Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

State Law

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.

Colorado Privacy Act Becomes Third Comprehensive State Privacy Act in the United States

By ,

The Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) became law when Governor Jared Polis signed the bill on July 7, 2021. The CPA is the third general state privacy law in the United States, following the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). Although the CPA does not provide an express private right of action, businesses that violate the Act may face liability for deceptive acts (and a civil penalty of $20,000 per violation), enforced by the Colorado attorney general and/or Colorado state district attorneys.

In a Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Advisory, our Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Team highlights some of the similarities and differences between Colorado’s new consumer privacy law and its older siblings in California and Virginia.

Colorado Becomes the Third State to Adopt a General Privacy Law

By

On July 7, Colorado became the third state behind California and Virginia to adopt a comprehensive privacy law when Governor Jared Polis signed the Colorado Privacy Act into law. The CPA contains many similarities to the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) and the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). But there are several key differences, including with respect to the scope of certain of the consumer privacy rights and the contract terms required in agreements with processors. Like CPRA but unlike the VCDPA, the statute mandates a formal rulemaking process. Notably, the law does not contain a private right of action, but a violation of the CPA is considered a deceptive trade practice and may result in a fine of $20,000 per violation. The CPA takes effect July 1, 2023.

Please contact our Privacy, Cyber & Data Strategy Team with any questions or for further guidance.

Highlights of Washington Department of Financial Institutions’ Recent Mortgage Industry Webinar

By

A&B ABstract: In a webinar earlier this month, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions provided updates on licensing, rulemaking, and recent examination findings.

On June 2, the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) held a webinar covering mortgage industry updates in the state.  Among the topics discussed were:

Licensing Updates

Between May 2020 and May 2021, the DFI has seen a substantial increase in licensing activities involving issuances and renewals for both mortgage loan originators and companies, including MLO temporary authority to operate.

Rulemaking Updates

On June 15, the DFI will hold an industry stakeholders meeting to consider amending the rules under the Consumer Loan Act (“CLA,” WAC 208-620) and the Mortgage Broker Practices Act (“MBPA,” WAC 620-660) to allow MLOs to work from home without licensing the residence as a branch office.  The proposed rules will implement enacted Senate Bill 5077 (2021 Wash. Sess. Laws 15), which takes effect on July 25.

Examination Updates

During the first quarter of 2021, the DFI conducted examinations for the review period of October 2020 through April 2021.  Commonly identified violations included:

For mortgage loan servicing:
  • Failure to file accurate annual assessments;
  • Failure to suppress adverse credit reporting for CARES Act forbearances, most often during the initial months of forbearance;
  • Failure to maintain records (typically involving subservicers);
  • Inaccurate adjustable rate change information (i.e., incorrect margin or index); and
  • Inaccurate consolidated annual reports.
For mortgage loan origination, under the CLA:
  • Failure to update surety bond amounts as required by WAC 208-620-320;
  • Failure to date residential mortgage loan applications (initial and revised) as required by WAC 208-620-550(18);
  • Failure to have day-to-day operations managers licensed as an MLO; and
  • Failure to have a written supervisory plan in place.
For mortgage loan origination, under the MBPA:
  • With respect to quarterly mortgage condition reports (“MCRs”), failure to timely file and/or failure to file accurate MCRs;
  • Failure to develop and implement an adequate Anti-Money Laundering program;
  • Failure to provide updated lock-in agreements when lock terms change;
  • Failure to include a link to the company’s NMLS consumer access website on all internet advertisements; and
  • Advertising violations, namely using disallowed phrases (such as “best” or “lowest” when describing rates, fees, and programs) or advertising “no closing costs” or that something is “free”.

Takeaways

The webinar suggests that the pandemic has created both a surge in license applications and renewals, as well as increases in the volume of mortgage loans, for Washington licensees.

The examination findings serve as a reminder to Washington State licensees to be mindful of their own compliance management and quality control processes, in order to ensure that they are conducting business activities in compliance with all statutes and regulations (to include the CLA and MBPA).