InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
2nd Circuit: NY law on interest payments for escrow accounts is preempted
On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s interest-on-escrow law impermissibly interferes with the incidentals of national bank lending and is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA). Plaintiffs in two putative class actions obtained loans from a national bank, one before and the other after certain Dodd-Frank provisions took effect. The loan agreements—governed by New York law—required plaintiffs to deposit money into escrow accounts. After the bank failed to pay interest on the escrowed amounts, plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging, among other things, that under New York General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-601 (which sets a minimum 2 percent interest rate on mortgage escrow accounts) they were entitled to interest. The bank moved to dismiss both actions, contending that GOL § 5-601 did not apply to federally chartered banks because it is preempted by the NBA. The district court disagreed and denied the bank’s motion, ruling first that RESPA (which regulates the amount of money in an escrow account but not the accruing interest rate) “shares a ‘unity of purpose’ with GOL § 5-601.” This is relevant, the district court said, “because Congress ‘intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.’” Second, the district court reasoned that even though TILA § 1639d does not specifically govern the loans at issue, it is significant because it “evinces a clear congressional purpose to subject all mortgage lenders to state escrow interest laws.” Finally, with respect to the NBA, the district court determined that “the ‘degree of interference’ of GOL § 5-601 was ‘minimal’ and was not a ‘practical abrogation of the banking power at issue,’” and concluded that Dodd-Frank’s amendment to TILA substantiated a policy judgment showing “there is little incompatibility between requiring mortgage lenders to maintain escrow accounts and requiring them to pay a reasonable rate of interest on sums thereby received.” As such, GOL § 5-601 was not preempted by the NBA, the district court said.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its preemption analysis. According to the appellate court, the important question “is not how much a state law impacts a national bank, but rather whether it purports to ‘control’ the exercise of its powers.” In reversing the ruling and holding that that GOL § 5-601 was preempted by the NBA, the appellate court wrote that the “minimum-interest requirement would exert control over a banking power granted by the federal government, so it would impermissibly interfere with national banks’ exercise of that power.” Notably, the 2nd Circuit’s decision differs from the 9th Circuit’s 2018 holding in Lusnak v. Bank of America, which addressed a California mortgage escrow interest law analogous to New York’s and held that a national bank must comply with the California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the 2nd Circuit determined that both the district court and the 9th Circuit improperly “concluded that the TILA amendments somehow reflected Congress’s judgment that all escrow accounts, before and after Dodd-Frank, must be subject to such state laws.”
In a concurring opinion, one of the judges stressed that while the panel concluded that the specific state law at issue is preempted, the opinion left “ample room for state regulation of national banks.” The judge noted that the opinion relies on a narrow standard of preempting only those “state laws that directly conflict with enumerated or incidental national bank powers conferred by Congress,” and stressed that the appellate court declined to reach a determination as to whether Congress subjected national banks to state escrow interest laws in cases (unlike the plaintiffs’ actions) where Dodd-Frank’s TILA amendments would apply.
Consumer groups urge Chopra to limit forced arbitration
On September 13, a collation of consumer advocacy groups sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, urging him to limit the use of forced arbitration in consumer contracts in cases where consumers have been “victimized by banking abuses or fraud.” Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress directed the Bureau to study the use of forced arbitration clauses in the consumer finance market and authorized it to write a rule to limit or restrict the practice, which resulted in a 2015 Arbitration Study report (covered by InfoBytes here). The report, according to the letter, “found that tens of millions of consumers were subject to forced arbitration clauses and class action bans in their credit card, deposit account, prepaid account, student loan, payday loan, and wireless carrier contracts,” and, among other things suggested only a small minority of consumers actually filed for forced arbitration. The letter argued that mandatory arbitration clauses in banks’ consumer contracts are “blocking millions of consumers from seeking justice,” and urged the Bureau to use its authority to ensure that “consumers are empowered to act as a group and on their own in the courts.” The letter concluded by urging the Bureau to “rein in forced arbitration in financial services.”
District Court orders college operator to comply with CFPB CID
On September 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah ordered the operator of several defunct colleges to cooperate with a CFPB civil investigative demand (CID) for potential violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. In 2019, the Bureau issued a CID to the operator seeking information on its private student loan financing program, as well as litigation concerning the loan program dating back to 2012, to aid its investigation into whether the program constituted unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The operator argued that the CID was unenforceable for several reasons, including that it was “unreasonably oppressive” and that the legality of its program had already been litigated in state action. The operator also argued that because the Bureau’s leadership structure rendered it unconstitutional, it lacked authority to enforce the CID. A magistrate judge’s recommendation narrowed the scope of the CID, but the operator continued to object, stating that a severe reduction in staff created a loss of “significant institutional knowledge” about the loan program. After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (holding that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but severable from the statute establishing the Bureau, as covered by a Buckley Special Alert ), the Bureau’s director ratified the CID. The operator then raised new objections claiming the Bureau’s funding structure violates the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, and therefore the agency lacks valid authority to enforce the CID.
