Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

#CFPB

Moving to Address Appraisal Bias, Agencies and the Appraisal Foundation Issue Updates

By , ,

A&B ABstract:

 A year and a half after President Biden’s announcement of the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (“PAVE”), the past weeks have seen a flurry of activity from federal agencies and the Appraisal Foundation to address issues of bias in residential property appraisal.  What should lenders, servicers, and appraisers know?

Background:

In June 2021, President Biden announced the formation of the PAVE Task Force, comprising 13 federal agencies, including the White House Domestic Policy Council.  He tasked the group with identifying and evaluating “the causes, extent, and consequences of appraisal bias and to establish a transformative set of recommendations to root out racial and ethnic bias in home valuations.”

In March 2022, the member agencies of the PAVE Task Force published an action plan, announcing a series of concrete commitments to address appraisal bias in five broad categories:

  • strengthening guardrails against discrimination in all stages of residential valuation;
  • enhancing fair housing and fair lending enforcement, and driving accountability in the appraisal industry;
  • building a diverse, well-trained, and accessible appraiser workforce;
  • empowering consumers to take action against bias; and
  • giving researchers and enforcement agencies better data to study and monitor valuation bias.

While the Task Force’s activity is ongoing, federal agencies in the past few weeks have announced a series of steps that are in line with the PAVE goal of addressing real property appraisal bias.

FHA: Draft Mortgagee Letter on Reconsiderations of Value and Appraisal Review

On January 3, 2023, the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) published for public comment a draft mortgagee letter, Borrower Request for Review of Appraisal Results, that would permit a second appraisal to be ordered if a Direct Endorsement underwriter determines that an original appraisal contains a material deficiency.  The letter would expressly identify as a material deficiency – one that would directly impact value and marketability of the underlying property – either indications of unlawful bias in the appraisal or of a violation of applicable federal, state, or local fair housing and non-discrimination laws.

Further, the draft mortgagee letter would require the underwriter in a transaction involving an FHA-insured loan to “review the appraisal and determine that it is complete, accurate, and provides a credible analysis of the marketability and value of the Property.”  Among other criteria, this would require the underwriter to make a determination of whether the appraisal is materially deficient – that is, whether the appraisal contains indications of unlawful bias or of a violation of applicable fair housing and non-discrimination laws.  Providing a “credible analysis” exceeds the scope of a quality control review.  If included in a finalized mortgagee letter, it would require lenders to determine whether underwriters must be state-licensed or -certified appraisers.

The draft mortgagee letter also sets forth standards for the submission and consideration of a borrower’s request for a review of appraisal results, including the submission of a reconsideration of value request to the appraiser.

VA: Enhanced Oversight Procedures to Combat Appraisal Bias

On January 18, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) issued Circular 26-23-05, detailing the enhanced oversight procedures that the VA has adopted “to identify discriminatory bias in home loan appraisals and act against participants who illegally discriminate based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), age, familial status, or disability.”

In the Circular, the VA indicated that it will review all appraisal reports submitted in connection with VA-guaranteed home loans to identify any potential discriminatory bias.  The VA will: (a) conduct an escalated review of any suspected incidents of bias; and (b) remove from its panel of approved appraisers any individual who is confirmed to have provided a biased appraisal as the result of such a review.

The VA also reminded panel appraisers that in submitting a Fannie Mae Form 1004 (Uniform Residential Appraisal Report), they certify that they have not based the opinion communicated in an appraisal report on discriminatory factors (e.g., the race) of either the property applicants or the residents of the area in which the property is located.

Appraisal Foundation: Proposed Revision of Appraisal Standards

In mid-December, the Appraisal Standards Board (“ASB”) of the Appraisal Foundation released its fourth exposure draft of proposed changes to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”), the operational standards that govern real property appraisal practice.

In response to comments received in response to the last draft, the ASB proposes to add to the USPAP Ethics Rule a section expressly discussing non-discrimination.  The proposed section would prohibit appraisers from engaging in both unethical discrimination and illegal discrimination, and would provide guidance as to the type of conduct constituting each form.

