Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Truth in Lending Act (TILA)

CFPB Issues Credit Card Penalty Fee Final Rule, Reduces Late Fees to $8

By ,

What Happened?

On March 5, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued the Credit Card Penalty Fees Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which reduces the safe harbor for the maximum late fee that large credit card issuers may charge to $8. This rule is effective on May 14, 2024.

Why Is It Important?

Background

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 provided that any penalty fee imposed on a consumer in connection to an omission or violation of a cardholder agreement under an open-end consumer credit plan must be “reasonable and proportional” to the omission and violation.[1] To implement this provision, Regulation Z provided that card issuers may not impose a fee for violating the terms of a credit card account under an open-end consumer credit plan (“Penalty Fee”) unless the issuer (1) undergoes a cost analysis and determines that the fee is reasonably proportional to the total costs incurred by the issuer for such violation, or (2) complies with the safe harbor provisions, which provide set amounts for Penalty Fees that card issuers may charge.[2]

Previously, the safe harbor for Penalty Fees were $30 for an initial violation and $41 for each subsequent violation of the same type that occurs during the same billing cycle or in one of the next six billing cycles. These thresholds were adjusted annually to reflect changes to the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”).[3]

Final Rule

Under the Final Rule, the safe harbor threshold for late fees is limited to $8 and the annual adjustments to reflect changes in the CPI no longer apply to the $8 threshold. This new threshold only applies to “Large Card Issuers,” which are card issuers that have one million or more open credit card accounts.

The new late fee safe harbor threshold does not apply to Smaller Card Issuers. To qualify as a “Smaller Card Issuer,” the issuer, together with its affiliates, must have fewer than one million “open credit card accounts” from January through December of the preceding year.[4] If an issuer has one million or more open credit card accounts at any point in the current calendar year, it loses its status as a Smaller Card Issuer.[5] If the card issuer chooses to use the Regulation Z safe harbor provisions, the late fee safe harbor threshold of $8 is applicable to the issuer starting the 60th day after it meets or exceeds the threshold.[6] It will not qualify as a Smaller Card Issuer again until it has fewer than one million open credit card accounts in an entire preceding calendar year.

For other violations, the safe harbor amounts, adjusted to reflect changes to the CPI, are now $32 for an initial violation and $43 for subsequent violations of the same type that occurs during the same billing cycle or in one of the next six billing cycles.[7] Large Card Issuers may charge Penalty Fees pursuant to these safe harbors for other violations of the terms or requirements of an account.[8]  Smaller Card Issuers may continue to charge fees, including late fees, under the current safe harbor provisions.

Alternatively, if not relying on the safe harbor provisions, a card issuer may impose penalties on consumers for violations of their credit card account if the issuer undergoes a cost analysis and determines that the fee is reasonably proportional to the total costs incurred by the issuer for such violation. However, the Final Rule provides that when determining penalty fees, card issuers may not include any collection costs incurred after an account is charged-off in accordance with loan loss provisions.[9]  These restrictions and challenges in demonstrating that the fee is reasonably proportional to the total costs incurred by the issuer for violations make it difficult for card issuers to deviate from the safe harbors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “USCC”) indicated that it would sue “immediately” to prevent the Final Rule from going into effect, arguing that the Final Rule will result in fewer card offerings and limit access to affordable credit for many consumers.[10] On March 7, 2024, two days after the CFPB issued its Final Rule, the USCC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas seeking an injunction to stop the CFPB from implementing the Final Rule.[11] Most recently, in an order on March 18, 2024, the U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman expressed concern over the choice of venue and has ordered briefing regarding the choice to determine whether the case should be transferred to another venue.[12]

What Do I Need to Do?

Large Card Issuers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and controls are updated to ensure compliance with the Final Rule by May 14th, pending the outcome of any litigation against the CFPB challenging the Final Rule. Smaller Card Issuers should monitor the number of open accounts that they and their affiliates have to ensure that they still qualify as Smaller Card Issuers and that they are charging the correct late fee penalties depending on their status.

[1] 15 USC § 1665d(a).

[2] 12 CFR § 1026.52(b)(1).

[3] 12 CFR §1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(D).

[4] 12 CFR § 1026.52(b)(3). “Affiliate” means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company, as set forth in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. §§ 1841 et seq.). Id. “Open credit card accounts” are credit card accounts under an open end (not home secured) consumer credit plan where either (1) the cardholder can obtain extensions of credit on the account or (2) there is an outstanding balance on the account that has not been charged off. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.52(b)(6). An account that has been suspended temporarily is considered an open credit card account. Id.

