Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

California

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By , ,

The latest edition of the Consumer Finance State Roundup highlights recently enacted measures of potential interest from two states:

California:

Effective January 1, California Assembly Bill 3108 addresses mortgage fraud.  Previously, California law defined “mortgage fraud” to include, in connection with a mortgage loan transaction, filing with the county recorder any document that the person knows to contain a deliberate misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission, and with the intent to defraud.

Taking this a step further, the measure prohibits the filing of any document with the recorder of any county that a person knows to contain a material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission. Further, the measure expressly provides that a mortgage broker or person who originates a loan commits mortgage fraud if, with the intent to defraud, the person takes specified actions relating to instructing or deliberately causing a borrower to sign documents reflecting certain loan terms with knowledge that the borrower intends to use the loan proceeds for other uses. For prosecution purposes, the alleged fraud value must be $950 or more (the threshold for grand theft).

A mortgage lender could unintentionally find itself guilty of mortgage fraud if it simply allows a borrower to use a business purpose loan for consumer purposes or makes a bridge loan that it knows will not be used for a dwelling. California’s Penal Code § 532f(b) makes it mortgage fraud for a mortgage broker or lender to allow mortgage-related documents to be formed and filed when the broker or lender has reason to know that the borrower intends on using the loan for purposes other than for what the loan is intended.

Although intent to defraud is an element to this crime, that element can only be determined through rigorous and time-consuming investigation. If a borrower, for example, uses a business loan for consumer purposes or does not apply the funds from a bridge loan towards a dwelling, the lender will be subject to additional scrutiny unless it can prove that all efforts were made to understand the borrower’s plans for the funds.

The measure also prohibits a person who originates a covered loan from avoiding, or attempting to avoid, the application of the law regulating the provision of covered loans by committing mortgage fraud. A “covered loan” means a consumer loan in which the original principal balance of the loan does not exceed the most current Fannie Mae conforming loan limit for a single-family first mortgage loan.

The measure also amends Section 4973 of the Financial Code, which imposes certain requirements ad restrictions (e.g., the inclusion of a prepayment fee or penalty after the first 36 months) in connection with covered loans and amends Section 532f of the Penal Code (as discussed above) in connection with the prohibition on committing mortgage fraud.

New York:

  • Effective June 11, Assembly Bill 424 amends Section 35 of the Banking Law, which relates to an information pamphlet that residential mortgage lenders must provide to applicants. In place of making a physical pamphlet available to lenders, the amended section requires the Department of Financial Services to notify mortgage bankers of the posting a digital version of the pamphlet on the Department’s website (and when it makes any changes thereto). The measure also amends the pamphlet contents to reflect that a lender may provide an applicant with a good faith estimate (instead of a loan estimate), depending on the type of loan for which the applicant is applying.
  • Effective May 15, Assembly Bill 2056 amends Section 283 of the Real Property Law, which limits the amount of flood insurance that a mortgagee may require a mortgagor to maintain. Under current law, that section provides that the maximum amount of coverage a mortgagee may require is the mortgage’s outstanding principal amount as of January 1 of the year the policy will be in effect. As amended, that section makes the maximum permitted amount of coverage the lesser of the outstanding principal amount or the residential property’s replacement. Additionally, AB2056 slightly alters the printed notice about flood insurance that a mortgagee must deliver to mortgagors, removing language referring to the fact that required coverage would only protect the interest of the lender or creditor in the property.
  • Effective March 21, New York Senate Bill 804 amends data breach notification requirements. Section 899-aa of the General Business Law requires a person or business to notify New York residents whose data is part of a breach, as well as to provide notice to certain governmental entities (including the Department of Financial Services). As amended, that section will require notification to the Department of Financial Services (in the form mandated by N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 23, § 500.17) only by “covered entities.” A “covered entity” is any person who requires any type of authorization to operate under the Banking Law, Insurance Law, or Financial Services Law, and thus includes a mortgage banker or mortgage servicer.

States Impose Commercial Financing Disclosure Requirements

By , ,

What Happened:

In a little-noticed development, eight states have enacted legislation that requires specific disclosures for commercial non-real estate secured financing transactions.

Why is it Important:

Recently, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New York, Utah, and Virginia have enacted laws that require or will require certain commercial financing “providers” to furnish burdensome consumer-like disclosures prior to the consummation of commercial financing transactions. Notably, all these state commercial loan disclosure requirements exempt banks.

California

The California disclosure requirements took effect on December 9, 2022, the effective date of final implementing regulations adopted by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”).

