Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Licensing

NMLS Seeks Comments on Proposed Revisions to Company and Individual Disclosure Questions

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

The Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry (NMLS) Policy Committee is inviting comments on the NMLS Disclosure Questions Proposal. The comment period is now open and runs until August 22. Among other revisions, the proposal details suggested revisions to the disclosure questions on the Company (MU1) and Individual (MU2) forms.

Proposed Revisions to NMLS Disclosure Questions

In key part, the proposed revisions include:

Company Disclosure Questions:

  • Adding a new question to incorporate a requirement of the Money Transmission Modernization Act, g., companies disclosing “material litigation” (which would be a newly defined term) in the past 10 years;
  • Expanding the civil judicial disclosures to include whether companies have been found in the past 10 years: (1) to have made a false statement or omission or been dishonest, unfair, or unethical, or (2) to have been a cause of another financial services business having its license or authorization denied, suspended, revoked, or restricted;
  • Amending the civil judicial disclosure question to include whether there are any pending financial services civil actions alleging that a company has made a false statement or omission, or had been dishonest, unfair, or unethical;
  • Requiring the criminal disclosure of any pending felony charges against companies, instead of any past felony charges;
  • Broadening the bankruptcy disclosure to include whether a company or control affiliate filed a bankruptcy petition in the past 10 years (in addition to being the subject of a bankruptcy petition) and clarifying that disclosure of either voluntary or involuntary petitions is required;
  • Adding a question whether companies have ever been denied issuance of a bond;
  • Introducing a new question asking whether a third-party service provider has notified a company of its intent to modify or cancel an arrangement that would materially alter the company’s ability to conduct business activities, and relatedly, defining “third-party service provider” to include lines of credit, whether warehouse or operation, technology solutions, etc.; and
  • Separating out into two sections under the existing regulatory action disclosures for: (1) companies that hold or have ever held an authorization to act as a contractor for a federal, state, or local government entity, (2) companies who have “key individuals” (which would be a newly defined term) or control individuals who are or have been licensed as attorneys or accountants or who hold or have been licensed as financial services professionals, and (3) added that dismissal of an action pursuant to a settlement agreement requires disclosure.
    • Regarding the last point in (3), this proposed revision is added in Question 14.e. which, according to the NMLS Policy Committee, is intended to broaden the question to account for how regulatory actions may be brought, including dismissal of an action pursuant to a settlement agreement. However, by including the term “settlement agreement”, which is not separately defined in the NMLS Policy Guidebook, Question 14.e. may potentially require the disclosure of nonpublic settlement agreements, which would be a significant change and perhaps an unintended result. The original questions are limited by the terms “found” (in Question 14.a-c.) and “order” (in Question 14.e.), both of which are defined terms indicating that only public settlement agreements and orders are required to be disclosed. Thus, we recommend that industry members consider whether to submit comments on this question to seek clarification.

Individual Disclosure Questions:

  • Making conforming proposed revisions relating to civil judicial and financial disclosures as described above in the Company Disclosure Questions;
  • Limiting the time period for the disclosure of misdemeanors to the past 10 years;
  • Making clarifications to require disclosure of judicial and non-judicial foreclosures on either commercial or residential property;
  • Adding new questions relating to pending regulatory actions against a holder of a financial services license or other professional license that could result in the restriction, revocation, debarment, or suspension of the license; and
  • Adding new questions regarding any pending financial services civil actions alleging a violation of a financial services statute or regulation for a company over which an individual exercised control, or a prior finding of the same.

Additional Proposed Revisions

In addition to proposed revisions to Company (MU1) and Individual (MU2) disclosure questions, the proposed revisions include amendments to the NMLS Policy Guidebook Glossary Terms.  Significantly, definitions for nine new terms are proposed: (1) Consumer Protection; (2) Court; (3) Efforts to Foreclose; (4) Governmental Entity; (5) Key Individual; (6) Lien; (7) Material Litigation; (8) Third Party Service Provider; and (9) Unsatisfied.  Amendments to existing terms include revising “financial services” to include consumer protection laws or regulations that pertain to enumerated financial services items, and clarifying the term “found” to cover agreements or settlements that are a matter of public record including those in which the findings are neither admitted or denied. The existing term “order” would be amended to add language to cover orders agreed to by the parties such as consent orders and stipulated orders, and to clarify that agreements relating to payments, limitations on activity, or other restrictions are excluded from the definition unless they are in a written directive that otherwise qualifies as an order.