[5] 12 CFR § 1026.52(b)(3).

[6] Id.

[7] 12 CFR §1026.52(b)(1)(ii)(A), (B).

[8] 12 CFR §1026.52(b)(1)(ii).

[9] 12 CFR §1026.52(b)(1)(i), Comment 2.i

[10] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber Opposes New CFPB Credit Card Late Fees Rule That Limits Access to Affordable Consumer Credit (March 5, 2024), https://www.uschamber.com/finance/u-s-chamber-opposes-new-cfpb-credit-card-late-fees-rule-that-limits-access-to-affordable-consumer-credit.

[11] U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber Files Lawsuit Against Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Protect Credit Card Users (March 7, 2024), https://www.uschamber.com/finance/u-s-chamber-files-lawsuit-against-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-to-protect-credit-card-users.

[12] Order, Doc. 45 at 1, Mar. 18, 2024, No. 4:24-cv-00213-P, https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/dwvkeqowrvm/03192024cfpb_venue.pdf.

Complying with the “Consider” Requirement Under the Revised Qualified Mortgage Rules

By

A&B Abstract:

Purchasers of residential mortgage loans who are conducting audits of residential mortgages that they buy in the secondary market are struggling to determine what documentation satisfies the “consider” requirement of the revised qualified mortgage (QM) standards that became mandatory on October 1, 2022. In fact, originators of residential mortgage loans are not in agreement regarding what particular written policies and procedures they must promulgate and maintain and the documentation that they should include in the loan files. We set forth what we believe are the policies and procedures and the documentation that creditors must maintain and provide to their counterparties to comply with the consider requirement.

The Revised QM Rules

As a threshold matter, on December 10, 2020, Kathy Kraninger, who was the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), issued the revised QM rules that replaced Appendix Q and the strict 43% debt-to-income ratio (DTI) underwriting threshold with a priced-based QM loan definition. The revised QM rules also terminated the QM Patch, under which certain loans eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not have to be underwritten to Appendix Q or satisfy the capped 43% DTI requirement. Compliance with the new rules became mandatory on October 1, 2022.

Under the revised rules, for first-lien transactions, a loan receives a conclusive presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay (and hence receives the safe harbor presumption of QM compliance) if the annual percentage rate does not exceed the average prime offer rate (APOR) for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more as of the date the interest rate is set. A first-lien loan receives a “rebuttable presumption” that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR exceeds the APOR for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more but by less than 2.25 percentage points. The revised QM rules provide for higher thresholds for loans with smaller loan amounts, for subordinate-lien transactions, and for certain manufactured housing loans.

To qualify for QM status, the loan must continue to meet the statutory requirements regarding the 3% points and fees limits, and it must not contain negative amortization, a balloon payment (except in the existing limited circumstances), or a term exceeding 30 years.

Consider and Verify Consumer Income and Assets

In lieu of underwriting to Appendix Q, the revised rule requires that the creditor consider the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and DTI ratio or residual income. The final rule also requires the creditor to verify the consumer’s current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan and the consumer’s current debt obligations, alimony, and child support.

In particular, to comply with the consider requirement under the rule, the CFPB provides creditors the option to consider either the consumer’s monthly residual income or DTI. The CFPB imposes no bright-line DTI limits or residual income thresholds. As part of the consider requirement, a creditor must maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above and retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination.

The CFPB indicates that this documentation may include, for example, “an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that shows how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination.”

CFPB Staff Commentary

Paragraph 43(e)(2)(v)(A) of the CFPB Staff Commentary to Regulation Z requires creditors to comply with the consider requirement of the new QM rule by doing the following:

a creditor must take into account current or reasonably expected income or assets other than the value of the dwelling (including any real property attached to the dwelling) that secures the loan, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must maintain written policies and procedures for how it takes into account, pursuant to its underwriting standards, income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination. A creditor must also retain documentation showing how it took into account income or assets, debt obligations, alimony, child support, and monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income in its ability-to-repay determination, including how it applied its policies and procedures, in order to meet this requirement to consider and thereby meet the requirements for a qualified mortgage under § 1026.43(e)(2). This documentation may include, for example, an underwriter worksheet or a final automated underwriting system certification, in combination with the creditor’s applicable underwriting standards and any applicable exceptions described in its policies and procedures, that show how these required factors were taken into account in the creditor’s ability-to-repay determination [emphasis added].

