Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Unfair, Deceptive and Abusive Acts or Practices (UDAAP)

CFPB Issues Warning to Mortgage Servicing Industry

By ,

A&B ABstract: On April 1, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued a Compliance Bulletin and Policy Guidance (the “Bulletin”) on the Bureau’s supervision and enforcement priorities with regard to housing insecurity in light of heightened risks to consumers needing loss mitigation assistance once COVID-19 foreclosure moratoriums and forbearances end.  The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers to begin taking appropriate steps now to prevent “a wave of avoidable foreclosures” once borrowers begin exiting COVID-19 forbearance plans later this Fall, and also highlights the areas on which the CFPB will focus in assessing a mortgage servicer’s compliance with applicable consumer financial laws and regulations.

The Bulletin

The Bulletin warns mortgage servicers of the Bureau’s “commit[ment] to using its authorities, including its authority under Regulation X mortgage servicing requirements and under the Consumer Financial Protection Act” to ensure borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic “receive the benefits of critical legal protections and that avoidable foreclosures are avoided.”

Specifically, the Bureau highlighted two populations of borrowers as being at heightened risk of referral to foreclosure following the expiration of the foreclosure moratoriums if they do not resolve their delinquency or enter into a loss mitigation option, namely, borrowers in a COVID-19-related forbearance and delinquent borrowers who are not in forbearance programs.

As consumers near the end of their forbearance plans, the CFPB expects “an extraordinarily high volume of loans needing loss mitigation assistance at relatively the same time.” The Bureau specifically expressed its concern that some borrowers may not receive effective communication from their servicers and that some borrowers may be at an increased risk of not having their loss mitigation applications adequately processed. To that end, the Bureau plans to monitor servicer engagement with borrowers “at all stages in the process” and prioritize its oversight of mortgage servicers in deploying its enforcement and supervision resources over the next year.

Servicers are expected to plan for the anticipated increase in loans exiting forbearance programs and related loss mitigation applications, as well as applications from borrowers who are delinquent but not in forbearance. Specifically, the Bureau expects servicers to devote sufficient resources and staff to ensure they are able to clearly communicate with affected borrowers and effectively manage borrower requests for assistance in order to reduce foreclosures. To that end, the Bureau intends to assess servicers’ overall effectiveness in assisting consumers to manage loss mitigation, and other relevant factors, in using its discretion to address potential violations of Federal consumer financial law.

In light of the foregoing, the Bureau plans to focus its attention on how well servicers are:

  • Being proactive. Servicers should contact borrowers in forbearance before the end of the forbearance period, so they have time to apply for help.
  • Working with borrowers. Servicers should work to ensure borrowers have all necessary information and should help borrowers in obtaining documents and other information needed to evaluate the borrowers for assistance.
  • Addressing language access. The CFPB will look carefully at how servicers manage communications with borrowers with limited English proficiency (LEP) and maintain compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and other laws. It is worth noting that the Bureau issued a notice in January 2021 encouraging financial institutions to better serve LEP borrowers in a language other than English and providing key considerations and guidelines.
  • Evaluating income fairly. Where servicers use income in determining eligibility for loss mitigation options, servicers should evaluate borrowers’ income from public assistance, child-support, alimony or other sources in accordance with the ECOA’s anti-discrimination protections.
  • Handling inquiries promptly. The CFPB will closely examine servicer conduct where hold times are longer than industry averages.
  • Preventing avoidable foreclosures. The CFPB will expect servicers to comply with foreclosure restrictions in Regulation X and other federal and state restrictions in order to ensure that all homeowners have an opportunity to save their homes before foreclosure is initiated.

Takeaway

As more and more borrowers begin to near the end of their COVID-19-related forbearance plans, and as applicable foreclosure moratoriums near their anticipated expiration dates, mortgage servicers should consider evaluating their mortgage servicing operations, including applicable policies, procedures, controls, staffing and other resources, to ensure impacted loans are handled in accordance with applicable Federal and state servicing laws and regulations.

