concerns and Expectations Regarding Deposit Advance Products and accompanying Bulletin 2013-40, effective immediately. The rescission, announced so as to avoid “potentially inconsistent regulatory direction,” comes as a reaction to the CFPB’s final rule announced October 5 concerning payday loans, vehicle title loans, deposit advance products, and longer-term balloon loans. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Keith A. Noreika, acknowledged that the changing regulatory and marketplace landscape has made it difficult for banks to serve the demand for short-term, small-dollar credit, and while the OCC may issue new guidance at a later date, it will continue to ensure that banks that choose to offer these types of products are compliant with the “basic principles of prudent underwriting and risk management as well as fair and inclusive treatment of customers.”
Buckley Sandler Special Alert: CFPB Issues Rule Regarding Payday, Title, Deposit Advance, and Certain Other Installment Loans
On October 5, 2017, the CFPB published its final rule (the “Rule”) addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain other extensions of credit (collectively, “covered loans”). Among the Rule’s key provisions, it requires lenders to determine a borrower’s ability to repay for “covered short-term loans” and “covered longer-term balloon-payment loans,” but not other covered loans. Thus, unlike the CFPB’s proposed rule, the Rule does not require an ability to repay determination for longer-term loans that are not balloon loans. For certain covered short-term loans, lenders may provide a principal payoff option in lieu of conducting a full ability-to-repay analysis. Like the CFPB’s proposed rule, the Rule caps at three the number of covered loans that may be made in quick succession. The Rule also limits certain payment collection practices for all covered loans, including non-balloon loans.
***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the rule or other related issues, please visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
CFPB Issues Final Rule Regarding Payday, Title, Deposit Advance, and Other Installment Loans
On October 5, the CFPB published its final rule (Rule) addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, deposit advance products, and longer-term balloon loans (collectively, “covered loans”). The CFPB previously announced the proposed rule in June 2016 (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert). The final rule makes it an abusive and unfair practice for lenders to make a covered short-term loan or covered longer-term balloon loan without determining upfront that the borrower has the ability to repay (known as the “full-payment test”). The full-payment test varies depending on the covered loan, but in essence, requires the lender to reasonably determine that the borrower can meet basic living expenses and major financial obligations and still afford their highest monthly payment(s). The Rule puts a limitation of three on the number of loans that can be made in quick succession (within 30 days of each other).
Lenders may avoid the requirement of a “full-payment test” with covered loans by offering small-dollar, short-term loans that allow the borrower to pay down the principal more gradually or are determined to pose less financial risk to the borrower. In addition, loans that meet the parameters of “payday alternative loans” authorized by the National Credit Union Administration are excluded, as are no-cost advances and wage advance programs that meet certain conditions, though the Rule does impose restrictions on using these exceptions based on the borrower’s loan history.
In addition to requirements surrounding the borrower’s ability to repay, the CFPB also finalized rules regarding payment withdrawals and reporting requirements. The Rule prevents lenders from attempting to withdraw a payment from a borrower’s account after two consecutive withdrawal attempts have failed, unless the borrower has given specific authorization to do so. This restriction applies to covered loans as well as longer-term loans with account access and an APR above 36 percent. The Rule requires lenders to use Bureau-registered credit reporting systems to report and obtain information about loans made under the full-payment test or the principal payoff option.
The provision regarding the registration information systems takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The rest of the Rule takes effect 21 months after publication in the Federal Register.
Buckley Sandler will follow up with a more detailed summary of the CFPB’s final rule.