Unethical Discrimination:

First, the ASB proposes to include an express statement that an appraiser must not engage in unethical discrimination.  First, that prohibition would preclude an appraiser from developing and/or reporting an opinion or value that is based, in whole or in part, on the actual or perceived protected characteristics of any person.

Second, the rule would prohibit an appraiser from performing an assignment with bias with respect to the actual or perceived protected characteristics of any person – meaning that the appraiser may not engage in any discriminatory conduct (regardless of whether it arises in the course of developing and/or reporting an opinion of value). For purposes of this prohibition, the rule would utilize the USPAP definition of bias: “a preference or inclination that precludes an appraiser’s impartiality, independence, or objectivity in an assignment.”

The rule would make a limited exception for activity that qualifies with “limited permissive language,” permitting an appraiser to use or rely upon a protected characteristic in an assignment only where:

  • laws and regulations expressly permit or otherwise allow the consideration of a protected characteristic;
  • use of or reliance on that characteristic is essential to the assignment and necessary for credible assignment results; and
  • consideration of the characteristic is not based upon bias, prejudice, or stereotype.

The exposure draft provides as an example of activity that might qualify for the exception the completion of an appraisal review in order to determine whether the initial appraisal was discriminatory.

The ASB proposal makes clear that because “an appraiser’s ethical duties are broader than the law’s prohibitions,” an appraiser may commit unethical discrimination without violating any applicable law; however, an act that “constitutes illegal discrimination … will also constitute unethical discrimination.”

Illegal Discrimination:

Complementing the prohibitions discussed above, the ASB proposes to include an express statement that an appraiser must not engage in illegal discrimination – conduct that violates the minimum standards of anti-discrimination set forth in the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“Section 1981”).  The rule would impose on appraisers a duty to understand and comply with such laws as they apply to the appraiser and the appraiser’s assignments, including the concepts of disparate treatment and disparate impact.  Further, the rule would prohibit an appraiser from using or relying on a non-protected characteristic as a pretext to conceal the use of or reliance upon protected characteristics when performing an assignment.

Further Guidance:

 The exposure draft indicates that the ASB would follow the adoption of the new non-discrimination section of the ethics rule with detailed guidance on the scope of these prohibitions, including:

  • Background on federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws;
  • Guidance on the application of FHA, ECOA, and Section 1981 to appraisals of residential real property;
  • Explanation of the disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination, including examples relating to appraisal practice;
  • Guidance on neighborhood discrimination in real property appraisals; and
  • Clarification on acceptable uses of protected characteristics, in connection with the “limited permissive language” exception for the prohibition against unethical discrimination.

OMB: AVM Rule on Regulatory Agenda

 Automated valuation models  (“AVMs”) are considered a useful tool to help mitigate appraisal discrimination.  On January 4, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) released its Fall 2022 Regulatory Agenda.  Among other topics, OMB indicated that an interagency proposed rule addressing quality control standards for AVMs is expected in March 2023. The Dodd-Frank Act’s amendments to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) require the federal banking regulatory agencies to undertake this rulemaking.

 ASC: Hearing on Appraisal Bias

 On January 24, the Appraisal Subcommittee (“ASC”) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council held a hearing on appraisal bias.  Of note, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra ended the hearing by articulating the objective that the “lodestar” of appraisals is an appraisal that neither too high nor too low, but rather is accurate.    Director Chopra then questioned the regulatory structure governing appraisals, calling it “byzantine.”  His remarks focused on the funding mechanism between the Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Foundation, implying that there may be a conflict of interest.