CFPB Brings Action Against Connecticut Mortgage Lender

By

The number of enforcement actions by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) more than doubled from 2019 to 2020. The CFPB made clear that cracking down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA) remains a core focus, with 11 of the 15 complaints it filed last year alleging such violations.

Earlier this month, the CFPB filed another lawsuit alleging unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA. At the dawn of a new year and a new Administration, this litigation may be the proverbial canary in the coalmine for others in the financial services industry. As the case proceeds and briefing is filed, the tone and focus of the new Administration may be brought to light.

In a Client Advisory, our Financial Services Litigation Team examines the latest effort by the CFPB to crack down on deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

Misrepresentation and Deception: Government Enforcement Agencies Ready to Litigate

By ,

A&B ABstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic appears to be drafting the attention to consumer protection regulators to products that were active after the 2008 recession.

In the midst of the global pandemic, with unemployment rates surging to unprecedented levels, consumer protection regulators appear focused on areas where cash-strapped consumers may turn,  such as credit repair, payday loans, and mortgage and other debt relief.

Notably, these are the same areas that consumer protection regulators were active in during the post-2008 recession. For example, on May 22, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit alleging that defendants misrepresented that they can offer solutions that will or likely will substantially increase consumers’ credit scores despite not achieving those results.

In addition, on May 19, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was granted a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against a payday lending operation alleging that it deceptively overcharged consumers millions of dollars and withdrew money repeatedly from consumers’ bank accounts without their permission.

These lawsuits are just two of many efforts that government enforcement agencies have undertaken recently to combat fraud and protect consumers. Businesses should be aware that agencies are actively pursuing litigation as a means to remedy potential consumer harm.

CFPB and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair and Nikitas Tsoukales

The CFPB and Massachusetts allege that Commonwealth Equity Group d/b/a Key Credit Repair (KCR) and its president, Nikitas Tsoukales violated §§ 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s (TSR) prohibition on deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices, and the Massachusetts Credit Services Organization Law. 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3 & 310.4; M.G.L. c. 93, §§ 68A-E (MA-CSO). KCR markets to consumers a service for supposedly removing harmful information from the consumer’s credit history, credit record, or credit scores or ratings.  Since 2011, KCR has collected at least $23 million in fees from tens of thousands of consumers through its telemarketing services.

The Complaint

According to the complaint, consumers pay KCR a “first work fee” upon enrolling with the company and then charges an additional monthly fee. KCR allegedly collects these fees from consumers before performing any service. KCR markets to consumers that “on average it can raise a person’s credit score by 90 points in 90 days” and that clients start “seeing removals of bad credit history in 45 days.”  However, “consumers did not see credit scores with an average 90-point increase in 90 days,” nor did they see “removals on their credit reports within 45 days” of enrolling with KCR in many instances.

The Complaint alleges that this scheme constitutes an abusive telemarking act because it is an improper advance fee to remove derogatory information from, or improve, a person’s credit history, credit record, or credit rating.

Further, the Complaint alleges that KCR’s conduct violates the CFPA because KCR allegedly misrepresented the material aspects of its services. Therefore, the CFPB and Massachusetts are seeking injunctive and monetary relief as well as civil monetary penalties.

FTC v. Lead Express, Inc., et al.

On May 11, 2020, the FTC filed an ex parte emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and sought other relief including an asset freeze against 11 payday lenders operating as a common enterprise through websites and telemarketing.  The FTC alleged that the entities were engaging in the deceptive, unfair, and unlawful marketing tactics in violation of the FTC Act, the TSR, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) , and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

The Complaint

According to the FTC’s complaint, despite claiming that consumers’ loans would be repaid after a fixed number of payments, the defendants typically initiated repeated finance-charge-only withdrawals without crediting the withdrawals to the consumers’ principal balances. Thus, consumers allegedly paid significantly more than what they were told they would pay. These misrepresentations violate Section 5(a) of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) as well as the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.3(a)(2)(iii)).  Additionally, the defendants allegedly made recurring withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts without proper authorization which violates Section 907(a) of EFTA (15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a)) and illegally used remotely created checks, which under the TSR (16 C.F.R. § 310.4(a)(9)) are a prohibited form of payment in telemarketing.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants often failed to make required credit transaction disclosures in violation of Section 121 and 128 of TILA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1631 and 1638), and Sections 1026.17 and 1026.18 of Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §§ 1026.17 and 1026.18).