The Secondary Market’s Review of Creditors’ Policies and Procedures and File Documentation

The revised rules suggest that, at a minimum, to ensure that the creditor has satisfied the “consider” requirement, a creditor must promulgate and maintain policies and procedures for how it takes into account the underwriting factors enumerated above as well as retain documentation showing how it took these factors into account in its ability-to-repay determination. Ideally, the creditor should make these written policies and procedures available to the creditor’s secondary market counterparties.

Further, and more importantly, the revised rules indicate that the individual loan files should contain a worksheet, Automated Underwriting Systems (AUS) certification, or some other written evidence documenting how the enumerated factors were taken into account in meeting the enhanced ability-to-repay standards. The underwriters should document their use of applicable exceptions to the creditor’s general policies and procedures in underwriting the loan.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is our understanding that compliance with these requirements has been uneven in the industry and that certain creditors have not promulgated the requisite written policies and procedures related to the consideration of income, assets, and debt. In addition, documentation (i.e., worksheets and AUS certifications) of these factors in individual loan files has been haphazard and inconsistent.

In March 2023, the Structured Finance Association convened an ATR/QM Scope of Review Task Force, comprising rating agencies, diligence firms, issuers, and law firms, to develop uniform best practice testing standards for performing due diligence on QM loans. Discussion topics included the documentation of the consider requirement of the revised QM rules.

In its early meetings, the participants in the task force confirmed that creditors have not uniformly developed written policies and procedures documenting the consider requirement. Participants have focused more on the creditor’s actual documentation of income, assets, and debt in individual loan files they believe would demonstrate substantive compliance with the underwriting requirements of the revised rules.

At this early juncture (compliance with the revised rule became mandatory in October 2022), it may be premature for secondary market purchasers of residential mortgage loans to cite their sellers or servicers for substantive noncompliance with the revised QM rules if these entities have not developed robust written policies and procedures that show how they consider income, assets, and debt.

It may be more fruitful for the secondary market to focus on the actual file documentation itself and determine whether the creditors have satisfied the consider requirement by properly underwriting the loans in accordance with the requisite elements and documenting the file with the appropriate worksheets and other written evidence.

The creditor’s failure to maintain the general policies and procedures does not necessarily render the subject loans non-QM if the loan files are adequately underwritten and amply documented. Compliance with the new QM rules and the documentation of the consider requirement is still at a rudimentary stage, and the secondary market will have to periodically revisit the way it audits mortgage loans.

Correspondent Lending on the Rise: Increasing Gains Point to Increasing Risk

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

According to a recent edition of Inside Mortgage Finance, correspondent lending is the only lending channel that posted gains in Q3 2023. While it is always nice to see gains, it should also serve as a reminder to take a fresh look at your risk management program to ensure it is calibrated to address the unique risks of correspondent lending.

To level set, we define a correspondent lender as one who performs the activities necessary to originate a mortgage loan, i.e., takes and processes applications, provides required disclosures, and often, but not always, underwrites loans and makes the final credit decision. The correspondent lender closes loans in its name, funds the loans (often through a warehouse line of credit), and sells them to an investor by prior agreement.

The risk that correspondent misconduct poses to an investor falls broadly into three categories:  legal risk, reputational risk, and credit risk. Legal risk refers to the risk that the investor will be subject to legal claims based on the misconduct of the correspondent, or that the correspondent misconduct somehow will impair the investor’s rights under the loan agreements. Reputational risk refers to the risk of damage to the company’s reputation among investors, regulators, the public at large, counterparties, etc. Credit risk refers to the risk that correspondents will fail to conform to the investor’s underwriting guidelines or credit standards. We include fraud within this category.

In this post, we provide, in our assessment, an overview of the types of claims that pose the greatest legal risks, as well as best practices to mitigate such risks.

Theories of Liability on Assignees

The following laws and/or legal theories, in our assessment, pose the greatest risk of either vicarious liability or economic risk to assignees for the misconduct of correspondents:

  • Holder in Due Course:  Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if an assignee or “holder” of a mortgage loan rises to the level of a Holder in Due Course, it can enforce the borrower’s obligations notwithstanding certain defenses to repayment or claims in recoupment that the borrower may have against the original payee. If Holder in Due Course status is never attained or is lost, the purchaser of a mortgage loan will be subject to certain defenses to payment and claims in recoupment that the mortgagor may have against the original payee.
  • Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA): An assignee may be exposed to civil liability for a TILA violation that is apparent on the face of the disclosure statement.  In addition, for certain violations of TILA, a consumer may have an extended right to rescind a loan for up to three years from consummation. The consumer may exercise this right against an assignee. Moreover, amendments to TILA pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) expand the liability of assignees in connection with certain TILA violations, including violations relating to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure or TILA’s ability to repay, loan originator compensation, and anti-steering provisions.
  • Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”) / Section 32 “High Cost” Loans: Subject to certain exceptions, an assignee of a HOEPA loan is subject to all claims and defenses with respect to the mortgage that the consumer could assert against the original creditor.
  • Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”): ECOA’s broad definition of “creditor” may place liability on assignees for the statute’s anti-discrimination and disclosure requirements where the assignee “regularly participates” in the credit decision.
  • State and Local Anti-Predatory Lending Laws: A number of states have passed anti-predatory lending laws that contain assignee liability provisions similar to those found in HOEPA with triggers that may differ from HOEPA. An assignee of a loan covered by such a state law will be subject to certain claims and defenses with respect to the mortgage that the consumer could assert against the original creditor.
  • Aiding and Abetting: Under the common law theory of aiding and abetting, loan purchasers and other parties can be held responsible for the acts of the lender that originated the loan, particularly if they (i) knew that the originating lender was engaged in “predatory” practices, and (ii) gave substantial assistance or encouragement to the originating lender. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes aiding and abetting liability.
  • State and Federal Defenses to Foreclosure: Certain state laws expressly provide that a violation of the law may be asserted by a borrower as a defense against foreclosure, either as a bar to foreclosure or as a claim for recoupment or setoff. In addition, courts may invoke UDAP or UDAAP statutes or equitable remedies to prevent an originator or assignee from foreclosing on a loan that the court views as abusive or unfair.  Finally, as noted above, violations of TILA’s ability to repay, loan originator compensation, and anti-steering provisions may also be raised defensively to delay or prevent foreclosure.
  • State Licensing and Usury Laws: Certain state laws provide for the impairment of the mortgage loan if the originating lender was not properly licensed or the loan exceeded state usury limits.
  • Challenges to Ownership: Plaintiffs are increasingly raising concerns about investors’ or servicers’ authority to foreclose when the investor cannot produce original loan documents or otherwise verify ownership of the loan, although this risk is lessened when an investor acquires the loan directly from the original creditor.

The list above reflects the laws and legal theories that are most commonly used to impose liability on assignees and/or that we believe will be of increasing prominence going forward. There are other federal and state laws that might also expose assignees to liability, either expressly or by implication. There are also claims against an assignee based on the assignee’s own misconduct in connection with the origination of the loan. An example of a direct claim against an assignee related to loan origination would be a claim under fair lending laws that the underwriting criteria that the assignee established and provided to its correspondents violated fair lending laws. Of course, there are plenty of other risks that the assignee may need to manage, such as the risk of loss from fraud perpetrated against the assignee by borrowers or correspondents; the risk of correspondents’ non-compliance with the investor’s underwriting criteria; or the risk of liability from servicing violations.

Best Practices to Mitigate Correspondent Lending Risk

A financial institution should consider adopting the following best practices to mitigate against the legal, reputational, and credit risks presented by correspondent lending relationships, to the extent the institution has not done so already:

  • Ensure that its compliance management system reflects the legal and regulatory requirements relevant to correspondent lending activity and the risks presented by correspondent lending relationships, that the company has in place monitoring, testing, and audit processes commensurate with such risks, and that the company’s compliance training includes material relevant to the management of correspondent lending relationships and their associated risks.
  • Prepare written policies and procedures that explain comprehensively the steps the company takes to minimize the risk that it will be subjected to liability for violations by correspondents.
  • Conduct due diligence reviews to ensure that correspondents are properly licensed, particularly in those states in which the failure to be licensed could impair the enforceability of the loan.
  • Conduct company-level due diligence reviews of correspondents to assess whether the correspondent is willing and able to comply with applicable laws and avoid engaging in practices that might be considered predatory. This might involve reviewing the company’s policies and procedures, examination reports prepared by regulators (to the extent that such reports are not confidential), repurchase demands made against the correspondent, internal quality control reports, complaints received from consumers and regulators, and information about litigation in which the company is involved.
  • Interview correspondents regarding their policies and procedures designed to prevent predatory sales tactics and other predatory lending practices.
  • Question correspondents regarding the measures they use to oversee and monitor the brokers with whom they do business.
  • Perform loan-level reviews to ensure that loans (1) do not exceed HOEPA and state/local high cost loan law thresholds, (2) exceed state usury limits (particularly in states in which the failure to comply can impair the enforceability of the loan), (3) either are not covered by state or local anti-predatory lending laws or comply with the applicable restrictions under those laws, (4) comply with state usury restrictions, and (5) do not contain other illegal terms or predatory features.

