Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Uncategorized

DOJ Issues Third Iteration of Its Corporate Compliance Guidance

By , ,

The Department of Justice’s Criminal Division began June 2020 by issuing revisions to its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs guidance. First published in 2017, and later updated in April 2019, the guidance provides insight into how the Criminal Division assesses a company’s compliance program. Further, it allows companies to proactively implement and strengthen compliance programs to align closely with the DOJ’s considerations and focuses.

The substance and tenor of the guidance remains largely unchanged from its prior versions, but the revisions continue to reflect an ongoing commitment by the DOJ to provide transparency into its compliance program policies and priorities. For example:

  • The revisions demonstrate the importance of a dynamic and evolving compliance program that emphasizes well-documented internal processes and continually incorporates lessons learned and solutions to issues as they are identified.
  • While the prior version included language about individual determinations in each case, the update now specifies the factors the DOJ will consider in this determination.
  • The revisions focus on the need to create a culture throughout all levels of the business, not just at the top.

Notwithstanding the many disruptions the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused to businesses, it’s clear that legal compliance and corporate accountability remain a focus within the Criminal Division.

Key Updates

While the overall tone of the guidance remains the same, the update provides additional guidance in several key areas.  The following are some notable revisions or additions to the April 2019 guidance:

  • Individualized assessment – the DOJ articulated some of the specific factors it will consider in making each company’s individualized compliance program assessment, including the company’s size, industry, geographic footprint, and regulatory landscape.
  • Resourced and empowered program – emphasis on ensuring a company’s compliance program is adequately resourced and empowered to effectively function.
  • Access to data – emphasis on ensuring that compliance and control personnel have sufficient direct or indirect access to the relevant sources of data to ensure timely and effective monitoring and testing of the company’s compliance policies and controls.
  • Lessons learned – emphasis on companies having a process for tracking and continually incorporating lessons learned from the company’s own prior issues or those of other companies operating in the same industry or region.
  • Reporting and training – companies should ensure employees have a forum to ask questions during training and continue to test the company’s hotline and other resources.
  • Culture of compliance – companies should demonstrate a commitment to compliance at all levels of the company, not just the top, and perform due diligence of third-party partners at onboarding and throughout the duration of the relationship.

Takeaways

Without significant change, the revisions continue to provide additional insight into the DOJ’s considerations for robust compliance programs. The DOJ’s decision to expressly require compliance functions to be adequately resourced is somewhat surprising, given the financial difficulties that many companies face during the coronavirus pandemic. And what is absent is any recognition of the current challenges that have come with the pandemic and companies’ inability to spend as much as they would otherwise want to on compliance functions while struggling to stay alive. However, the evolution of the guide over the past three years demonstrates the DOJ’s willingness to listen to the business community and provide more guidance based on feedback.

As the pandemic continues, we would hope that the DOJ will provide additional guidance that further expands on how compliance should or could change based on the crisis. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the DOJ remains focused on requiring companies to “show their work” and to be able to document compliance efforts through data. The DOJ’s decision to update this guidance now emphasizes that companies should continue to prioritize compliance programs even while dealing with the ramifications of the global pandemic.

OCC Rule Affirms Valid-When-Made Doctrine

By ,

A&B ABstract:

On May 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency  (“OCC”) issued a final rule, effective August 3, 2020, addressing the “valid-when-made” doctrine.  The rule clarifies that the interest rate on a loan originated by a national bank or federal savings association, if permissible at the time of origination, will continue to be a permissible and enforceable term of the loan following a sale, transfer, or assignment of the loan, regardless of whether the third party debt buyer is a federally chartered bank.

Discussion

In November, 2019 the OCC issued a proposed rule to address the ambiguity created by the Second Circuit in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC. The Madden court held that a purchaser of a loan (unsecured credit card debt) originated by a national bank could not charge interest at the rate permissible for the bank if that rate would not be permissible under the applicable state usury cap. Madden did not address the valid-when-made doctrine, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2016.