The Court Order

On May 22, 2020, the District Court of Nevada granted an emergency motion for temporary restraining order against all eleven defendants. The order restrains the defendants from: (1) engaging in prohibited business activities in connection with advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering any loan or extension of credit, (2) releasing or using customer information, and (3) destroying, erasing falsifying documents relating to the business.  Furthermore, the defendants’ assets are frozen pending the show-cause hearing or further court order which will take place via videoconferencing on June 2, 2020.

Takeaway

With these two cases, government enforcement agencies support their statements that as the global pandemic continues, they are watching for deceptive or fraudulent practices in the financial services industry. Businesses should remain vigilant in their compliance with existing and new laws and regulations.

Federal and State Guidance Regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic

By

A&B Abstract:

The Alston & Bird Consumer Finance team recognizes that this is a period of great uncertainty both for the nation and our clients. We have received numerous questions and concerns regarding what federal and state regulators are doing in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and how their response may affect day-to-day business. We have been monitoring both the federal and state guidance that has been released in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have provided a summary of what has been released thus far.  We are continuing to monitor for new developments and will update this blog post accordingly.

Federal Guidance

Federal Administrative Agencies:

  • HUD/FHA: On March 18, 2020, HUD released Mortgage Letter 2020-4, which placed a foreclosure and eviction moratorium on all FHA-insured Single Family mortgages for a period of 60 days. The moratorium applies both to the initiation of foreclosures and to the completion of foreclosures in process.  Similarly, evictions of persons from properties secured by FHA-insured single-family mortgages are suspended for 60 days.  Deadlines of the first legal action and reasonable diligence timelines for Home Equity Conversion Mortgages are extended by 60 days.  In light of the broad language of the Mortgagee Letter, it does not appear that HUD intended to carve out vacant and abandoned properties from the foreclosure moratorium.  HUD has informally confirmed this interpretation.
  • USDA: On March 19, 2020, the USDA issued SFH Guaranteed Servicing Notice (March 19, 2019) which, effective immediately, provides that borrowers with USDA guaranteed loans are subject to a moratorium on foreclosure for a period of 60 days. The moratorium applies to the initiation of foreclosures and to the completion of foreclosures in process.  In addition, deadlines of the first legal action and reasonable diligence timelines are extended by 60 days. Similarly, evictions of persons from properties secured by USDA guaranteed loans are also suspended for a period of 60 days.
  • VA: On March 18, 2020, the VA issued Circular 26-20-8, which strongly encourages loan holders to establish a sixty-day moratorium beginning March 18, 2020, on completing pending foreclosures or imitating new foreclosures on loans.  Additionally, due to the widespread impact of COVID-19, loan holders should consider the impact of completing an eviction action when choosing to retain the property instead of conveying to VA.  VA requests holders not to expose Veterans and their families to additional risk through an eviction, if at all feasible.  Previously, on March 16, 2020, the VA issued Circular 26-20-7, which provides, in relevant part, that (1) lenders should have continuity of operation plans in place to support its ongoing ability to conduct business operations in the event of an interruption to business operations and processes; (2) servicers may employ the following relief to veterans impacted by COVID-19: (a) forbearance, (b) late charge waivers on affected loans, and (c) suspension of credit bureau reporting on affected loans; and (3) appraisers should continue to conduct business as outlined in Chapter 10 of the M26-7, Lenders Handbook.