Takeaway

We recommend that industry members, both licensees and applicants on NMLS, review the proposed revisions to the disclosure questions and consider whether to submit comments.  In particular, and as highlighted above, the proposed changes to Question 14.e. would appear to potentially require the disclosure of nonpublic settlement agreements, which would be a significant change from Question 14.e as currently worded.  If so, this may require companies to update their responses to the disclosure questions and submit additional information to NMLS regarding nonpublic settlement agreements.  Comments may be submitted via e-mail to comments@csbs.org by August 22.

Rhode Island Expands Lender Licensing for Retail Installment Contracts, Allows Remote MLO Work, and Makes Other Changes to Financial Institutions Laws

By

Rhode Island made a number of amendments to financial institutions statutes with the passage of Senate Bill 2794 / House Bill 7781 Sub A. Changes include the scope of licensing requirements applicable to retail installment contracts and the permissibility of remote work for MLOs and other employees. The changes were effective upon passage on June 29, 2022.

Licensing for Retail Installment Contracts

The law expands the definition of lender to include a person who makes retail installment contracts, thereby necessitating a license to create such contracts. Under existing law, a “lender” is any person who makes or funds a loan, and a license is required to engage in such lending activity. The amendment clarifies that a loan is made or funded within Rhode Island if a retail installment contract is created. The amendments define retail installment contracts to mean “any security agreement negotiated or executed in this state, or under the laws of this state, including, but not limited to, any agreement in the nature of a mortgage, conditional sale contract, or any other agreement whether or not evidenced by any written instrument to pay the retail purchase price of goods, or any part thereof, in installments over any period of time and pursuant to which any security interest is retained or taken by the retail seller for the payment of the purchase price, or any part thereof, of the retail installment contract.” Note that the law previously required a license to purchase or acquire retail installment contracts and defined the term in a separate statutory section.

MLO Remote Work

As with many jurisdictions, Rhode Island has also relaxed rules relating to remote work for employees of a mortgage licensee. Pursuant to the amendments, licensees no longer need to provide the physical premises for employees, as long as they continue to supervise the services provided by the employee to the licensee. Under the amendments, a licensee’s employees, including mortgage loan originators, may work from a remote location if certain conditions are met including that: (1) their residence or other location is identified in the records of the licensee and is within a reasonable distance of a place of business named in the licensee’s license or branch certificate, (2) the licensee maintains policies and procedures for supervision of, and employs appropriate risk-based monitoring and oversight process of work performed by, employees working from remote locations; (3) computer system access is subject to a comprehensive written information security plan; (4) in-person customer interaction does not occur at the remote location; and (5) physical records are not maintained at the remote location. The law also removes previous prohibitions on conducting other business at a licensed location without prior approval but adds a prohibition on tying services to a requirement that the consumer purchase any other product or service from a specified provider including those providers with whom the licensee is sharing office space.

Note that the Rhode Island Division of Banking has also issued guidance clarifying that MLOs are not required to live within a certain distance of a branch office (despite statutory language to the contrary), however, the Division will require that the licensed entity provide proof of effective supervision over all sponsored mortgage loan originators.

Georgia Amends its Residential Mortgage and Installment Loan Laws

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On May 2, 2022, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed HB 891 and SB 470 into law.  HB 891, effective July 1, 2022, updates various laws enforced by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) including, among other things, by amending (1) certain exemptions from licensure under the Georgia Residential Mortgage Act (“GRMA”), and (2) the Georgia Installment Loan Act (“GILA”) to impose a new licensing obligation to service installment loans subject to the GILA.   Similarly, SB 470, which took effect immediately, amends the GRMA’s provisions regarding felony restrictions for employees of mortgage licensees.