To understand Director Chopra’s comment requires knowledge of the current regulatory framework, which Title XI of FIRREA established in 1989.   It includes three principal parties: the ASC, the Appraisal Foundation, and the Appraisal Institute:

  • The ASC is a federal agency with oversight responsibility of the state appraisal regulatory structure for real property appraisers as well as to monitor activities of the Appraisal Foundation.
  • The Appraisal Foundation is a private non-profit educational organization. Through the ASB and the Appraiser Qualifications Board (“AQB”), the Appraisal Foundation sets the ethical and performance standards of appraisers in the USPAP.  The AQB establishes the minimum education, experience, and examination requirements for real property appraisers, which are then enforced by state regulatory agencies.  The Appraisal Foundation is funded through sales of publications and services, as well as by its sponsoring organizations.
  • The Appraisal Institute is a private professional organization of appraisal professionals, and is one of the sponsoring organizations of the Appraisal Foundation.

Takeaway

 Viewed through the lens of the overall PAVE Task Force efforts, actions by the FHA and the VA show early and concrete action to address residential appraisal bias.  Because they implicate government insurance and guarantee programs, the focus is particularly important for lenders and appraisers to take heed of – such that documentation submitted to the agencies is accurate.

Appraisers should also take note of the updated USPAP exposure draft as it moves toward final adoption, so that they are aware of their responsibilities with respect to avoiding bias in appraisal reports. Finally, with regulators scrutinizing the appraisal framework – as seen in the OMB and ASC announcements – more significant changes are expected.

District Court Dismisses CFPB’s Redlining Case Against Townstone Financial

By

A&B ABstract:

On Friday, in the CFPB v. Townstone Financial fair lending case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice the complaint filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), holding that the plain language of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) does not prohibit discrimination against prospective applicants.

Complaint

 The complaint, filed by the CFPB in July 2020, alleged that Townstone Financial, Inc., a nonbank retail-mortgage creditor and broker based in Chicago, engaged in discriminatory acts or practices in violation of ECOA, including: (1) making statements during its weekly radio shows and podcasts through which it marketed its services, that discouraged prospective African-American applicants from applying for mortgage loans; (2) discouraging prospective applicants living in African-American neighborhoods from applying for mortgage loans; and (3) discouraged prospective applicants living in other areas from applying for mortgage loans for properties located in African-American neighborhoods.

Court Opinion

The court, in its opinion, summarized the allegations as follows: “The CFPB alleges that Townstone’s acts and practices would discourage African-American prospective applicants, as well as prospective applicants in majority- and high-African-American neighborhoods in the Chicago MSA from seeking credit.” To determine whether the CFPB’s allegation of discrimination against “prospective applicants” was permissible under ECOA, the court applied the framework set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

The court found, upon applying the first step of the Chevron analysis, that “Congress has directly and unambiguously spoken on the issue at hand and [that ECOA] only prohibits discrimination against applicants” (emphasis added). In granting Townstone’s motion to dismiss, the court reasoned that the plain text of the ECOA applies to “applicants,” which the ECOA “clearly and unambiguously defines as a person who applies to a creditor for credit” – and not to “prospective applicants.” Given this, the court was not required to move on to the second step of the Chevron analysis and consider the CFPB’s interpretation of the statute. Accordingly, the CFPB’s claim under ECOA was dismissed with prejudice, as “the CFPB cannot amend its pleading in a way that would change the language of the ECOA.”

Notably, the fact that the anti-discouragement provision of Regulation B refers to “prospective applicants” was not sufficient to convince the court. Further, because the court found that ECOA unambiguously applies only to “applicants,” the court did not analyze whether the ECOA’s prohibition on “discrimination” encompasses “discouragement.” The court likewise did not reach Townstone’s argument that the CFPB is attempting to create affirmative obligations with respect to marketing and the hiring of loan officers, nor its arguments under the First and Fifth Amendments.

Takeaway

Ultimately, the court’s dismissal of the CFPB’s case against Townstone casts significant doubt on the agency’s ECOA discouragement theory and its approach to fair lending enforcement, particularly the agency’s redlining investigations. We expect the CFPB to appeal the court’s order, though it is possible that existing investigations based on allegations of discouragement may experience a temporary slowdown in the interim.