Final Rule

The OCC’s final rule, effective August 3, 2020, effectively codifies the valid-when-made doctrine.  Specifically, the rule provides that interest on a loan that is permissible pursuant to section 85 (applicable to national banks) and section 1463(g) (applicable to federally chartered thrifts) of the National Bank Act “shall not be affected by the sale, assignment or other transfer of the loan.” The OCC emphasized that “that sections 85 and 1463(g) incorporate, rather than eliminate, these state caps.”  A bank must comply with the interest rate limit established under the law of the state where it is located. The OCC recognized that disparities between interest rates between banks arise as a result of the state laws that impose such caps.

In affirming the valid-when-made doctrine, the OCC indicated that “to effectively assign a loan contract and allow the assignee to step into the shoes of the national bank assignor, a permissible interest term must remain permissible and enforceable notwithstanding the assignment”.  Further, the OCC, in rebutting comments made during the rulemaking that a third party non-bank debt buyer should not step into the shoes of the national bank originator, observed that “the enforceability of an assigned interest term should [not] depend on the licensing status of the assignor or assignee.”  Simply put, the OCC affirmed that when a bank transfers a loan, interest permissible before the transfer continues to be permissible after the transfer.

The rule does not address which entity is the true lender when a bank transfers a loan to a third party. The OCC’s rule applies to “interest,” as that term is defined in 12 C.F.R. §§ 7.4001(a) and 160.110(a).

Takeaways

The rule is welcome news, ensuring that uncertainty concerning the effects of the Madden decision does not erode the liquidity of the secondary market for loans originated by national banks and federally chartered thrifts.  It effectively levels the playing field by allowing purchasers of these loans to collect the same agreed upon interest rate and contractual loan terms as the original. Such uniformity is critical for the secondary market.  Hopefully, the FDIC will similarly finalize its proposed rule.

Nevertheless, we note that the OCC rulemaking does not reverse Madden, and while the pronouncement should be influential in circuits aside from the Second Circuit, it is expected to face court challenges, not to mention criticism from congressional Democrats.   The saga will likely continue.

Virginia Enacts Student Loan Servicing Law

By

A&B ABstract:

On April 22, Virginia enacted a comprehensive new law imposing a licensing obligation on private student loan servicers and substantive restrictions on both private and federal student loan servicers.

Effective July 1, 2021, House Bill 10 and Senate Bill 77 (the “Law”) will require the licensing of and regulate student loan servicers.  Notably, the Law applies to both private servicers and those with contracts with the U.S. Department of Education (“USDOE”). Entities who will be subject to the Law’s licensure requirement may begin applying for a license March 1, 2021 through the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System.

A New Licensing Obligation

The Law provides that “[n]o person shall act as a qualified education loan servicer…without having first obtained a license under this chapter from the [State Corporation] Commission.”

Who is a Servicer?

A “qualified education loan servicer” (“Servicer”) means any person, wherever located that:

  • Receives any scheduled periodic payments from a qualified education loan borrower or notification of such payments or applies payments to the qualified education loan borrower’s account pursuant to the terms of the qualified education loan or the contract governing the servicing;
  • During a period when no payment is required on a qualified education loan, (i) maintains account records for the qualified education loan and (ii) communicates with the qualified education loan borrower regarding the qualified education loan, on behalf of the qualified education loan’s holder; or
  • Interacts with a qualified education loan borrower, which includes conducting activities to help prevent default on obligations arising from qualified education loans or to facilitate any activity described above.

The term does not include a wholly owned subsidiary of a depository institution, a financial institution subject to regulation under the farm credit system, or any public or private institution of higher education.

Other Terms

The term “qualified education loan borrower” (“Borrower”) means any current resident of Virginia who has received or agreed to pay a qualified education loan or any person who is a co-signer to a qualified education loan.

A “qualified education loan” is any loan primarily used to finance a postsecondary education and costs of attendance at a postsecondary public or private educational institution. The term also includes a refinancing of a qualified education loan.  However, the term does not include an extension of credit under an open-end credit plan, a reverse mortgage transaction, a residential mortgage transaction, or any other loan that is secured by real property or a dwelling.