Changes to Licensing of Mortgage Lenders and Brokers

HB 891 made several changes to Title 7 of the Georgia Code, including several amendments to the GRMA, but perhaps one of the most notable changes with respect to mortgage lending involves the creation of a new exemption from licensure under the GRMA for persons holding loans for securitization into a secondary market.  Specifically, as of July 1, 2022, any person who purchases or holds closed mortgage loans for the sole purpose of securitization into a secondary market, is expressly exempt from licensing, provided that such person holds the individual loans for less than seven days. Note that the statute further defines “person” as any individual, sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, partnership, trust, or any other group, however organized. As written, the new exemption language suggests that persons holding loans as part of the securitization process for longer than 7 days could not rely on the exemption. Note that the GRMA’s existing definition of a “mortgage lender” includes a “person who directly or indirectly…holds, or purchases mortgage loans” and the GRMA contains an existing exemption for any person who purchases mortgage loans from a mortgage broker or mortgage lender solely as an investment and who is not in the business of brokering, making, purchasing, or servicing mortgage loans.

HB 891 also amended an existing exemption from licensure applicable to certain natural persons under an exclusive written independent contract agreement with a mortgage broker who is, or is affiliated with, an insurance company or broker dealer. Under the exemption, as amended, a natural person otherwise required to be licensed is exempt from licensure as a mortgage lender or broker, when under an exclusive written independent contractor agreement with a licensed mortgage broker, so long as the mortgage broker satisfies certain expanded criteria, including, among others  (1) maintaining an active mortgage broker license, (2) maintaining full and direct financial responsibility for the mortgage activities of the natural person, (3) maintaining full and direct responsibility for the natural persons education, handling of consumer complaints, and supervision of the natural person’s mortgage activities, (4) having listed securities for trade and meeting certain market capitalization requirements, (5) being licensed as an insurance company or registered as a broker-dealer, and (6) being licensed as a mortgage lender or broker in ten or more states. The exemption previously applied to certain natural persons employed by the subsidiary of certain financial holding companies. Notably, to maintain the exemption, the natural person must, among other things (1) be licensed as a mortgage loan originator in Georgia and work exclusively for the licensee, the parent company if the licensee is a wholly owned subsidiary, or an affiliate of the licensee if both the affiliate and licensee are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, and (2) be licensed as an insurance agent or registered as a broker-dealer agent on behalf of the licensee, the parent company if the licensee is a wholly owned subsidiary, or an affiliate of the licensee if both the affiliate and licensee are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company.

HB 891’s amendments to the GRMA’s licensing provisions follow SB 470, which provided welcome changes to the GRMA’s felony restrictions. As amended, Georgia law now provides that the Department may not issue or may revoke a license or registration if it finds that the mortgage loan originator, broker, or lender, or any person who is a director, officer, partner, covered employee or ultimate equitable owner of 10% or more of the mortgage broker or lender or any individual who directs the affairs or establishes policy for the mortgage broker or lender applicant, registrant, or licensee, has been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction or of a crime which, if committed in Georgia, would constitute a felony under Georgia law.  Previously, Georgia law arguably prohibited a licensee from retaining any individual convicted of a felony that could be deemed an employee or agent of the licensee. As amended, the employee restriction is relaxed to apply only to a “covered employee,” a newly defined term that means an employee of a mortgage lender or broker “involved in residential mortgage loan related activities for property located in Georgia and includes, but is not limited to, a mortgage loan originator, processor, or underwriter, or other employee who has access to residential mortgage loan origination, processing, or underwriting information.” Notably, the restriction no longer applies to an “agent” of a licensee.

Changes to Installment Loan Licensing

HB 891 also amended the GILA to require licensure for persons engaged in servicing of installment loans.  Before the amendments, the GILA only imposed a licensing obligation on persons who advertise, solicit, offer, or make installment loans to individuals in amounts of $3,000 or less.  As amended, any person that services installment loans made by others, excluding loans made by affiliated entities, is also required to obtain a license. HB 891’s amendments also added a number of new exemptions from licensure, including for (1) retail installment transactions engaged in by retail installment sellers and retail sellers, as those terms are defined, and (2) transactions in which a lender offers a consumer a line of credit of more than $3,000 but the consumer utilizes $3,000 or less of the line, so long as there are no restrictions that would limit the consumer’s ability to utilize more than $3,000 of the line at any one time. Additionally, the GILA’s provisions relating to tax on interest has been repealed and reenacted and now requires that installment lenders remit to the Department a fee of 0.125 percent of the gross loan amount on each loan made on or after July 1, 2022, and such fee becomes due on the making of any loan subject to the GILA. This revised fee replaces the prior fee of three (3) percent of the total amount of interest on any loan collected. The statute clarifies that the per loan fee must be paid by the licensee and cannot be passed through to the borrower as an additional itemized fee or charge. The method by which a licensee pays the fee is subject to further clarification via Department regulations.