Persons providing commercial financing (including small business loans and sales based financing) to small businesses “whose business is principally directed or managed from California” are required to provide borrowers with consumer-like disclosures, after the DFPI issued final regulations in June 2022 to implement SB 1235, otherwise known as the California Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (“CCFDL”). Commercial financing providers must disclose to the recipient at the time of extending a specific offer of commercial financing specified information relating to the transaction and to obtain the recipient’s signature on that disclosure before consummating the commercial financing transaction.

Notably, the CCFDL does not apply to transactions greater than $500,000 or to real estate-secured commercial loans or financings. The California law otherwise applies to, among other things, commercial loans, certain commercial open-end plans, factoring, sales based financing, and commercial asset-based lending.  Under the California law “provider” is primarily limited to entities extending credit, such as lender/originators, but also includes a non-bank partner in a marketplace lending arrangement who facilitates the arrangement of financing through a financial institution.

Connecticut

On June 28, 2023, Connecticut enacted “An Act Requiring Certain Financing Disclosures,” which: (a) requires lenders offering certain types of commercial purpose “sales-based financing” in amounts of $250,000 or less to provide specified consumer-like disclosures to applicants; and (b) mandates that lenders offering such credit to register annually with the Connecticut Department of Banking starting October 1, 2024. The Connecticut law authorizes the state banking commissioner to adopt promulgating regulations, and the law took effect on July 1, 2023.

The Connecticut law applies to providers of commercial financings and defines “provider” as “a person who extends a specific offer of commercial financing to a recipient and includes, unless otherwise exempt . . . a commercial financing broker.” “Commercial financing” means any extension of sales-based financing by a provider not exceeding $250,000. Under the statute, “sales-based financing” is a

transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time” (1) as a percentage of sales or revenue, in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the recipient’s sales or revenue, or (2) according to a fixed payment mechanism that provides for a reconciliation process that adjusts the payment to an amount that is a percentage of sales or revenue.

Notably, the Connecticut law exempts the following entities and transactions: (a) banks, bank holding companies, credit unions, and their subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) entities providing no more than five commercial financing transactions in a 12-month period; (c) real estate-secured loans; (d) leases; (e) purchase money obligations; (f) technology service providers acting for an exempt entity as long as they do not have an interest in the entity’s program; (g) transactions of $50,000 or more to motor vehicle dealers or rental companies; and (h) transactions offered in connection with the sale of a product that the person manufactures, licenses, or distributes.

Florida

On June 26, 2023, Florida enacted the Florida Commercial Financing Disclosure Law, which requires covered providers to furnish consumer-oriented disclosures to businesses for certain commercial non-real estate-secured financing transactions exceeding $500,000. The Florida law took effect July 1, 2023, and is mandatory for transactions consummated on or after January 1, 2024.

The Florida law applies to providers of commercial financing transactions and defines “provider” as a “person who consummates more than five commercial financings” in Florida during any calendar year.  “Commercial financing transactions” include commercial loans, open-end lines of credit, and accounts receivable purchase transactions.  The Florida law exempts the following entities and transactions: (a) federally insured depository institutions, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; (b) licensed money transmitters; (c) real estate-secured loans; (d) loans exceeding $500,000; leases; and (e) certain purchase money transactions.

Georgia

On May 1, 2023, Georgia amended its Fair Business Practices Act to require certain providers of commercial financings of $500,000 or less to furnish various disclosures to small-business borrowers before the consummation of the transactions. The statute applies to covered commercial financings consummated on or after January 1, 2024.

The Georgia law requires providers of commercial credit in amounts of $500,000 or less to provide TILA-like disclosures to small-business borrowers before the consummation of the transaction but does not specify the time period. The Georgia law defines “provider” as “a person who consummates more than five commercial financing transactions” in Georgia during any calendar year, including participants in commercial purpose marketplace lending arrangements. “Commercial financing transactions” include both closed-end and open-end commercial loans as well as accounts receivable purchase transactions but do not include real estate-secured transactions.  The Georgia law exempts: (a) federally insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; (b) Georgia-licensed money transmitters; (c) captive finance companies; and (d) institutions regulated by the federal Farm Credit Act. The law also exempts purchase money obligations.

Kansas

On April 19, 2024, the Kansas Legislature enacted the “Commercial Financing Disclosure Act”, which requires “providers” (defined as entities that consummate more than five commercial financings transactions with businesses located in Kansas in a calendar year), to provide certain TILA-like disclosures to debtor business counterparties prior to consummation.