Exemption

Notably, the Law provides for the automatic issuance of a license to any person under contract with the USDOE to service federal student loans; such entities must satisfy eligibility criteria for this exemption. Despite being exempt from licensing, federal student loan servicers remain subject to the Law’s substantive requirements.

The Law does not specifically address whether those servicing student loans in the secondary market are subject to licensing.

Duties of a Licensed Qualified Education Loan Servicer

The Law also imposes a series of duties on a licensed Servicer.

First, a Servicer must evaluate a Borrower for eligibility for an income-driven repayment program prior to placing the Borrower in forbearance or default, if an income-driven repayment program is available to the Borrower.

Second, a Servicer must respond to a written inquiry from a Borrower or the representative of a Borrower within 10 business days after the receipt of the request, and within 30 business days after receipt, provide information relating to the request, and if applicable, any action the Servicer will take to correct the account or an explanation that the account is correct. Such 30-day period may be extended for not more than 15 days if, before the end of the 30-day period, the Servicer notifies the Borrower, or the Borrower’s representative, as applicable, of the extension and the reasons for delay in responding.

Third, a Servicer must not furnish to a consumer reporting agency, during the 60 days following receipt of a written request related to a dispute on a Borrower’s payment on a qualified education loan, information regarding a payment that is the subject of the written request.

Fourth, except as provided in federal law or required by a qualified education loan agreement, a Servicer must inquire of a Borrower how to apply an overpayment to a qualified education loan. A Borrower’s direction on how to apply an overpayment to a qualified education loan shall remain in effect for any future overpayments during the term of a qualified education loan or until the Borrower provides different directions. (For purposes of that requirement, “overpayment” means a payment on a qualified education loan that exceeds the monthly amount due from a Borrower on the qualified education loan, which payment may be referred to as prepayment.)

Fifth, a Servicer must apply partial payments in a manner that minimizes late fees and negative credit reporting. If loans on a Borrower’s qualified education loan account have an equal level of delinquency, a Servicer shall apply partial payments to satisfy as many individual loan payments as possible on a Borrower’s account. As used in this subdivision, “partial payment” means a payment on a qualified education loan account that contains multiple individual loans in an amount less than the amount necessary to satisfy the outstanding payment due on all loans in the qualified education loan account, which payment may be referred to as an underpayment.

Sixth, a Servicer must require, as a condition of sale, an assignment, or any other transfer of the servicing of a qualified education loan, that the new loan servicer honor all benefits originally represented as available to a Borrower during the repayment of the qualified education loan and preserve the availability of the benefits, including any benefits for which the Borrower has not yet qualified. If a Servicer is not also the loan holder or is not acting on behalf of the loan holder, the Servicer satisfied this requirement of this subsection by providing the new loan servicer with information necessary for the new loan servicer to honor all benefits originally represented as available to a Borrower during the repayment of the qualified education loan and preserve the availability of the benefits, including any benefits for which the Borrower has not yet qualified.

Finally, in the event of a sale, assignment, or other transfer of the servicing of a qualified education loan that results in a change of identity of the person to whom a Borrower is required to send payments or direct any communication regarding the loan, a Servicer must:

  • Within 45 days after the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan, transfer to the new loan servicer all records regarding the Borrower, the account of the Borrower, and the qualified education loan of the Borrower;
  • Notify the affected Borrower of the sale, assignment, or transfer, and provide the Borrower a notice, at least seven days before the Borrower’s next payment, including: (i) the identity of the new qualified education loan servicer; (ii) the effective date of the transfer to the new servicer; (iii) the date on which the existing servicer will no longer accept payments; and (iv) the contract information for the new servicer; and
  • Implement policies and procedures to verify the new qualified education loan servicer has received all records regarding the Borrower, the account of the Borrower, and the loan of the Borrower, including the repayment states of the Borrower and any benefits associated with the qualified education loan of the Borrower.

The Law also provides additional requirements for Servicers relating to recordkeeping, and to reporting obligations to the Commission.