CFPB Issues Proposed Rule to Establish Public Registry of Supervised Nonbank Form Contract Provisions that Waive or Limit Consumers’ Legal Protections

By , , ,

A&B ABstract:

On January 11, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB” or “Bureau”) announced a proposed rule to establish a public registry and require  nonbanks supervised by the agency to register their use of certain terms and conditions contained in “take it or leave it” form contracts for consumer financial products or services that “attempt to waive consumers’ legal protections,” “limit how consumers enforce their rights,” or “restrict consumers’ ability to file complaints or post reviews” (the “Proposed Rule”).  The purpose of Proposed Rule’s registration system is to allow the CFPB to prioritize oversight of nonbanks that use the covered terms and conditions based on the agency’s perception these provisions pose risks for consumers.

The CFPB seeks public comment on the practical utility of collecting and publishing this information as well as ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents. The comment period closes on April 3, 2023.

The Proposed Rule

The Proposed Rule would require annual registration by most nonbanks subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction, with limited exceptions. “Specifically, a “supervised nonbank” would be defined to mean a nonbank covered person that is subject to supervision and examination by the Bureau, except to the extent that such person engages in conduct or functions that are excluded from the Bureau’s supervisory authority pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5517 or 5519.  A “supervised nonbank” would include any nonbank covered person that (1) offers or provides a residential mortgage-related product or service, any private educational consumer loan, or any consumer payday loan, (2) is a larger participant engaged in consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfers, and auto financing, or (3) is subject to a CFPB order issued pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C).

Those excluded from the scope of the Proposed Rule would include, among others, persons subject to CFPB supervision and examination solely in the capacity of a service provider; natural persons; persons with less than $1 million in annual receipts resulting from offering or providing all consumer financial products and services as relevant to the activities noted in (1) through (3) above.  Also exempt from the rule would be a person that has not, together with its affiliates, engaged in more than de minimis use of covered terms and conditions (i.e., fewer than 1,000 times in the previous calendar year) and a person that used covered terms or conditions in covered form contracts in the previous calendar year solely by entering into contracts for residential mortgages on a form made publicly available on the Internet required for insurance or guarantee by a Federal agency or purchase by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae.

Under the Proposed Rule, a “covered term or condition” would be subject to the rule’s reporting requirements. A “covered term or condition” would be defined as “any clause, term, or condition that expressly purports to establish a covered limitation on consumer legal protections applicable to the offering or provision of any consumer financial product or service.” In turn, “covered limitation on consumer legal protections” would be defined to mean any covered term or condition in a covered form contract:

  • Precluding the consumer from bringing a legal action after a certain period of time;
  • Specifying a forum or venue where a consumer must bring a legal action in court;
  • Limiting the ability of the consumer to file a legal action seeking relief for other consumers or to seek to participate in a legal action filed by others;
  • Limiting liability to the consumer in a legal action including by capping the amount of recovery or type of remedy;
  • Waiving a cause of legal action by the consumer, including by stating a person is not responsible to the consumer for a harm or violation of law;
  • Limiting the ability of the consumer to make any written, oral, or pictorial review, assessment, complaint, or other similar analysis or statement concerning the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services by the supervised registrant;
  • Waiving, whether by extinguishing or causing the consumer to relinquish or agree not to assert, any other identified consumer legal protection, including any specified right, defense, or protection afforded to the consumer under Constitutional law, a statute or regulation, or common law; or
  • Requiring that a consumer bring any type of legal action in arbitration.

In the Proposed Rule, the CFPB acknowledges that there may be overlap in the types of covered terms and conditions, so some contract provisions may fall into more than one category.  The Proposed Rule currently proposes to limit the collection of terms and conditions that expressly attempt to establish the covered limitation.  Any contract containing a covered term would be considered a “form contract” provided it was (1) included in the original contract draft presented to the consumer, (2) was not negotiated between the parties, (3) is intended for repeated use in transactions between the company and consumers and contains a covered term or condition.