Takeaway

With correspondent lending volume on the rise, now is a good time to review and possibly refresh your risk management approach to ensure it is commensurate with the risks presented by correspondent lending relationships.

Oh Snap! CFPB Sues Fintech Company under CFPA and TILA

By

A&B Abstract:

On July 19, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued a Utah-based fintech company and several of its affiliates (the Company) for allegedly deceiving consumers and obscuring the terms of its financing agreements in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and other federal regulations.

The Allegations

The Company provides lease-to-own financing, through which consumers finance purchases from merchants though the Company’s “Purchase Agreements,” and, in turn, make payments back to the Company.  The Company allegedly provides the merchants with advertisement materials and involves them heavily in the application and contracting process.

According to the CFPB, the Company’s advertising and servicing efforts were deceptive.  As part of its marketing efforts, the Company allegedly provided its merchant partners with display advertisements that featured the phrase “100 Day Cash Payoff” without further explanation of the terms of financing.  Consumers who received financing from the Company reasonably believed they had entered into a 100-day financing agreement, where their automatically scheduled payments would fulfill their payment obligations after 100 days.  But, in fact, consumers had to affirmatively exercise the 100-day early payment discount option, and if they missed the deadline pay significantly more than the “cash” price under the terms of their Purchase Agreements.  Additionally, as part of its servicing efforts, the Company allegedly threatened consumers with collection actions that it does not bring.

From the CFPB’s perspective, these efforts constituted deceptive acts or practices under the CFPA.  The marketing efforts were deceptive because the Company’s use of this featured phrase was a (1) representation or practice; (2) material to consumers’ decision to take out financing; and (3) was likely to mislead reasonable consumers as to the nature of the financing agreement, while the servicing efforts were deceptive because the Company threatened actions it does not take.

The CFPB also alleges that the Company’s application and contracting process was abusive.  The Company allegedly designed and implemented a Merchant Portal application and contracting process that frequently resulted in merchants signing and submitting Purchase Agreements on behalf of consumers without the consumer’s prior review of the agreement.  Further, the Company relied on merchants to explain the terms of the agreements but provided them with no written guidance for doing so.  And as part of the process, the Company required consumers to pay a processing fee before receiving a summary of the terms of their agreement and before seeing or signing their final agreement.

Altogether, the CFPB views these acts and practices as abusive under the CFPA because they “materially interfered” with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreements.

Lastly, the CFPB alleges that the Company’s Purchase Agreements did not meet TILA and its implementing Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.  On this point, the CFPB is careful in alleging that the Purchase Agreements are not typical rent-to-own agreements to which TILA does not apply.  Rather, the CFPB alleges they are actually “credit sales” because the agreements permitted consumers to terminate only at the conclusion of an automatically renewing 60-day term, and only if consumers were current on their payment obligations through the end of that term.

Takeaways

This suit serves as a good reminder to every lending program to: (i) have counsel carefully vet all advertisements to ensure that they are not inadvertently deceptive or misleading to consumers; (ii) ensure that the mechanics of its application process facilitate rather than interfere with consumers’ ability to understand the terms and conditions; and (iii) consult with counsel regarding whether their agreements are subject to TILA and Regulation Z’s disclosure requirements.

Georgia, Florida, Connecticut Enact Commercial Financial Disclosure Laws

By ,

A&B Abstract:

Georgia, Florida, and Connecticut are among a growing list of states, including California, New York, Utah, and Virginia, that have enacted laws requiring consumer-style disclosures for commercial financing transactions. These laws are part of a burgeoning trend by state legislatures to impose burdensome disclosures, like those required by the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), on providers of small-balance commercial loans and financings. These laws apply to business-purpose transactions but not to transactions having a consumer, family, or household purpose.

The Georgia Law

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, known as Senate Bill 90, 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.

Exemptions

The Georgia law exempts federally insured depository institutions and their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; Georgia-licensed money transmitters; captive finance companies; and institutions regulated by the federal Farm Credit Act. The law also exempts purchase money obligations.