Prohibited Activities

The Law also prohibits Servicers from engaging in certain conduct. A Servicer must not:

  1. Directly or indirectly employ any scheme, device, or artifice to defraud or mislead Borrowers;
  2. Engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice toward any person or misrepresent or omit any material information in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan, including misrepresenting (i) the amount, nature, or terms of any fee or payment due or claimed to be due on a qualified education loan; (ii) the terms and conditions of the loan agreement; or (iii) the Borrower’s obligation under the loans;
  3. Obtain property by fraud or misrepresentation;
  4. Misapply qualified education loan payments to the outstanding balance of a qualified education loan;
  5. Provide inaccurate information to a naturally recognized consumer credit bureau;
  6. Fail to report both the favorable and unfavorable payment history of the Borrower to a nationally recognized consumer credit bureau at least annually if the Servicer regularly reports information to such a credit bureau;
  7. Make any false statement of a material fact or omit any material fact in connection with any information provided to the Commission or another governmental authority;
  8. Engage in any other prohibited activities identified in regulations adopted by the Commission pursuant to the Law; or
  9. Commit an abusive act or practice in connection with the servicing of a qualified education loan if the act or practice does either of the following:
    • Materially interferes with the ability of a Borrower to understand a term or condition of a qualified education loan; or
    • Takes unreasonable advantage of:
      • A lack of understanding on the part of a Borrower of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the qualified education loan;
      • The reasonable reliance by the Borrower on a person engaged in the servicing of a qualified education loan to act in the interests of the Borrower; or
      • The inability of a Borrower to protect the interests of the Borrower when selecting (i) a qualified education loan or (ii) a feature, term, or condition of a qualified education loan.

Penalties and Enforcement

The Law gives the Commission broad authority to act on violations of the Law. The Commission may enter cease and desist orders against any person found to violate the Law and may assess a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 for any violation. Each separate violation is subject to the penalty, and every day that an unlicensed person engages in the business of a Servicer constitutes a separate violation. In addition, any violation of the Law also constitutes a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and any violation is subject to any and all the enforcement provisions under that statute.

Private Right of Action

The Law allows any person who suffers damages as a result of the failure of a Servicer to comply with the law, and all applicable federal regulations, to bring a private cause of action. A person may recover actual damages, in an amount no less than $500, an order enjoining a Servicer from an offending method, act, or practice, restitution of property, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems proper. If, by a preponderance of the evidence, the court finds that a Servicer has engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with a Borrower’s right to an alternative payment arrangement, loan forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge, or any other financial benefit under the Higher Education Act of 1965, the court shall award treble damages in an amount no less than $1,5000 per violation.

Takeaway

Virginia’s decision to license private student loan servicers and to regulate student loan servicers more broadly comes at an interesting time, as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the USDOE work to coordinate the examination of student loan servicers at the federal level. There have been jurisdictional tensions between the federal government and state governments regarding oversight of federal student loan servicers, and Virginia’s regulation of student loan servicers continues to show that states are eager assert regulatory authority.

Attorneys General Urge FHFA and HUD to Take Additional Measures to Protect Borrowers Affected by COVID-19

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On April 23, 2020, the attorneys general of 33 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (the “Attorneys General”) sent two letters, one to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) and the other to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” and collectively with FHFA, the “Agencies”), respectively, noting that the “national response must recognize the unique challenges presented by the unprecedented number of homeowners who are affected by COVID-19, including the fact that all of these homeowners need relief at the same time..[and that] [m]eeting this challenge will require straightforward and consistent guidance that can be quickly operationalized.”  As a result, the Attorneys General urged the Agencies to make changes to their respective guidelines addressing COVID-19-related mortgage and foreclosure relief.

