Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

California

Application Deadline Looms Under California Debt Collection Licensing Act

By

On September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 908 – enacting the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The DCLA, which takes effect January 1, 2022, requires a person or entity engaging in the business of debt collection in California to be licensed and provides for regulatory oversight of debt collectors by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). Pursuant to the DCLA, debt collectors who submit an application by Dec. 31, 2021 may continue to operate in California pending the denial or approval of their application. On April 23, 2021, the Commissioner of the DFPI (the Commissioner) issued proposed regulations (the Regulations) to adopt procedures for applying for a debt collection license under the DCLA. On June 23, 2021, after consideration of public comments, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Modifications). On November 15, 2021, the Commissioner issued a second Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Additional Modifications).

The Regulations

The Regulations – among other things –  define relevant terms, include information regarding application procedures, and contain other miscellaneous information regarding licensing. The definition of “debt collector” was substantially the same as the broad definition under the enacted DCLA (which in turn is very similar to the Rosenthal FDCPA definition) and encompasses a wide array of activity in relation to consumer debt, including mortgage debt. Likewise, the regulations define “debt buyer” identical to the existing definition in Section 1788.50 of the Civil Code, which contains an exception for purchasers of a loan portfolio predominantly consisting of consumer debt that has not been charged off. See our prior post on the DCLA for more information regarding the scope of the licensure requirement.

The Regulations designate NMLS for the submission and processing of applications and reference and rely upon uniform NMLS forms and procedures. The application process includes completion of the NMLS uniform licensing form (MU1), including by any affiliates to be licensed under the same license. The application process includes collection of information regarding other trade names, web addresses used by the applicant, contact employees, organizational information (including information on any indirect owners), a detailed statement of business activities, certificates of good standing, and sample dunning letters. Applicants do not need to provide bank account information in Section 10 of Form MU1 or information on a qualifying individual in Section 17 of Form MU1. Fingerprinting (which is processed outside of NMLS), criminal history checks, and credit report authorizations are required for certain related individuals, including officers, directors, managing members, trustees, responsible individuals, and any individual owning directly or indirectly 10% or more of the applicant. An investigative background report is also required for any such individual who is not residing in the United States. Branches must also be licensed through NMLS uniform forms (MU3). Notice and additional filing requirements apply upon any change in the information submitted. The Regulations also contain surety bond requirements and outline the Commissioner’s authority in reviewing and examining applicants.

First Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On June 23, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Modifications which made several changes to the Regulations including, revising the definition of “applicant” to make clear that an affiliate who is not applying for a license is not an “applicant” – this revision, however, does not seem to impact the ability of applicants to include affiliates under a single license. Further, the Modifications added an English language requirement for documents filed with the DFPI. The Modifications also eliminated certain requirements to provide the Commissioner with additional copies of documents submitted through NMLS and otherwise revised requirements to allow information to be processed predominately through NMLS. The Modifications also eliminated the need to file certain fingerprinting documents in NMLS. Additionally, the Modifications added a requirement to explain derogatory credit accounts for any individual subject to credit reporting requirements. The Modifications also removed requirements that applicants provide information concerning compliance reporting and audit structure, the extent to which they intend to use third parties to perform any of their debt collection functions, that applicants file a copy of their policies and procedures with the NMLS, and certain annually collected financial information. The Modifications also eliminate the Commissioner’s ability to modify surety bond amounts.

Second Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On November 15, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Additional Modifications to the Regulations which amended the definitions of “branch office” and “debt collector.” “Branch office” was amended to mean any location other than the applicant’s or licensee’s principal place of business so long as “activity related to debt collection occurs” at that location and that the location is “held out to the public as a business location or money is received at the location or held at the location.” The Additional Modifications state that “holding a location out to the public” includes the receipt of postal correspondence and meeting with the public at the location, placing the location on letterhead, business cards, and signage, or making “any other representation to the public that the location is a business location.”

The definition of “debt collector” was amended to reference the definition set forth in the DCLA, rather than actually defining the term. Thus, any future revisions to the DCLA definition will automatically apply to the regulations as well.

Conclusion  

Debt Collection agencies and participants in California should anticipate additional regulations from the DFPI as aspects of the DCLA continue to be hammered out – in the interim any entity subject to licensing who has not done so already should submit an application before end of year to ensure continued operations.

California, New York Create Disclosure Requirements for Commercial Financing Transactions

By

A&B ABstract:

As a general matter, state regulation of commercial lending is relatively light, and few states impose licensing requirement on commercial loan origination.  In two noteworthy state developments, however, California and New York will require loan “providers” to furnish certain consumer-like disclosures to prior to the consummation of commercial financing transactions.

The California requirements will not take effect until the effective date of final implementing regulations promulgated by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), which has not yet occurred.  The New York requirements take effect on January 1, 2022.  Notably, both laws exempt commercial financing secured by real property, but it is unclear whether mezzanine lending is included in such exemptions.