The court rejected the operator’s argument, writing that dicta in the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law “suggests the Bureau’s funding structure is not an unconstitutional delegation of power from Congress to the Executive Branch.” According to the court, while the majority opinion in Seila Law made note of the CFPB’s funding structure, it treated it “merely as an aggravator” of the for-cause removal protection issues and “went as far as saying the Bureau’s constitutional infirmity would ‘disappear’ if ‘the Director were removable at will by the President.’”
With respect to burdensomeness, the court said the operator has failed to show evidence establishing an unreasonable burden in its objections, and that, moreover, it “has had more than three years’ notice to preserve any information it thought may be relevant to the Bureau’s investigation.” The court further stressed that the CID does not become overly burdensome simply because the operator shuttered its campuses thereby allegedly relinquishing “institutional knowledge” concerning its own education loan program prior to complying with the CID. The court granted the operator a 90-day extension to comply with the CID.
SEC publishes amendments on disclosures failures
On August 25, the SEC announced proposed amendments to its rules requiring registrants to disclose information reflecting the relationship between executive compensation actually paid by a registrant and the registrant’s financial performance. According to the final rule, registrants would be required to provide a table disclosing specified executive compensation and financial performance measures for their five most recently completed fiscal years. In regard to the measures of performance, a registrant will be required to report its total shareholder return (TSR), the TSR of companies in the registrant's peer group, its net income, and a financial performance measure chosen by the registrant. Using the information presented in the table, registrants will be required to disclose the relationships between the executive compensation actually paid and each of the performance measures, as well as the relationship between the registrant’s TSR and the TSR of its selected peer group. Specifically, large companies would be required to disclose details on executive compensation for the past five fiscal years, and small companies would be required to report the past three fiscal years. Additionally, small companies would be exempt from disclosing details on pensions and peer groups. They also are exempt from new language requiring companies to list the three to seven most important measures linking executive compensation to company performance. Emerging growth companies, registered investment companies, and foreign private issuers are not required to provide the disclosure. The final rules are effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and registrants must comply with the new disclosure requirements in proxy and information statements that are required for fiscal years ending on or after December 16. The same day, the SEC published a fact sheet clarifying, among other things, the final rules implementing the pay versus performance requirement as required by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act.
CFPB “on track” to issue Section 1071 rulemaking by March 31
On August 22, the CFPB filed its tenth status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, related to the collection of small business lending data. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The current status report states that the Bureau is on track to issue the Section 1071 final rule by March 31, 2023—a deadline established by court order in July (covered by InfoBytes here).
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
CFPB announces meetings for small business lending data reporting
On August 8, the CFPB announced that it is hosting two events to discuss the technical implementation required to prepare for the Bureau’s Small Business Lending Data Collection Rulemaking, which is a requirement under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. According to the Bureau, the meetings will be geared toward in-house bank technologists or providers that provide compliance software to banks. Among other things, the meetings will: (i) share how the Bureau builds regulatory compliance technology systems; (ii) discuss possible approaches to authentication and application programming interfaces; and (iii) review technical data submission standards, edits and validations. The Bureau stated that the meetings “will not discuss or seek input on the merits or potential outcome of any ongoing rulemakings or take questions pertaining to the substance of such rulemakings.” According to the CFPB’s spring rulemaking agenda that was released earlier this summer, a final rule is expected in March 2023 (covered by InfoBytes here).
CFPB highlights risks associated with BNPL products
On August 4, the CFPB released a report highlighting risks associated with new product offerings that the agency claimed blur the line between payments and commerce. The report examined the development of new capabilities—like “super apps,” buy now, pay later (BNPL), and embedded commerce—that have the potential to streamline payments, facilitate commerce, and enhance user experience, but may also create opportunities for companies to aggregate and monetize consumer financial data. With respect to “super apps,” the Bureau warned that these services have “morphed” into a “bank in an app” model, providing a “wide array of financial, payment and commerce functions within a single app.” These financial services super apps may seem to be more convenient than having multiple relationships with different organizations, the Bureau said, but cautioned that using these products may limit consumer product and service choice. “While consumers can opt to use a payment offering outside an app, such super apps create the potential for providers to steer consumers to specific solutions and/or limit access to some products.”