Federal Government-Sponsored Entities:

  • Fannie Mae: Fannie Mae released a Bulletin for borrowers detailing its response to the COVID-19. Fannie Mae has placed a moratorium on foreclosure sales and evictions for sixty (60) days. In conjunction with the Bulletin, Fannie Mae also issued Lender Letter LL-2020-02, which sets forth guidance for lenders in responding to COVID-19.  The letter provides guidance for lenders concerning topics such as (1) forbearance plan eligibility for borrowers, (2) evaluating borrowers for mortgage modifications, (3) credit bureau reporting, and (4) suspension of foreclosure sales.
  • Freddie Mac: Freddie Mac released a Bulletin for mortgage servicers detailing its response to the COVID-19 and new guidelines for Freddie Mac mortgage servicers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to Fannie Mae, the Bulletin provides guidance for lenders concerning topics such as (1) forbearance plan eligibility for borrowers, (2) evaluating borrowers for mortgage modifications, (3) credit bureau reporting, and (4) suspension of foreclosure sales.

State Guidance

State Legislatures:

  • Enacted Legislation and Executive Orders
    • District of Columbia: On March 17, 2020 Mayor Bowser signed the COVID-19 Response Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, which expires on June 15, 2020. The act provides for, among other things, a prohibition on evictions for as long D.C. is under a public health emergency.
    • New Hampshire: On March 17, 2020, New Hampshire Governor Christopher Sununu issued Emergency Order #4 pursuant to Executive Order 2020-04, which (1) prohibits an owner of non-restricted property or restricted property, as those terms are defined in RSA 540:1-a, from initiating eviction proceedings under RSA 540, and (2) prohibits all judicial and non-judicial foreclosure actions under RSA 479 or any other applicable law, rule or regulation, during the State of Emergency declared in Executive Order 2020-04.
    • New Jersey: The New Jersey Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3859, which allows the New Jersey governor to issue an executive order during a Public Health Emergency, pursuant to the New Jersey Emergency Health Powers Act, prohibiting the removal of any lessee, tenant, or homeowner from a residential property as the result of an eviction or foreclosure action.  Governor Philip Murphy subsequently issued Executive Order No. 106, which prohibits any lessee, tenant, homeowner or any other person from being removed from a residential property as a result of an eviction or foreclosure proceeding.
    • Kansas: On March 17, 2020, Governor Laura Kelly issued Executive Order No. 20-06, which orders all financial institutions operating in Kansas to temporarily suspend the initiation of any mortgage foreclosure efforts or judicial proceedings and any commercial or residential eviction efforts or judicial proceedings until May 1, 2020.
  • Pending Legislation
    • Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Legislature is considering House Docket No. 4935, which, if enacted, would impose a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the COVID-19 emergency.
    • Virginia: Currently, Virginia House Bill 340 is on Governor Northam’s desk, and he has until April 11th to take action on the bill. If passed, the bill would provide foreclosure and eviction protections for federal workers upon the closure of the federal government.

State Regulators:

In addition to state legislation and executive order, state regulators across the country have released guidance to regulated entities concerning the COVD-19 pandemic and indicating what the state regulators are doing in response. The Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (“NMLS”) has compiled state regulator guidance issued in response to COVID-19. The NMLS has posted this document to their website, and it is updated regularly. Below, we have included a summary of the information released by state regulators as of (March 20, 2020):

  • Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (“Department”): The Department posted guidance on its website stating that licensed mortgage-broker lenders may require licensed mortgage loan originators to work and undertaken licensed activities from home. The Department stated that it would not take administrative or other punitive action against a licensed mortgage loan originator or the sponsoring licensed company if the mortgage loan originator conducts activities requiring licensure from home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Alabama State Banking Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for any entity licensed by the Department. The Department instructed that licensees need to comply with all applicable statutes, regulations, and data security regulations. The Department noted that not all licenses may be able to work from home if their home location does comply with the applicable statutes, regulations, and data security regulations. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Arkansas Securities Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan companies, mortgage loan officers, and branch managers. The Department stated that mortgage loan companies may have mortgage loan officers work from home at unlicensed locations as long as state and federal data security standards are upkept. This guidance is in effect until June 1, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Colorado Department of Real Estate (“Department”): The Department released guidance that since Colorado law is silent as to the location at which mortgage loan originators are required to work. Therefore, the Department instructed that licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Connecticut Department of Banking (“Department”): The Department released guidance for all consumer credit licensees. The Department is allowing consumer credit licensees to work from home during the CORVID-19 pandemic as long as the licensee follows applicable law, notifies the Department in writing, and that no licensable activity can take place at home with a member of the public. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020.
  • Iowa Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Division stated that all licensees may work from home during the CORVID-19 pandemic even if their home is an unlicensed office as long as appropriate data security measures are put into place. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Idaho Department of Finance (“Department”): The Department released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Department is allowing licensed and registered entities to allow their employees to work from home even if that location is not a licensed location. Licensed and registered entities must keep up data security, may not advertise the unlicensed location as a licensed location, and may not meet with consumers or have consumers come to an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until June 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI issued temporary guidance offering licensees the ability to take precautions deemed necessary to avoid the risk of exposure or to comply with requirements of voluntary or mandated quarantines and is effective through June 30, 2020, unless otherwise modified or withdrawn.
  • Kansas Office of the State Bank Commissioner (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner released guidance for all entities that it regulates. The Commissioner is allowing licensed and registered entities to allow employees to work from home even if that location is not a licensed location. Licensed and registered entities must keep up adequate data security protection and may not take physical records out of the licensed location if they have confidential information. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Kentucky Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI released guidance to Kentucky-chartered financial institutions recommending that such institutions take certain actions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Such actions include, among others, (1) working with customers affected by the coronavirus to meet their financial needs, which may include waiving overdraft and/or minimum balance fees, restructuring existing loans, extending loan repayment terms, and easing terms for new loans, (2) managing COVID-19 related staffing issues, and (3) making sure business continuity plans include pandemic planning.
  • Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions Non-Depository Division (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed mortgage lenders, brokers, and originators. The Division is allowing entities to close their licensed locations and work from home, but entities that do so much provide the Division with notice of the new location. This guidance is in effect until April 9, 2020, but is subject to revision.
  • Massachusetts Division of Banks (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed entities. The Division is allowing licensed entities to work from home as long as the unlicensed location is not advertised to the public and licensed entities do not meet with consumers at unlicensed locations. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner released guidance for all licensed mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers. The Commissioner is allowing licensed mortgage brokers, lenders, and servicers to work from home provided that the work would not require the location to be licensed as a branch office under Maryland law. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.  In addition, the Commissioner issued an Industry Advisory on March 19, 2020, advising the industry of Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera’s March 18, 2020 order, which immediately stays all residential foreclosure and eviction actions in Maryland.
  • Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (“DIFS”): The DIFS is seeking information regarding responses to the COVID-19 pandemic from all Michigan consumer finance licensees and registrants.  Responses were due on Friday, March 20, 2020 by 5:00pm and were required to address  whether (1) the licensee/registrant had temporarily or permanently reduced any services provided in their office locations or by your business, (2) whether the licensee/registrant had implemented a program to allow staff to work remotely and, if so, certain additional information about such program, (3) whether and in what way the licensee/registrant had communicated with their customers to provide them with information regarding any changes the licensee/registrant had implemented in response to the pandemic and how those changes may affect them, and (4) whether the licensee/registrant had proactively reached out to their customers to provide them with information concerning what they should do if they are having trouble making their loan payment.
  • Minnesota Department of Commerce (“Department”): The Department has issued separate guidance to Minnesota Industrial Loan & Thrift Companies, Licensed Mortgage Originators and Servicers (companies and individuals), Licensed Non-Depository Financial Institutions, and Regulated Loan Companies.  The guidance is intend to address certain issues and questions related to changes in branch locations or employees working from home as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Mississippi Department of Banking and Consumer Finance (“DBCF”): The DBCF released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. The DBCF is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home provided that data security measures are put in place and the licensed mortgage loan originator does not have consumers meet with the licensed mortgage loan originator at their home. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision. The DBCF also issued separate guidance to Mississippi Mortgage Licensees and Consumer Finance Licensees regarding industry pandemic preparedness and outline flexibility in DBCF processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Montana Division of Banking and Financial Institutions (“DBFI”): On March 19, 2020, the DBFI issued a Supervisory Memorandum on Operations During Novel Coronavirus Situation, in which the DBFI provides the industry with answers to FAQs regarding preferred methods of communication as well as notification requirements for branch and loan production office closures and hours changes during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Nebraska Department of Baking and Finance (“DBF”): The DBF released guidance for licensed mortgage bankers and sponsored/licensed mortgage loan originators. The DBF is allowing mortgage bankers and mortgage loan originators to work from home provided that they notify the DBF and the DBF approves the new location. All physical documents must remain at a licensed location, but licensees may access information digitally. This guidance is in effect until December 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • New Hampshire Banking Department (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. The Department is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home even if that location further than 100 miles from their supervisory office as would otherwise be required under New Hampshire law. This guidance does not have an expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • New Mexico Financial Institutions Division (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all mortgage licensees. The Division is allowing all mortgage licensees to work from home provided that data security measures are put in place and no mortgage licensee advertise from or meet with consumers from their home if it is an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Nevada Division of Mortgage Lending (“Division”): The Division released guidance for all licensed mortgage companies and mortgage loan originators. The Division is allowing licensed mortgage companies and mortgage loan originators to work from home even if it would be considered an unlicensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • New York Department of Financial Services (“NY DFS”): The NY DFS has asked licensees to submit plans to the NY DFS on how they plan to address the CORVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the NY DFS issued guidance to New York State regulated and exempt mortgage servicers regarding support for borrowers impacted by COVID-19.
  • Oklahoma Department of Consumer Credit (“Department”): The Department has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their employees. The Department has stated that licensed mortgage loan originators and their employees may work from home as long as they put in place appropriate data security measures. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Oregon Division of Financial Regulation (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for all licensed entities. Licensed entities can work from home provided that the entity provides notice to the department, the entity has procedures in place for data security and more broadly for working from home, and no consumers at met with at unlicensed locations. Mortgage loan originators must keep all physical records at a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities (“Department”): The Department issued FAQs related to compliance with Governor Wolf’s Order that non-life-sustaining businesses shut down their physical operations.
  • Puerto Rico Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions (“OCFI”): The OCFI issued Circular Letter CIF Number CC-2020-002 to all financial institutions required to file reports with the OCFI, which extends the deadlines for filing such reports in light of the governmental closure ordered by Governor Garced, due to the State of Emergency declared in response to COVID-19.
  • Rhode Island Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators, mortgage lenders, loan brokers, and exempt company registrants. The Division is allowing licensed mortgage loan originators to work from home if they and their sponsoring entities have adequate data security measure in place. Consumers are not allowed to visit any unlicensed location including the home of a mortgage loan originator if it is not a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • South Carolina Consumer Finance Division of the Board of Financial Institutions (“Division”): The Division has released guidance for licensed mortgage origination and servicing companies. Licensed mortgage origination and servicing companies can work from home provided that they have a contingency plan in place, adequate data security measures, and do not remove any physical records from licensed offices. This guidance is in effect until April 30, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • South Dakota Division of Banking (“Division”): The Division had released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. Licensed mortgage loan originators can work from home provided that they have adequate data security measures in place and do not take any physical records out of licensed locations. This guidance is in effect until June 5, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (“Commissioner”): The Commissioner has released guidance for licensed regulated lenders. All licensed regulated lenders can work from home provided that they prepare a written plan describing the steps it is taking, have adequate data security measures, and ensure that all physical records remain in a licensed location. This guidance is in effect until May 31, 2020 but is subject to revision.
  • Texas Department of Savings and Mortgage Lending (“Department”): The Department has issued guidance temporarily suspending any requirement that a physical office be open to the public during posted normal business hours.  Additionally, licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home or another remote location, whether located in Texas or another state, even if the home or remote location is not a licensed branch.  The guidance provides certain requirements in the event that a licensed residential mortgage loan originator or mortgage loan staff work remotely.  These allowances do not amend Texas Financial Code, Chapter 156 and/or 157 and are being allowed strictly due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Vermont Department of Financial Regulation (“Department”): The Department has released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that no licensable activity is taken place with a consumer at an unlicensed location, adequate data security measures are put into place, and a plan is contingency plan is put in place. This guidance does not have a current expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators and their sponsoring entities. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that adequate data security measures are put in place. Consumers are not allowed to visit licensed mortgage loan originators at unlicensed locations. This guidance is effective until June 5, 2020 but is subject to change.  The DFI also issued guidance to Washington regulated and exempt residential mortgage loan servicers regarding support for borrowers impacted by COVID-19.  The guidance urges such institutions to take reasonable and prudent actions, subject to the requirements of any related guarantees or insurance policies, to support those adversely impacted by COVID-19.
  • Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“Department”): The Department released guidance for licensed mortgage loan originators. All licensed mortgage loan originators may work from home provided that their sponsoring entity notify the Department, a list is kept of all mortgage loan originators who elect to work from home where the home is not a licensed branch, appropriate data security measures are taken, and no physical records are present at unlicensed locations. Consumers are not allowed to visit unlicensed locations. This guidance does not have a current expiration date but is subject to revision.
  • West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions (“DFI”): The DFI issued guidance to West Virginia Regulated Financial Institutions allowing employees of regulated entities to temporarily work from home or some other remote location approved by the financial institutions, whether located in West Virginia or another state. Regulated financial institutions may permit employees to work at home or from a designated remote location, to the extent that the position allows, as long as privacy and security issues may be adequately addressed.  The guidance is in effect from March 13, 2020 through May 1, 2020.