Supervised nonbanks covered by the Proposed Rule would be required to collect and submit this information through the CFPB’s registration system.  Under the Proposed Rule, the registry of terms and conditions would be publicly available, rather than limited to government regulators or CFPB staff.  The CFPB supports the public availably of this data on the grounds that it will lead to more informed consumers and provide other regulators the opportunity to identify covered terms and conditions that are explicitly prohibited by the laws they enforce or supervise.  The proposed format for the registry is similar to another recent CFPB proposed rule which proposes to establish a public registry of regulatory actions involving certain nonbanks subject to CFPB supervision. We previously discussed this proposed rule in another blog post.

CFPB’s Request for Comment on the Proposed Rule

The CFPB is seeking comment on a range of issues related to the Proposed Rule, including:

  • The prevalence of the covered terms and conditions;
  • Potential impacts of collecting and publishing this information;
  • Reasons why the information should not be publicly disclosed;
  • The burden of collecting and filing these provisions;
  • The use of form contracts purchased from third parties; and
  • Other entities that may be affected by the proposed rule.

The period for public comment ends on April 3, 2023.

Is the establishment of a Public Registry likely?

 The CFPB currently has thirty-seven (37) rules that have been proposed but not implemented, of which only five of were proposed since the start of the Biden Administration.  Most notably, neither the CFPB’s proposed rule for small business lending data collection from September 1, 2021 or its proposed rule for credit card late fees and late payments from June 22, 2022 have been finalized.  Since the substance of this rule is limited to the collection and publication of contract terms, rather than the prohibition of any behavior, enactment might be more likely.  The recent Fifth Circuit decision in Community Financial Services found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and vacated the agency’s Payday Lending Rule on those grounds.  Accordingly, any rule promulgated by the CFPB would likely be susceptible to legal challenges.

Takeaway

The Bureau’s focus on seeking public disclosure of covered terms and conditions reflects a continued focus on the content of form contracts used in connection with consumer finance products and services of nonbanks.  The public nature of the registry could lead to increased scrutiny of contract provisions from the Bureau, other regulators, and the public, increasing reputational risk to covered entities as well as the likelihood of heightened enforcement activity by Federal and State regulators. Accordingly, entities that would be subject to the Proposed Rule’s requirements should carefully review the Proposed Rule and consider commenting thereon.

Trends in Enforcement and Recommendations on Protecting Financial Institutions

By , ,

In his 2022 speech “Reining in Repeat Offenders” at the Distinguished Lecture on Regulation at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that “[a]chieving general deterrence is an important goal for the CFPB” and “the role of individual liability cannot be discounted.” To that end, the CFPB recently proposed an enforcement order registry that would, among other things, require certain larger participant nonbanks subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority to designate a senior executive who is responsible for and knowledgeable of the nonbank’s efforts to comply with the orders identified in the registry to attest regarding compliance with covered orders and submit an annual written statement attesting to the steps taken to oversee the activities subject to the applicable order for the preceding calendar year and whether the executive knows of any violations of, or other instances of noncompliance with, the covered order.

It is not surprising that one of the major questions that has arisen about financial institution (FI) insurance coverage is the extent of coverage for regulatory enforcement actions. Other questions arise in interpreting the scope of FI insurance coverage for terms such as a pending and prior claim, the performance of professional services, invasion of privacy (and whether data breaches are covered), and fraud. These terms can be particularly important in the heavily regulated financial services industry. Accordingly, financial institutions need to understand FI coverage options and the negotiable terms.

Are regulatory enforcement actions included in coverage terms?

Responding to inquiries from agencies such as the CFPB, Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Department of Justice, attorneys general, and federal and state banking agencies can be disruptive and expensive. As a threshold matter it is important to understand the extent of insurance coverage, including the kind of inquiry that is covered. The first step is to make sure you understand which regulators are covered when there is an inquiry or enforcement action. Ideally, financial institutions would have coverage for claims from any federal or state agency.

Is there coverage for costs incurred in responding to informal inquiries?