The New York Law

The New York law 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 NY law applies to closed end financing, open-end financing, sales- based financing, including merchant cash advances and factoring transactions.

Exemptions:

The NY Law 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 new commercial loan disclosure law, but the subsidiaries or affiliates of such exempt financial institutions are not exempt.     Commercial mortgage financings over $2,500,000 are exempt from the law as are transactions secured by real property.  It is unclear whether mezzanine lending in amounts of $2,500,000 or less would be covered by the new law.

Required disclosures:

The NY law requires providers to furnish the following type of disclosures, depending upon the form of the transaction:

  • The total amount of the commercial financing (or maximum amount of available credit) and, if different, the disbursement amount;
  • The finance charge;
  • The annual percentage rate or APR, calculated largely in accordance with TILA and Regulation Z;
  • The total repayment amount;
  • The term of the financing;
  • The amounts and frequency of payments;
  • A description of all other potential fees and charges;
  • A description of any prepayment charges; and
  • A description of any collateral requirements or security interests.

The California Law

The California law  (SB 1235), which was signed into law on September 18, 2018 but is not effective until the DFPI promulgates final regulations, amends the California Finance Lenders Law (CFL) to require “providers” licensed under the CFL who facilitate “commercial financing” to a “recipient” to 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.

Applicability:

The California law otherwise applies to, among other things, commercial loans, certain commercial open-end plans, factoring, merchant cash advances, and commercial asset- based lending.  Unlike the NY law which applies to brokers as well as lenders,  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 market place lending arrangement who facilitates the arrangement of financing through a financial institution.   Further, the California law defines “recipient” as the applicant of commercial credit of $500,000 or less.

Exemptions:

The California law exempts, among others, depository institutions and entities that make no more than one commercial financing in a 12 month period or who make five or fewer commercial financing transactions in California in a 12 month period that are incidental to the business of the entity relaying on the exemption.

Further, the California law does NOT apply to transactions greater than $500,000 or to real estate-secured commercial loans or financings.  It is unclear, however, whether mezzanine lending in amounts of $500,000 or less would be covered by the California law.

Required disclosures:

Once implemented, the California law will require the provider to disclose, among other information:

  •  The total amount of funds provided;
  • The total cost of the financing;
  • The term or estimated term;
  • The method, frequency and amount of payments; and
  • A description of prepayment penalties.
Implementation:

The DFPI has issued several sets of proposed regulations and has solicited public comment on these regulations.  The DFPI issued its most recent version of the regulations for public comment on October 12, 2021, and the comment period ended on October 27, 2021.  It is uncertain when the DFPI intends to promulgate final regulations with a mandated effective date.

The link to the California law is below:

Takeaway:

Up to this point, state regulation of commercial lending has been relatively light.  The California and New York laws are not only burdensome to lenders, they could be harbingers of developments to come in this area.

California AG Proposes Regulatory Changes to CCPA

By

Cyber attack

On December 10, the California Attorney General’s office provided “Notice of Fourth Set of Modifications” to regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act. The new proposed regulatory text would modify the current regulations which took effect in August. The latest proposal responds to comments on a prior draft and primarily addresses the presentation of the right to opt out of sales of personal data. The California AG has provided a web page with full details on this latest rulemaking effort.

Alston & Bird Analyzes New California Privacy Rights Act in Client Alert

By

Cyber attack

On November 3, California voters approved a ballot initiative containing the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020. The ballot initiative significantly revises the existing California Consumer Privacy Act to create arguably the most comprehensive state privacy law in the United States.

Alston & Bird has now issued a client alert explaining key impacts of this law. The client alert outlines essential steps for compliance, explains impacts on existing law, and outlines the operation of a dedicated new privacy regulator and enforcement authority, the California Privacy Protection Agency. You can read the client alert here.

California Enacts Debt Collector Licensure Law

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On September 25, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 908, which, in part, enacts the California Debt Collection Licensing Act (“Act”). Effective January 1, 2022, the Act will require the licensure of persons that engage in debt collection in California with California residents.   Notably, the Act also applies to entities collecting debt on their own behalf.  The Act’s requirements are in addition to those arising under the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), which regulates the practices of debt collectors.

A New Licensing Obligation

The Act provides that “[n]o person shall engage in the business of debt collection in this state without first obtaining a license [from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”), which succeeds the Department of Business Oversight effective January 1, 2021].”

What is debt collection and who is a debt collector?

The Act defines “debt collection” as “any act or practice in connection with the collection of consumer debt.”

“Consumer debt” is defined as “money, property, or their equivalent, due or owning, or alleged to be due or owing, or alleged to be due or owing, from a natural person by reason of a consumer credit transaction,” and specifically includes mortgage debt and “charged-off consumer debt” as defined in Section 1788.50 of the California Civil Code.