Takeaway

Mortgage lenders and brokers should review the GRMA, as amended, to determine whether, and if so how, the amendments impact their licensing obligations or their policies with respect to employee background checks in Georgia. Additionally, entities servicing installment loans subject to the GILA, which are originated by non-affiliates, must now obtain a license. Licensees should also take note of the new per loan fee requirements in lieu of prior tax payment regulations.

New Proposed Registration Requirements for Covered Financial Products and Services Under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law

By

Last year, California passed the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (“CCFPL”), which renamed the Department of Business Oversight as the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) and expanded the authority of the department, including increased regulatory authority related to certain financial products. Under that widened purview, the DFPI has now proposed regulations requiring registration for certain financial product providers, including education financing and wage-based advances.

The CCFPL as Enacted

Under the statute, certain regulatory burdens apply to “covered persons” and “service providers” that broadly encompass entities offering extensions of credit and other consumer financial services and products, with certain exceptions and exemptions. With respect to the currently proposed regulations, the CCFPL allows the DFPI, with certain exemptions, to prescribe rules regarding registration requirements applicable to a covered person engaged in the business of offering or providing a consumer financial product or service. The CCFPL also states, however, that registration will not be required for any covered person licensed by the department under another law and who is providing a financial product or service within the scope of that license. The DFPI has sought comments regarding the proposed regulations including specifically “to clarify whether and when the registration requirements apply to Department licensees and licensees and registrants of other state agencies.” Comments on this and other potential issues with the proposed regulations may be submitted by December 20.

The Proposed Regulations

The proposed regulations, if finalized, would require registration for “subject products,” including for covered persons providing wage-based advances or education financing. Waged-based advances are defined in the proposed regulations as “funds paid to workers by a provider other than an obligor that are based on wages or compensation that a worker or the worker’s obligor has represented, and that a provider has reasonably determined, have been earned but have not, at the time of the advance, been paid to the worker for work performed for or on behalf of an obligor or obligors.” Education financing is defined to include any credit “extended for the purpose of funding postsecondary education and costs of attendance at a postsecondary institution, including, but not limited to, tuition, fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and miscellaneous personal expenses.”

The proposal contemplates registration through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS), including use of uniform forms (“MU1”). Applicants are not required to complete Section 10 (“Bank Account Information”) or Section 17 (“Qualifying Individuals”) of Form MU1. With respect to described business activities, in addition to any other relevant activities, education financers would need to designate “private student loan lending,” while those providing wage-based advances fall into the category of “other – consumer finance” on the form. Registrants would also need to disclose other trade names, designate contact employees, provide organizational charts (including indirect owners), management charts, and detailed business descriptions. Registrants would also need identify certain individuals, including principal officers, directors, managing members, general partners, individuals controlling (directly or indirectly) 10% or more, and responsible individuals. Identified individuals do not need to complete fingerprinting. Branch offices would also be registered, including identification of branch managers, separately using form MU3. Changes in information submitted would also be updated in NMLS. Annual financial reporting and disclosures, as well as fees are proposed too.

Outside of NMLS, the regulations, if finalized as proposed, would require an applicant for registration to submit directly to DFPI supplemental information including sample forms. Education financers would need to include copies of third-party contracts and agreements as well as marketing material and additional sample documents. With respect to those providing wage-based advances, the supplemental application would also include additional sample contracts and agreements used to provide the service as well as additional information regarding the product cycle.

Conclusion  

The registration requirements are not effective until DFPI completes the comment period and other rulemaking procedures. It is unclear what the effective date of any future finalized regulations would be. It is also not clear if current industry participants will be able to continue to operate while registrations are pending once the rules are finalized. We will continue to monitor the situation as the regulations proceed.

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.