For example, there may be coverage for an informal document request and employee interview by a government agency. Many policies now offer some coverage of a formal government agency civil investigative demand (CID) or subpoena to a financial institution, and it is important to understand the specific scenarios in which such a CID or subpoena is covered.

When facing an ongoing government investigation, is it subject to the excess policy’s “pending and prior claim” exclusion? 

In a recent case, the policy language provided that the excess policy did not apply to “any amounts incurred by the Insureds on account of any claim or other matter based upon, arising out of or attributable to any demand, suit or other proceeding pending or order, decree, judgment or adjudication entered against any Insured on or prior to July 31, 2011.” The court ruled that the parties had agreed to exclude from the excess policy coverage any claim as defined in the language of the primary policy.

The court also ruled that an ongoing SEC investigation, even though it was not being covered by any insurance policy, was a claim as defined under the primary policy and thus was subject to the pending and prior claim exclusion of the excess policy. This case emphasizes the importance of understanding the definitions of a claim within the relevant policies.

What are some considerations for losses arising out of the performance of professional services? 

Many FI policies have exclusions for loss arising out of the performance of professional services, which distinguish claims covered by a company’s errors and omissions (E&O) insurance. It is important to understand the effect of these exclusions, which are illustrated in recent court decisions.

In one recent case, a court held that a bank’s policy’s professional services exclusion precluded coverage for all insureds, not just those delivering the services. The exclusion in the case provided that there was no liability for claims “made against any Insured alleging, arising out of, based upon, or attributable to the Organization’s or any Insured’s performance of or failure to perform professional services for others….” The court held that the phrase “any Insured” made the insurer’s obligations jointly held, which prohibited recovery from any insured.

However, the policy at issue in this case did not have a severability provision. The court’s opinion suggests that a professional services exclusion in a policy with a severability provision would preclude coverage only for those who actually performed the professional services.

Another consideration is the broad language that was used in the clause in this case—it uses words like “arising out of,” “based upon,” or “attributable to” the professional services provided. Companies should ensure that the clause serves its purpose and does not preclude too much coverage.

Another issue involving professional services exclusions, particularly for banks, are fee cases. Overdraft fees, as well as a lot of other fees, including junk fees, have been a focus of regulators. One court has considered the question of insurance coverage for a bank’s obligation to repay overdraft fees. In this case, a bank customer filed suit against the bank, seeking relief from “unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees.” The bank filed suit against its insurer for refusing to pay defense costs in the lawsuit.

The policy at issue had a duty-to-defend clause covering claims “for a Wrongful Act committed by an Insured or any person for whose acts the Insured is legally liable while performing Professional Services, including failure to perform Professional Services.” However, the policy also had an exclusion “for Loss on account of any Claim … arising from … any fees or charges.” The court affirmed the denial of the companies’ entitlement to payment for defense costs, ruling that the fees exclusion absolved the carrier of an obligation to pay such costs. Cases like these reinforce the importance of understanding defense costs coverage for these kinds of overdraft fee cases.

How does an exclusion for invasion of privacy impact cyber breaches?

It is not uncommon for policies to have clauses that exclude claims based on invasion of privacy. Recent cases underscore the importance of understanding whether such clauses exclude coverage for claims in cyber breaches.

A court recently held that the Los Angeles Lakers were not entitled to insurance coverage for allegations that the team violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court ruled that “because a [TCPA] claim is inherently an invasion of privacy claim, [the insurer] correctly concluded that the underlying [TCPA] claims fell under the Policy’s broad exclusionary clause.”

This decision could affect coverage of cyber-liability claims involving cybersecurity and data privacy, which are becoming increasingly common and which often touch on invasion of privacy issues. Companies should understand their exclusionary clauses on this score.

What is “final” for purposes of an insurance policy’s fraud exclusion?

Many FI insurance policies exclude coverage if the insured is found to have engaged in fraud. Often, the exclusion is only triggered after a “final” judicial determination that the excluded conduct has occurred. The issue of what a “final” determination is can affect the coverage for a claim.