“Debt collector” means any person who, “in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on the person’s own behalf or on behalf of others, engages in debt collection.” The term includes any person, “who composes and sells, or offers to compose and sell, forms, letters and other collection media used or intended to be used for debt collection.” The term also includes a “debt buyer” as defined in Section 1788.50 of the California Civil Code.

Exclusions

The Act contains several exclusions from both its licensing obligation and the Act’s substantive provisions. Notably, the Act excludes from its scope, depository institutions, which is defined to include FDIC-insured out-of-state state-chartered banks, licensees under the California Financing Law, licensees under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, licensees under the California Real Estate Law, and a trustee performing acts in connection with a nonjudicial foreclosure, among others. Additionally, the Act does not apply to debt collection regulated by California’s Student Loan Servicing Act (Cal. Fin. Code §§ 28000 et seq.).

However, it should be noted that the Act authorizes the Commissioner of the DFPI to take action against those exempt from the Act, for violations of the Rosenthal Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.) or the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.50 et seq.).  Such actions may include, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, ordering the person to (1) desist and refrain from engaging in the business of further continuing the violation, or (2) pay ancillary relief, which may include refunds, restitution, disgorgement, and payment of damages, as appropriate, on behalf of a person injured by the conduct or practice that constitutes the subject matter of the assessment.

California Debt Collector Application

Persons wishing to obtain a California Debt Collector License must submit an application to the DFPI. Among other requirements under the Act, applicants must submit:

  • A completed license application signed under the penalty of perjury;
  • An application and an investigation fee; and
  • A sample of the initial consumer debt validation letter required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g that the licensee will use in correspondence with California consumers.

The DFPI has not yet released an application for this license. However, the Act authorizes the DFPI to require that applications be submitted through the NMLS.  We anticipate the DFPI will require that applications be submitted and processed through the NMLS.

Duties of Debt Collector Licensees

The Act imposes express duties on licensed debt collectors. Specifically, all licensed debt collectors must: (1) develop policies and procedures reasonably intended to promote compliance with the Act; (2) file any required reports with the Commissioner; (3) comply with the provisions of the Act and any regulation or order of the Commissioner; and (4) submit to periodic examination by the DFPI as required by the Act and any regulations promulgated thereunder.

Licensees must also maintain a surety bond in a minimum amount of $25,000.  The Commissioner is authorized to require licensees to submit bonds, riders, and endorsements electronically through the NMLS’s electronic surety bond function.

Additionally, each licensee will be required to pay an annual fee, representing the debt collector’s “pro rata share of all costs and expenses reasonably incurred in the administration of [the Act], as estimated by the commissioner, for the ensuing year and any deficit actually incurred or anticipated in the administration of [the Act] in the year in which the annual fee is levied.”

Licensees are also required to file an annual report with the Commissioner, on or before March 15, that contains all relevant information that the Commissioner reasonably requires concerning the business and operations conducted by the licensee in California during the preceding calendar year, including information regarding collection activity. The report must, at minimum, require disclosure of all of the following:

  • The total number of California debtor accounts purchased or collected on in the preceding year;
  • The total dollar amount of California debtor accounts purchased in the preceding year;
  • The face value dollar amount of California debtor accounts in the licensee’s portfolio in the preceding year;
  • The total dollar amount of California debtor accounts collected in the preceding year, and the total dollar amount of outstanding debt that remains uncollected;
  • The total dollar amount of net proceeds generated by California debtor accounts in the preceding year;
  • Whether or not the licensee is acting as a debt collector, debt buyer, or both; and
  • The case number of any action in which the licensee was held liable by final judgment under the Rosenthal Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.) or the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.50 et seq.).

Notably, these individual annual reports will be made available to the public for inspection.

DFPI Authority Under the Act

As noted above, the Act grants the Commissioner with broad authority to administer the Act, through investigations and examinations, and to adopt rules and regulations consistent with that authority.

If the Commissioner determines that a person who is required to be licensed under the Act is engaged in business as a debt collector without a license, or a person or licensee has violated any provision of the Act, the Commissioner may, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, order such person to (1) desist and refrain from engaging in the business of further continuing the violation, or (2) pay ancillary relief, which may include refunds, restitution, disgorgement, and payment of damages, as appropriate, on behalf of a person injured by the conduct or practice that constitutes the subject matter of the assessment.  In addition, the Commissioner has the authority to suspend or revoke licenses issued under the Act.

Takeaway

Effective January 1, 2022, California will require “debt collectors” engaged in the business of debt collection in the state to obtain a debt collection license.  The Act also authorizes the DFPI to enforce the provisions of the Rosenthal Act against “debt collectors,” which the Act defines consistent with the Rosenthal Act.

The Act should be of particular note for persons that service and collect on their own debt, as California joins a growing list of states that require a license for first-party collection activity.  Unlike other state debt collection laws, certain licensees in California may avail themselves of an exemption from the Act’s licensing obligation. Those currently acting as debt collectors in California that do not qualify for an exemption should closely monitor DFPI guidance for the release of application procedures.