The legislation exempts from its coverage financings greater than $500,000 and real estate-secured transactions. Further, the statute also exempts depository institutions, their parents, and their owned and controlled subsidiary or service corporation if regulated by a federal banking agency. The Kansas law took effect on July 1, 2024.

New York

The New York disclosure requirements (which are substantively similar to those passed in California) took effect August 1, 2023, six months from the date of the promulgation of final implementing regulations, which were issued February 1, 2023.

The New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (“NYCFDL”) requires “providers” of commercial credit to provide Truth in Lending Act-like disclosures to applicants at the time it extends a specific offer of the commercial financing in amounts of $2,500,000 or less. “Providers” include both lenders and brokers.

The New York law applies to closed end financing, open-end financing, sales-based financing, including merchant cash advances and factoring transactions. The NYCFDL provides a de minimis exemption, “for any person or provider who makes no more than five commercial financing transactions in [New York] in a twelve-month period.”  Further, “financial institutions,” which include banks, and certain other chartered depository institutions authorized to conduct business in New York, are also exempt from the commercial loan disclosure law, including the subsidiaries or affiliates of such exempt financial institutions.  Commercial financings over $2,500,000 are exempt from the law as are transactions secured by real property. The obligation to provide disclosures applies if the financing recipient’s business is “principally directed or managed from New York.”

Utah

Effective January 1, 2023, the Utah law requires “providers” to register with the Utah Department of Financial Institutions and maintain such registration annually. Further, prior to consummation of the commercial financing, “providers” must, among other things, disclose to borrowers: (a) the total amount of funds provided to the business; (b) the total amount of funds disbursed to the business; (b) the total amount paid to the “provider” under the financing; (d) the manner, frequency and amount of each payment (or if the amount of each payment may vary, the manner, frequency and estimated amount of the initial payment); (e) information regarding prepayment of the financing; and (f) the amount the “provider” paid to the broker, if applicable.

The Utah law does not apply to consumer purpose transactions, real estate-secured transactions or transactions with loan amounts greater than $1 million—or if the “provider” makes five or fewer Utah commercial financings in any calendar year.

Virginia

Effective July 2, 2022, the Virginia law also contains some of the same disclosure obligations as the California, New York, and Utah laws.  However, the scope of Virginia’s disclosure requirements is limited to sales-based financing contracts (as opposed to the obligations imposed by the new laws in California, New York, and Utah which apply more broadly to commercial financing providers and various commercial finance products) and applies to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2022.

Notably, the Virginia law requires sales-based financing providers to make disclosures of the financing terms at the time the provider offers sales-based financing to a recipient.  Virginia has issued implementing regulations that prescribe the form of disclosure for sales-based financing transactions, which became effective January 19, 2023. The Virginia law also requires providers to register with the Virginia State Corporation Commission as of November 1, 2022.

The law exempts sales-based financings in amounts over $500,000 and contains a de minimis exemption for a person that enters into no more than five “sales-based financing” transactions in any 12-month period.

What to Do Now:

California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New York, Utah, and Virginia all require commercial financers to provide certain disclosures to borrowers as part of the transaction—all of which would be applicable to small business purpose non-real estate secured loans.  Lenders must either comply with these nettlesome laws or structure their transaction to avoid triggering them. It is anticipated that other states will enact similar laws in the future that will impact small balance commercial lending.

Consumer Finance State Roundup

By

The latest edition of the Consumer Finance State Roundup highlights three recently enacted measures of potential interest from California, Missouri, and North Carolina:

  • California: Effective upon approval by Governor Gavin Newsom on July 18, Assembly Bill 295 amends provisions of the California Civil Code applicable to mortgages. Among other changes, first, the measure amends Section 2924(b) to clarify that when responding to a request for payoff or reinstatement information, a trustee is not liable for good faith error resulting from reliance on information provided in good faith by the beneficiary, or subject to the provisions of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Second, the measure amends Section 2924c to allow a trustee to recover reasonable costs and expenses that “will be incurred as a direct result of the payment being tendered,” instead of limiting recovery to expenses actually incurred.  Third, the measure amends Section 2924m, which relates to the sale of tenant-occupied residential property, to clarify that if the winning bidder at a sale is not required to submit an affidavit or declaration regarding eligibility to bid, the trustee must attach as an exhibit to the trustee’s deed a statement that no such affidavit or declaration is required, and that the lack thereof does not preclude recording of the deed or invalidate the transfer of title pursuant to the trustee’s deed.Finally, the measure amends Section 3273.10, under the COVID-19 Small Landlord and Homeowner Relief Act, to clarify that the requirement for the mortgage servicer to provide a notice as prescribed by Section 2923.5(b) after denial of a forbearance applies only to a request made between August 30, 2020, and December 1, 2021.
  • Missouri: Effective August 28, 2024, Senate Bill 1359 enacts the “Money Transmission Modernization Act of 2024” (“Act,” Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 361.900 to 361.1035) and the “Commercial Financing Disclosure Law” (“Law,” Mo. Rev. Stat. 427.300).First, the Act replaces Missouri’s existing money transmission laws and requires the licensing of persons engaged in money transmission (e.g., selling or issuing stored value, or receiving money for transmission from a person located in the state).  The Act sets forth relating regulatory processes such as license application requirements, licensee reporting obligations, compliance management system requirements (for supervision of delegates), and the relationship between the Act’s provisions and federal law.Second, the Law addresses obligations applicable in connection with a “commercial financing transaction” meaning “any commercial loan, accounts receivable purchase transaction, commercial open-end credit plan or each to the extent the transaction is a business purpose transaction.”  The Law requires a provider of such transaction to provide a disclosure of the terms prior to or at consummation of the transaction that includes, among other information, the total amount of funds provided to the business, the total amount of payments that will be due to the provider, and the manner, frequency, and amount of each payment.  Among others, the Law does not apply to: (a) a depository institution providing commercial financing; or (b) a commercial financing transaction that is secured by real property, a lease, or a purchase money obligation that is incurred as all or part of the price of the collateral (or for value given to enable the business to acquire rights in or the use of the collateral, if the collateral is so used).
  • North Carolina: Effective October 1, 2024, Senate Bill 319 (2024 N. C. Sess. Laws 29) amends provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes relating to powers of sale.  First, the measure amends Section 45-21.4 to permit a sale pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust to occur at any public location within the county where the land is situated (or, for properties located in more than one county, in one of the counties in which the land is situated) as an alternative to the county courthouse. If permitted by the mortgage or deed of trust, the mortgagee or trustee may designate the alternative location; if the instrument does not contain such authority for the mortgagee or trustee, the clerk of the county superior court may do so.  Second, the measure amends Section 45-21.23, which relates to time of sale, to require a sale to begin no later than three hours (as opposed to one hour, under existing law) after the designated start time in the notice of sale, unless a delay occurs by other sales held at the same place.  Third, the measure adds new Section 45-21.25A establishing the procedure for placing remote bids at foreclosure sales.

A Friendly Reminder of the Importance of Robust Consumer Complaint Handling Processes

By ,

What Happened?

On February 27, 2024, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the Department) entered into a public consent order with a company that provides consumer financial services to California residents. The consent order alleges that between January 2020 and September 2022, the Department received complaints from consumers raising concerns about their accounts and customer service interactions with the company, which the Department forwarded to the company for investigation and response. The Department also investigated the company’s handling of those consumer complaints.

The Department found that the company’s complaint handling was deficient in that “occasional mistakes” that occurred in the Company’s responsiveness to consumer complaints were substantial enough to have violated the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL). The Department alleged that as between the company and the consumer, the company was in the better position to accurately evaluate the available information in most cases and to respond to consumers’ complaints in a timely manner and while the number of mistakes during the Department’s investigation period was relatively small in comparison to the overall number of consumer complaints received, the Department concluded that the mistakes were important to the affected consumers.

To resolve these allegations, the company agreed to (1) desist and refrain from violating the CCFPL through its complaint handling processes, (2) pay a penalty of $ 2.5 million, (3) enhance existing customer service procedures or processes, (4) establish, implement, enhance, and maintain testing policies, procedures, and standards reasonably designed to, at a minimum, ensure compliance with the law, and (5) report to the Department annually for two years on these standards. These standards require the company to:

  • Ensure customer service support 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
  • Ensure sufficient customer service support staffing;
  • Ensure sufficient customer service support training; and
  • Investigate and implement policies and procedures to maintain the accurate, prompt and proper handling of consumer complaints.

Why is it Important?

The CCFPL was enacted in September 2020 and grants the Department expanded authority over persons engaged in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service in California and their affiliated service providers. Notably, under the CCFPL, it is unlawful for a “covered person” or “service provider,” to do any of the following:

  • Engage, have engaged, or propose to engage in any unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice (UDAAP) with respect to consumer financial products or services.
  • Offer or provide to a consumer any financial product or service not in conformity with any consumer financial law or otherwise commit any act or omission in violation of a consumer financial law.
  • Fail or refuse, as required by a consumer financial law or any rule or order issued by the Department thereunder, to do any of the following:
    • Permit the Department access to or copying of records.
    • Establish or maintain records.
    • Make reports or provide information to the Department.