Takeaway

As the federal government and the states work feverishly to address the growing concerns surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the financial services industry must stay abreast of the rapid changes in the legal and regulatory landscape.  We will continue to monitor for new developments and will update this post to highlight additional federal or state guidance that is issued.

CFPB Issues Policy Statement on Dodd-Frank “Abusiveness” Standard, But Important Uncertainties Remain

By ,

A&B ABstract:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) issued a Policy Statement to provide a framework for how it intends to apply the Dodd-Frank Act’s “abusiveness” standard going forward in its supervision and enforcement activities. While this framework attempts to provide clarity where the Dodd-Frank Act left uncertain what acts and practices would be considered “abusive,” the Policy Statement fails to address several key issues. In particular, the Policy Statement does not identify specific conduct that would be considered abusive—leaving public statements on such issues to enforcement matters and litigation.

Background to the Policy Statement

The Dodd-Frank Act (“the Act”) added a prohibition on “abusive” acts and practices to the established prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts and practices. Over the years, the Federal Trade Commission’s policy statements, enforcement actions, and judicial precedents have defined the prohibitions on “unfair” and “deceptive.” The abusiveness standard is less developed. The Act grants the CFPB authority to declare an act or practice as “abusive” if the act or practice: (1) materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or (2) takes unreasonable advantage of (A) a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service; (B) the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service; or (C) the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer. This Policy Statement follows a symposium convened by the CFPB in 2019 where a panel of academics and regulatory and industry experts debated, among other issues, whether the CFPB should further define abusiveness.

Defining “Abusive” in Precedent

The CFPB and other agencies have seldomly alleged a standalone “abusive” claim; instead, such claims are generally paralleled by claims of “unfairness” and “deceptiveness.” When alleging abusive practices, the CFPB almost always alleged deceptive or unfair practices based on the same set of underlying facts. For example, in 2017 the CFPB alleged that a loan servicer routinely entered student loan borrowers into forbearance without adequately providing information to borrowers regarding possible income-based repayment plans. The CFPB argued that the servicer’s actions constituted both abusive practices and unfair practices under the Act, and the Court agreed.  While such decisions have provided some guidance on what constitutes an abusive practice under the Act, the courts, in reviewing such allegations, considered the statutory language but did not offer any guidance on what conduct might be construed as “abusive” but not construed as “unfair.”

The CFPB’s reticence to prosecute claims of abusive practices created a vacuum of interpretive guidance on how the abusiveness standard actually constrains businesses, beyond the black letter definition contained in the Act. For example, questions remained as to what act or practice would “materially interfere” with a consumer’s understanding of terms and conditions, or what exactly would constitute a financial service provider “taking unreasonable advantage” of a consumer seeking a product of service. These undefined terms left confusion and uncertainty for covered persons seeking to avoid violations. By contrast, the unfairness and deceptiveness standards (which were already in place before the Act’s introduction of an abusiveness standard) have been subject to decades of case law and agency interpretations, which have yielded clear guidance on what acts and practices are considered unfair or deceptive.