Required Disclosures

The Georgia law requires providers of commercial financing transactions to furnish the following information prior to consummation:

  • Total funds provided to the business.
  • Total funds disbursed.
  • Total amount paid to the provider.
  • Total dollar cost of the transaction.
  • Payment schedule.
  • Costs associated with prepayment.

Penalties

Providers who violate these disclosure requirements face civil penalties ranging from $500 per violation to $20,000 with possible additional penalties for continued violations. Notably, violations do not affect the enforceability of the transactions, and there is no private right of action under the law.

The Florida Law

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 takes effect July 1, 2023 and becomes 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: federally insured depository institutions, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and holding companies; licensed money transmitters; real-estate-secured loans; loans exceeding $500,000; leases; and certain purchase money transactions.

Required Disclosures

The provider is required to disclose in writing the following at or before the consummation of a commercial financing transaction:

  • The total amount of funds provided to the business.
  • The total amount of funds disbursed to the business if less than the total amount of funds provided because of any fees deducted or withheld at disbursement and any amount paid to a third party on behalf of the business.
  • The total amount to be paid to the provider.
  • The total dollar cost of the commercial financing transaction, calculated by subtracting the total amount of funds provided from the total amount of the payments.
  • The manner, frequency, and amount of each payment or, if there are variable payments, an estimated initial payment and the methodology used for calculating it.
  • Certain information about prepayments.

Prohibited Acts

The Florida law prohibits a broker arranging a consumer financing transaction from engaging in any of the following acts:

  • Assessing, collecting, or soliciting an advance fee from a business to provide services to a broker. However, this prohibition would not preclude a broker from soliciting a business to pay for, or preclude a business from paying for, actual services necessary to apply for commercial financial products, such as a credit check or an appraisal of security, if certain conditions are met.
  • Making or using any false or misleading representations or omitting any material facts in the offer or sale of the services of a broker or engaging in any act that would “operate as fraud or deception upon any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of the broker, notwithstanding the absence of reliance by the business.”
  • Making or using any false or deceptive representations in its business dealings.
  • Offering the services of a broker by any advertisement without disclosing the actual address and telephone number of the business of the broker.

Penalties 

Like the Georgia law, the Florida law punishes violations with civil fines ranging from $500 per incident to $20,000 with possible additional penalties for “aggregated violations.” Notably, violations do not impair the enforceability of the transactions or create a private right of action.

The Connecticut Law

On June 28, 2023, Connecticut enacted “An Act Requiring Certain Financing Disclosures,” which requires (1) 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 (2) mandates that lenders offering such credit register annually with the Connecticut Department of Banking starting by October 1, 2024. The Connecticut law authorizes the state banking commissioner to adopt promulgating regulations, and the law takes effect on July 1, 2024.

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:

  • Banks, bank holding companies, credit unions, and their subsidiaries and affiliates.
  • Entities providing no more than five commercial financing transactions in a 12-month period.
  • Real-estate-secured loans.
  • Leases.
  • Purchase money obligations.
  • Technology service providers acting for an exempt entity as long as they do not have an interest in the entity’s program.
  • Transactions of $50,000 or more to motor vehicle dealers or rental companies.
  • Transactions offered in connection with the sale of a product that the person manufactures, licenses, or distributes.

Required Disclosures

The Connecticut law requires that before making a “specific offer” (i.e., a binding offer of credit) providers must furnish certain disclosures to borrowers, in a form prescribed by the state banking commissioner, including:

  • The total amount of the commercial financing.
  • The disbursement amount, which is the amount paid to the recipient or on the recipient’s behalf, excluding any finance charges that are deducted or withheld at disbursement.
  • The finance charge.
  • The total repayment amount, which is the disbursement amount plus the finance charge.
  • The estimated repayment period.
  • A payment schedule.
  • A description of fees not included in the finance charge such as draw fees, and late charges.
  • A description of any collateral requirements.
  • Information about brokerage compensation.

The Connecticut banking commissioner is expected to promulgate implementing regulations and model disclosures before the effective date of July 1, 2024.

Registration Requirement

The Connecticut law requires providers and brokers to register with the state banking commissioner by October 1, 2024 and to qualify to “do business” in the state. The registration must be renewed annually.

Penalties

The statute authorizes the banking commissioner to impose civil penalties of up to $100,000 for violations of the law as well as enjoin those violating the statute.

Takeaway

The three state laws recently enacted in Georgia, Florida, and Connecticut are part of a growing trend among states to regulate small-balance commercial non-real-estate-secured loans. The burdens imposed by the laws will be the lenders’ cross to bear unless they can avoid triggering the coverage of the statutes.