The report also raised concerns about tech firms offering their own lending or BNPL products. The Bureau pointed out that BNPL options, which provide unsecured short-term credit allowing consumers to split purchases into four equal interest-free payments at the point of sale, have “soared in recent years” as a popular alternative to credit cards. The Bureau noted it is “carefully focused on the shift toward real-time payments in the United States,” and is “seeking to mitigate the potential consequences of large technology firms moving into this space.”
The Bureau further stressed it is “carefully monitoring the payments ecosystem as part of a multifaceted effort to promote fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial services,” and said it is currently working on Dodd-Frank Act rules that would give consumers more control over the personal financial data that they choose to share with finance and payment apps. The Bureau also stated that it is “assessing new models of lending integrated with payments and ecommerce, such as BNPL,” and plans to issue a report on its findings and make a determination as to whether any regulatory interventions are appropriate. Last year, the Bureau issued a series of orders to five companies seeking information regarding the risks and benefits of the BNPL credit model (covered by InfoBytes here).
Trade groups petition CFPB to supervise data aggregators
On August 2, several bank and credit union trade groups petitioned the CFPB asking the Bureau to create regulations that would allow the agency to conduct routine exams and supervise data aggregators and their customers. While the Bureau is currently considering rulemaking under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to consumer access to financial records and has “affirmed its commitment to ‘monitoring the aggregation services market and ensuring consumer protection and safety,’” the petition argued that there is a “supervisory imbalance” between banks and nonbanks in terms of data oversight. “[A]mong the participants in the market for aggregation services, typically, data holders, such as banks and credit unions, are regularly supervised and examined by the CFPB, whereas nondepository institutions such as data aggregators and data users are not examined by the CFPB,” the petition stated, adding that this “creates both an unsustainable model as the aggregation services market grows and the risk that the laws applicable to the activities of those larger participants in this market will be enforced inconsistently.” As a result, the petition warned that potential consumer harm attributed to data aggregator and data user activity may not be identified and remedied in a timely manner. The trade groups called for the Bureau to create a rule that would add a definition for “larger participants of a market” for aggregation services, as well as define the term “aggregation services” to mean a “financial product or service” under Title X of Dodd-Frank. Doing so would ensure that “all providers of comparable financial products and services” are subject to similar levels of accountability, the petition said.
District Court orders CFPB to issue Section 1071 rulemaking by March 31
On July 11, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order setting March 31, 2023 as the deadline for the CFPB to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on small business lending data. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau is obligated to issue an NPRM for implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the agency to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The requirement was established as part of a stipulated settlement reached in 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC), who argued that the Bureau’s failure to implement Section 1071 violated two provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, and harmed the CRC’s ability to advocate for access to credit, advise organizations working with women and minority-owned small businesses, and work with lenders to arrange investment in low-income and communities of color (covered by InfoBytes here).
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
CFPB publishes rulemaking agenda
Recently, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s spring 2022 rulemaking agenda. According to the preamble, the information in the agenda is current as of April 1, 2022 and identifies regulatory matters that the Bureau “reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from June 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023.”
Key rulemaking initiatives include:
- Consumer Access to Financial Records. The Bureau notes that it is considering rulemaking to implement section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act to address the development and use of standardized formats for information made available to consumers. The Bureau will release materials in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
- Amendments to FIRREA Concerning Automated Valuation Models. The Bureau is participating in interagency rulemaking with the Fed, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to FIRREA concerning appraisal automated valuation models (AVMs). The FIRREA amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for AVMs. The Bureau released a SBREFA outline in February 2022 and estimates in the agenda that the agencies will issue an NPRM in December 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Property Assessed Clean Energy Financing. The Bureau issued an ANPR in March 2019 to extend TILA’s ability-to-repay requirements to PACE transactions (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau is working to develop a proposed rule to implement Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act section 307 in May 2023.
- Small Business Lending Data Collection Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended ECOA to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses, and directed the Bureau to promulgate rules for this reporting. The Bureau issued an NPRM in August 2021, and the comment period ended January 6 (covered by InfoBytes here). The agenda indicates that the Bureau estimates issuance of a final rule in March 2023.
- Adverse Information in Cases of Human Trafficking Under the Debt Bondage Repair Act. The National Defense Authorization Act amended the FCRA to prohibit consumer reporting agencies from providing reports containing any adverse items of information resulting from human trafficking. In June 2022, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing amendments to the FCRA intended to assist victims of human trafficking (covered by InfoBytes here).