The CCFPL defines a “covered person” to mean, to the extent not preempted by federal law, any of the following:

  • Any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service to a resident of California.
  • Any affiliate of a person described above if the affiliate acts as a service provider to the person.
  • Any service provider to the extent that the person engages in the offering or provision of its own consumer financial product or service.

A “servicer provider” includes any person that provides a material service to a covered person in connection with the offering or provision by that covered person of a consumer financial product or service, including a person that either:

  • Participates in designing, operating, or maintaining the consumer financial product or service.
  • Processes transactions relating to the consumer financial product or service, other than unknowingly or incidentally transmitting or processing financial data in a manner that the data is undifferentiated from other types of data of the same form as the person transmits or processes.

The term “service provider” does not include a person solely by virtue of that person offering or providing to a covered person either a support service of a type provided to businesses generally or a similar ministerial service, or time or space for an advertisement for a consumer financial product or service through print, newspaper, or electronic media.

Notwithstanding the broad definition of “covered person,” the CCFPL contains numerous exemptions, including for banks; licensed escrow agents; licensees under the California Financing Law; licensed broker-dealers or investment advisers; licensees under the Residential Mortgage Lending Act; licensed check sellers, bill payers, or proraters; and licensed money transmitters, among others.

The Department is authorized to impose civil money penalties for any violation of the CCFPL, rule or final order, or condition imposed in writing by the Department in an amount not to exceed the greater of $5,000 for each day during which a violation or failure to pay continues, or $2,500 for each act or omission. Reckless violations are subject to increased penalties not to exceed the greater of $25,000 for each day during which the violation continues, or $10,000 for each act or omission. For knowing violations, the Department is authorized to assess penalties not to exceed the lesser of one percent of the person’s total assets, $1 million for each day during which the violation continues, or $25,000 for each act or omission.

What Do You Need to Do?

It is always important to take consumer complaints seriously and to respond timely and accurately. Now is the time to review your company’s complaint management procedures to make sure they are robust. It is always important to mine your consumer complaints so that you can learn from them and correct errors timely to ensure mistakes don’t recur, and the Department’s latest settlement is a reminder that companies subject to the CCFPL also have a legal obligation to do so.

CFPB Issues Preemption Determination that State Commercial Financing Disclosure Laws Are Not Preempted By TILA

By ,

A&B Abstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently announced that it issued a final preemption determination concluding that certain state disclosure laws applicable to commercial financing transactions in California, New York, Utah, and Virginia are not preempted by the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). As covered in a previous post, we note that the California, Utah, and Virginia laws have already gone into effect, and New York’s is set to become effective on August 1, 2023.

State Commercial Lending Laws

After examining the state disclosure laws in California, New York, Utah, and Virginia, the CFPB recently affirmed that there is no conflict with TILA because the state laws extend disclosure protections to businesses seeking commercial financing, which are beyond the scope of TILA’s statutory consumer credit protections.  Specifically, the CFPB determined that TILA only preempts state laws under conflict preemption, which the CFPB interprets to mean that TILA preempts state laws only if they are “inconsistent” with TILA.

In California, New York, and Utah, state laws require lenders to issue disclosures in certain commercial financing transactions, the purpose of which is generally defined to mean primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes.  This is in contrast to TILA’s application to consumer credit, which is extended primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.  In December 2022, the CFPB made a preliminary determination that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law was not preempted by TILA because the state law regulates commercial financial transactions rather than consumer-purpose transactions.

In Virginia, disclosures are required in connection with “sales-based financing,” which is defined generally as a transaction in which the financing is repaid by the recipient based on a percentage of sales or revenue.  “Recipient” means a person whose principal place of business is in Virginia and that applies for sales-based financing and is made a specific offer of sales-based financing by a sales-based financing provider.  Based on these definitions, it appears that the Virginia law would not apply to a consumer credit transaction.  However, the CFPB generally noted that, to the extent state law could apply to a consumer credit transaction, there would still be no inconsistency with TILA.

Accordingly, the CFPB found that the four states’ commercial financing disclosure laws are not inconsistent with and, therefore, not preempted by the federal TILA.

Takeaway

As states continue to propose and enact similar laws requiring disclosures in commercial financing transactions, an argument that federal law preempts such state laws is unlikely to succeed.  Thus, companies should monitor ongoing state regulatory trends in commercial financing transactions to ensure compliance with the consumer-style disclosure requirements that may apply.