Financial institutions should look for fraud exclusions in their FI policies to determine whether such exclusions refer to a “final, non-appealable adjudication” or a “final judgment.” In a New York state case, after a former CEO was sentenced for the commission of various fraud crimes, he filed an appeal of his convictions. While the appeal was still pending, however, his insurer asked to be relieved of its obligation to defend the plaintiff because the fraud exclusion in its policy was triggered upon a final judgment against its insured.

The former CEO filed suit against his insurer, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the insurer was no longer obligated to pay his defense. The court held that the imposition of the criminal sentence was a “final judgment,” which appropriately triggered the fraud exclusion in the policy. The court explained that even if an appeal is successful, the finality of the sentence is not changed.

This case shows how important it is to understand the contours of a policy’s fraud exclusion.

Defense Costs: Duty to Defend v. Duty to Indemnify

Finally, a company needs to consider whether it wants to have primary control over the defense of a covered claim or wants the insurer to have primary control. An advantage of having the insurer control the defense—a “duty to defend” policy—is that the coverage requirements can be a bit more broad in many states. The main advantage of the company having primary control of the defense in a so-called “duty to indemnify” policy is that the company gets wider latitude in choosing lawyers that they trust and know to have the appropriate experience to handle the matter. Under either of these arrangements, the carrier would pay covered defense costs.

Conclusion

As trends in enforcement shift, it is increasingly important to understand liability coverage. Financial institutions should consider reaching out to experienced insurance brokers and attorneys to assist them in reviewing and analyzing the terms and features of their policies in the evolving enforcement climate.

CFPB Proposes Nonbank Registry to Focus on Compliance “Recidivism”

By , ,

A&B ABstract:

On December 12, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a proposed rule to require certain non-banks to register with the agency when they become subject to a public written order or judgment imposing obligations based on violations of certain consumer protection laws. The CFPB also proposes to maintain a public online registry of those nonbanks subject to agency or court orders, to “limit the harms from repeat offenders.” We provide below a description of the CFPB’s proposed rule, along with the potential implications for the financial services industry.

Background on Proposed Rule

Earlier this year, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra presented remarks at the University of Pennsylvania, where he asserted that “[c]orporate recidivism has become normalized and calculated as the cost of doing business; the result is a rinse-repeat cycle that dilutes legal standards and undermines the promise of the financial sector and the entire market system.” To address this problem, Director Chopra suggested establishing “dedicated units in our supervision and enforcement divisions to enhance the detection of repeat offenses and corporate recidivists and to better hold them accountable.” With respect to accountability for “serial offenders of federal law,” Director Chopra warned that the CFPB would be focusing on “remedies that are more structural in nature,” including “limits on the activities or functions” of the entity.

Subsequently, in November 2022, and leading up to the proposed rule, the CFPB announced, as part of its Supervisory Highlights, that it would be establishing a Repeat Offender Unit as part of its supervision program. The Repeat Offender Unit would be focused on: reviewing and monitoring the activities of “repeat offenders;” identifying the root cause of recurring violations; pursuing and recommending solutions and remedies that hold entities accountable for failing to consistently comply with Federal consumer financial law; and designing a model for order review and monitoring that reduces the occurrences of repeat offenders. The Bureau asserts that its authority for these efforts, along with any proposed rulemaking, is derived from the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s mandate that the Bureau “monitor for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services” and “gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of covered persons and service providers.” See 12 U.S.C. § 5512(c)(1), (4).

Proposed Requirements

The CFPB’s proposed rule would require certain nonbanks covered person entities (with exclusions for insured depository institutions, insured credit unions, related persons, States, certain other entities, and natural persons) to register with the Bureau upon becoming subject to a public written order or judgment imposing obligations based on violations of certain consumer protections laws. Such entities would be required to register in a system established by the Bureau, provide basic identifying information about the company and the order (including a copy of the order), and periodically update the registry for accuracy and completeness. For purposes of the proposed rule, “covered person” would have the same meaning as in 12 U.S.C. § 5481(6). Further, “service providers” would be deemed covered persons to the extent that they engage in the offering or provision of their own consumer financial product or services or where they act as service providers to covered person affiliates.