Revision of Forbearance Programs

The Attorneys General acknowledged that forbearance plans are a critical first response to borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, the Attorneys General expressed concern that both the mortgage servicing industry and homeowners will become overwhelmed if changes are not made.   The Attorneys General recommended or encouraged that:

  • the Agencies “issue simple, self-executing guidance that servicers can easily implement to meet demand while providing an immediate, responsive resolution to borrowers.” The Attorneys General specifically expressed concern about HUD guidelines requiring an individualized evaluation for every borrower who receives a CARES Act forbearance, as well as guidelines issued by both of the Agencies requiring an individualized evaluation for borrowers coming out of forbearance, due to “grave doubts about servicers’ abilities to effectively manage the unprecedented number of borrowers who will be emerging from forbearance plans related to COVID-19 if individualized evaluations are required for each borrower.”
  • the Agencies amend their forbearance programs so that the obligation to repay forborne payments is automatically placed at the end of the loan term in the form of additional monthly payments that will follow the current term of the loan.  The Attorneys General noted that “there can be no reasonable expectation that a borrower who has experience a loss of employment or a reduction in income will be able to repay the forborne payments in a lump sum at the end of the forbearance period.” FHFA subsequently clarified its repayment requirements for its forbearance program on April 27, 2020.
  • the Agencies issue guidance allowing these post-forbearance agreements to occur without requiring borrowers to execute any additional documents, such as a loan modification agreement or a promissory note for the forborne payments, or at least waiving or easing those requirements until the pandemic abates.
  • FHFA to clarify that a borrower may receive a forbearance based on the borrower’s verbal attestation of a hardship related to COVID-19, and to encourage servicers to proactively notify borrowers of their right to verbally request a forbearance.

Expanded Eligibility for Disaster Relief-Related Modifications and Loss Mitigation Programs

The Attorneys General urged the Agencies to expand their eligibility standards for post-forbearance loss mitigation programs to enable a greater number of borrowers to qualify.  The Attorneys General urged HUD to reconsider its decision to remove the Disaster Loan Modification option for borrowers affected by COVID-19.  Further, the Attorneys General requested that the Agencies revise their respective loan modification eligibility criteria to ensure these programs have the same reach as the forbearance program mandated by the CARES Act, as the Agencies’ current guidelines impose several delinquency-related eligibility requirements.  For example:

  • Under current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines, borrowers affected by COVID-19 are eligible for any one of three modification programs. Currently, however, a borrower is only eligible for such programs if the borrower was current or less than 31 days delinquent as of March 13, 2020. Additional delinquency-related eligibility criteria apply for the Cap and Extend Modification and Flex Modification programs.
  • Under current HUD guidelines, a borrower is only eligible for the COVID-19 Partial Claim if the borrower was current or less than 30 days delinquent as of March 1, 2020 and the partial claim amount does not exceed 30 percent of the unpaid balance. If a borrower is ineligible for the COVID-19 Partial Claim, then the borrower will be reviewed for HUD’s FHA-HAMP program. The Attorneys General noted that the FHA-HAMP program has additional seasoning requirements, such as requiring the borrower to have made at least 4 payments and the loan to have aged at least 12 months.

The Attorneys General urged the Agencies to waive the delinquency status requirements of these modification programs and noted that post-forbearance modification programs should be commensurate with the forbearance plans required by the CARES Act, as the CARES Act requires forbearance for any borrower experiencing a COVID-19 financial hardship regardless of delinquency status.  Moreover, the CARES Act authorizes forbearances of up to 360 days, so many borrowers receiving CARES Act forbearances will be more than 360 days delinquent by the end of the forbearance period.

Eviction and Foreclosure Moratoriums

Finally, the Attorneys General urged the Agencies to “instruct servicers that they also must suspend all foreclosures and evictions currently in process and cannot move forward to complete any step in the judicial or non-judicial foreclosure or eviction process while the moratorium is in place,” to address differences in various states’ foreclosure and eviction processes.

Currently, the CARES Act states that servicers of federally backed mortgages may not initiate any judicial or non-judicial foreclosures process, move for a foreclosure judgment or order of sale, or execute a foreclosure-related eviction or foreclosure sale until at least May 17, 2020. The Attorneys General asserted that advancing any step of the eviction or foreclosure process during a forbearance related to COVID-19 will only lead to borrower confusion and harm.

Takeaway

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect homeowners and the mortgage servicing industry, there will likely be continued political pressure on the Agencies to further revise servicer loss mitigation guidelines. Servicers will need to be vigilant to stay on top of the rapidly evolving market conditions and regulatory environment.