Content of the Policy Statement

The Policy Statement acknowledges that “[u]ncertainty remains as to the scope and meaning of abusiveness,” which “creates challenges for covered persons in complying with the law,” and it sets forth a framework regarding how the CFPB will enforce the abusiveness standard. It does not, however, describe or provide examples of precisely what conduct the CFPB would deem abusive.

The Policy Statement describes three categories of principles that the CFPB intends to apply to its supervision and enforcement actions.  The CFPB has stated that the principles reflect the standards it has applied in prior actions.

  1. Benefits vs. Harms: “The Bureau intends to focus on citing conduct as abusive in supervision and challenging conduct as abusive in enforcement if the Bureau concludes that the harms to consumers from the conduct outweigh its benefits to consumers (including its effects on access to credit).” The Policy Statement notes that incorporating this principle “not only ensures that the Bureau is committed to using its scarce resources to address conduct that harms consumers, but also ensures that the Bureau’s supervisory and enforcement decisions are consistent across matters.
  2. No Dual Pleadings: The Bureau intends to avoid “dual pleading” of abusiveness along with unfairness or deception violations which arise from all or nearly all the same facts, and alleging “stand alone” abusiveness violations that “demonstrate clearly the nexus between cited facts and the Bureau’s legal analysis.” The Bureau believes that this approach to pleading will “provide more certainty to covered persons as to the metes and bounds of conduct the Bureau determines is abusive” and “facilitate the development of a body of jurisprudence as to the conduct courts conclude is abusive.”
  3. “Good Faith” Limits on Monetary Relief: “[T]he Bureau generally does not intend to seek certain monetary remedies for abusive acts or practices if the covered person made a good-faith effort to comply with the law based on a reasonable—albeit mistaken—interpretation of the abusiveness standard. However, if a covered person makes a good-faith but unsuccessful effort to comply with the abusiveness standard, the Bureau still intends to seek legal or equitable remedies, such as damages and restitution, to redress identifiable consumer injury.”

The Policy Statement in Context

The Policy Statement is not a CFPB rulemaking. Rather, the Policy Statement merely “constitutes a general statement of policy that is exempt from the notice and comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act” and is only “intended to provide information regarding the Bureau’s general plans to exercise its discretion.” It “does not impose any legal requirements on external parties, nor does it create or confer any substantive rights on external parties that could be enforceable in any administrative or civil Proceeding.” As such, while the Policy Statement is intended as a helpful guide to the Bureau’s enforcement philosophy with regard to the abusiveness standard, it is not law, and is subject to revision in the event of any change in the CFPB’s leadership, policies, or priorities.

The Policy Statement is not expected to affect ongoing litigation.  In remarks to the United States House of Representative Financial Oversight Committee on February 6, 2020, CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger stated that “At this point, we have not amended any filings in court and don’t intend to related to this specifically,” indicating that the CFPB doesn’t anticipate repleading any of its pending court enforcement actions in light of the Policy Statement.

Takeaways:

While the principles outlined in the Policy Statement provide an indication of how the CFPB will react to conduct it deems to be “abusive,” it falls short of providing clarity on it will deem abusive, thereby continuing the uncertainty regarding the abusive standard that has existed since its inception. Moreover, the principles set forth in the Policy Statement are themselves subject to uncertainty. For example, it is unclear what exactly constitutes consumer benefits or harms and how those factors are weighed to determine whether conduct is abusive; likewise, it is unclear what types of actions are sufficient to demonstrate a good-faith effort to comply with the law under a mistaken interpretation of the abusiveness standard.

Notably, however, the Policy Statement expressly left open “the possibility of engaging in a future rulemaking to further define the abusiveness standard,” which presumably may take the form of enforcement actions, CFPB advisories or other guidance, or updates to the CFPB examination manual.