In addition, certain larger participant nonbanks subject to the Bureau’s supervisory authority would be required to designate a senior executive, who is responsible for and knowledgeable of the nonbank’s efforts to comply with the orders identified in the registry, to attest regarding compliance with covered orders and submit an annual written statement attesting to the steps taken to oversee the activities subject to the applicable order for the preceding calendar year, and whether the executive knows of any violations of, or other instances of noncompliance with, the covered order.

Further, the CFPB is considering whether to release, via its publicly available website, the above registry information for non-banks.

Implications for Non-Banks

While the CFPB’s proposed enforcement order registry would provide greater transparency about a lender’s regulatory track record to the various federal and state regulators and the general public, it remains to be seen how the information maintained in this registry might be used against lenders. At a minimum, however, the proposed rule raises the following significant implications for non-banks:

  • Supervision and examination considerations. The CFPB intends to use the information in the registry to coordinate its “risk-based supervisory prioritization,” for those non-bank markets covered by the Bureau’s supervision and examination authority under CFPA section 1024(a). Thus, entities with a local, state, or federal prior enforcement order may be subject to more targeted supervision.
  • Investigation and enforcement presumptions. The CFPB intends to use the information in the registry in connection with its investigation and potential enforcement activities, which presents various risks, including:
    • Increased civil money penalties. Specifically, the CFPB believes that the information contained in the proposed registry can assist the agency in determining the civil penalties that may be assessed for a future violation of federal consumer financial law, given that federal law permits the CFPB to consider the entity’s “history of previous violations.” Indeed, it is possible that the CFPB may use evidence of prior enforcement against an entity, brought by itself or another agency, to establish that the entity acted knowingly or recklessly in violating federal consumer financial law, perhaps even where the prior enforcement order involved a different consumer-related issue.
    • Presumption of consumer harm. Further, the CFPB believes there is a “heightened likelihood” that entities that are subject to public orders relating to consumer financial products and services may pose risks to consumers in the markets for those products and services, since entities that have previously been subject to enforcement actions “present an increased risk of committing violations of laws.” Thus, there may be a presumption of consumer harm against an entity where a prior enforcement order exists. Yet this approach by the CFPB likely will overstate the actual harm to consumers, as most consent orders do not contain an admission by the entity of any liability or wrongdoing.
  • Increased reputational risk. Given that the CFPB maintains Memoranda of Understanding with federal parties (such as the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice), as well as with at least 20 state attorneys general offices, it appears that the information reported to the registry already would be available to such agencies. However, the registry will permit all agencies, as well as the general public, a readily accessible, one-stop shop to an entity’s entire enforcement track record, which may present significant reputational risk to that entity, as well as a potentially increased risk of class action lawsuits and other consumer claims.
  • Facilitating of private enforcement. The CFPB believes that the proposed registry may “facilitate private enforcement of the Federal consumer financial laws by consumers, to the extent those laws provide private rights of action, where consumers have been harmed by a registered nonbank.” In other words, the “information that would be published under the proposal might be useful in helping consumers understand the identity of a company that has offered or provided a particular consumer financial product or service, and in determining whether to file suit or otherwise make choices regarding how to assert their legal rights.”

Takeaway:

Given the significant implications raised by the CFPB’s proposed rule, non-bank financial institutions should consider submitting comments, which are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. In particular, the CFPB seeks comment on “its preliminary conclusion that collecting and registering public agency and court orders imposing obligations based upon violations of consumer law would assist with monitoring for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products and services.” The CFPB also seeks comment on “whether the types of orders described in the proposal, and the types of information that would be collected about those orders and covered nonbanks under the proposal, would provide useful information to the Bureau,” as well as “any other risks that might be identified through collecting the information described in the proposal.” Finally, the Bureau seeks comment on whether it should consider collecting any other information in order to identify risks to consumers associated with orders.