Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Servicing

Georgia Amends its Residential Mortgage and Installment Loan Laws

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On May 2, 2022, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed HB 891 and SB 470 into law.  HB 891, effective July 1, 2022, updates various laws enforced by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance (the “Department”) including, among other things, by amending (1) certain exemptions from licensure under the Georgia Residential Mortgage Act (“GRMA”), and (2) the Georgia Installment Loan Act (“GILA”) to impose a new licensing obligation to service installment loans subject to the GILA.   Similarly, SB 470, which took effect immediately, amends the GRMA’s provisions regarding felony restrictions for employees of mortgage licensees.

Changes to Licensing of Mortgage Lenders and Brokers

HB 891 made several changes to Title 7 of the Georgia Code, including several amendments to the GRMA, but perhaps one of the most notable changes with respect to mortgage lending involves the creation of a new exemption from licensure under the GRMA for persons holding loans for securitization into a secondary market.  Specifically, as of July 1, 2022, any person who purchases or holds closed mortgage loans for the sole purpose of securitization into a secondary market, is expressly exempt from licensing, provided that such person holds the individual loans for less than seven days. Note that the statute further defines “person” as any individual, sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, partnership, trust, or any other group, however organized. As written, the new exemption language suggests that persons holding loans as part of the securitization process for longer than 7 days could not rely on the exemption. Note that the GRMA’s existing definition of a “mortgage lender” includes a “person who directly or indirectly…holds, or purchases mortgage loans” and the GRMA contains an existing exemption for any person who purchases mortgage loans from a mortgage broker or mortgage lender solely as an investment and who is not in the business of brokering, making, purchasing, or servicing mortgage loans.

HB 891 also amended an existing exemption from licensure applicable to certain natural persons under an exclusive written independent contract agreement with a mortgage broker who is, or is affiliated with, an insurance company or broker dealer. Under the exemption, as amended, a natural person otherwise required to be licensed is exempt from licensure as a mortgage lender or broker, when under an exclusive written independent contractor agreement with a licensed mortgage broker, so long as the mortgage broker satisfies certain expanded criteria, including, among others  (1) maintaining an active mortgage broker license, (2) maintaining full and direct financial responsibility for the mortgage activities of the natural person, (3) maintaining full and direct responsibility for the natural persons education, handling of consumer complaints, and supervision of the natural person’s mortgage activities, (4) having listed securities for trade and meeting certain market capitalization requirements, (5) being licensed as an insurance company or registered as a broker-dealer, and (6) being licensed as a mortgage lender or broker in ten or more states. The exemption previously applied to certain natural persons employed by the subsidiary of certain financial holding companies. Notably, to maintain the exemption, the natural person must, among other things (1) be licensed as a mortgage loan originator in Georgia and work exclusively for the licensee, the parent company if the licensee is a wholly owned subsidiary, or an affiliate of the licensee if both the affiliate and licensee are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company, and (2) be licensed as an insurance agent or registered as a broker-dealer agent on behalf of the licensee, the parent company if the licensee is a wholly owned subsidiary, or an affiliate of the licensee if both the affiliate and licensee are wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent company.

HB 891’s amendments to the GRMA’s licensing provisions follow SB 470, which provided welcome changes to the GRMA’s felony restrictions. As amended, Georgia law now provides that the Department may not issue or may revoke a license or registration if it finds that the mortgage loan originator, broker, or lender, or any person who is a director, officer, partner, covered employee or ultimate equitable owner of 10% or more of the mortgage broker or lender or any individual who directs the affairs or establishes policy for the mortgage broker or lender applicant, registrant, or licensee, has been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction or of a crime which, if committed in Georgia, would constitute a felony under Georgia law.  Previously, Georgia law arguably prohibited a licensee from retaining any individual convicted of a felony that could be deemed an employee or agent of the licensee. As amended, the employee restriction is relaxed to apply only to a “covered employee,” a newly defined term that means an employee of a mortgage lender or broker “involved in residential mortgage loan related activities for property located in Georgia and includes, but is not limited to, a mortgage loan originator, processor, or underwriter, or other employee who has access to residential mortgage loan origination, processing, or underwriting information.” Notably, the restriction no longer applies to an “agent” of a licensee.

Changes to Installment Loan Licensing

HB 891 also amended the GILA to require licensure for persons engaged in servicing of installment loans.  Before the amendments, the GILA only imposed a licensing obligation on persons who advertise, solicit, offer, or make installment loans to individuals in amounts of $3,000 or less.  As amended, any person that services installment loans made by others, excluding loans made by affiliated entities, is also required to obtain a license. HB 891’s amendments also added a number of new exemptions from licensure, including for (1) retail installment transactions engaged in by retail installment sellers and retail sellers, as those terms are defined, and (2) transactions in which a lender offers a consumer a line of credit of more than $3,000 but the consumer utilizes $3,000 or less of the line, so long as there are no restrictions that would limit the consumer’s ability to utilize more than $3,000 of the line at any one time. Additionally, the GILA’s provisions relating to tax on interest has been repealed and reenacted and now requires that installment lenders remit to the Department a fee of 0.125 percent of the gross loan amount on each loan made on or after July 1, 2022, and such fee becomes due on the making of any loan subject to the GILA. This revised fee replaces the prior fee of three (3) percent of the total amount of interest on any loan collected. The statute clarifies that the per loan fee must be paid by the licensee and cannot be passed through to the borrower as an additional itemized fee or charge. The method by which a licensee pays the fee is subject to further clarification via Department regulations.

Takeaway

Mortgage lenders and brokers should review the GRMA, as amended, to determine whether, and if so how, the amendments impact their licensing obligations or their policies with respect to employee background checks in Georgia. Additionally, entities servicing installment loans subject to the GILA, which are originated by non-affiliates, must now obtain a license. Licensees should also take note of the new per loan fee requirements in lieu of prior tax payment regulations.

Connecticut and Maryland Adopt Model Mortgage Servicer Prudential Standards

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On May 24, 2022, Connecticut enacted legislation that, among other things, adds financial condition and corporate governance requirements for certain licensed mortgage servicers (the “CT Standards”). In similar fashion, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “Commissioner”) issued a notice of final action on March 25, 2022 adopting similar standards by regulation (the “MD Standards”).  In both instances, the CT and MD Standards are intended to implement the Model State Regulatory Prudential Standards for Nonbank Mortgage Servicers (the “Model Standards”) drafted and released by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) last July.

The CSBS Model Standards

As mentioned in our prior blog post, the CSBS initially proposed standards for mortgage servicers in 2020. In July 2021, after substantial revision to the proposed standards, the CSBS adopted the Model Standards to provide states with uniform financial condition and corporate governance requirements for nonbank mortgage servicer regulation while preserving local accountability to consumers and to “provide a roadmap to uniform and consistent supervision of nonbank mortgage servicers nationwide.”

The Model Standards cover two major categories that comprise prudential standards: financial condition and corporate governance. The financial condition component consists of capital and liquidity requirements. Corporate governance components include separate categories for establishment of a board of directors (or “similar body”); internal audit; external audit; and risk management.

The Model Standards apply to nonbank mortgage servicers with portfolios of 2,000 or more 1 – 4-unit residential mortgage loans serviced or subserviced for others and operating in two or more states as of the most recent calendar year end, reported in the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (“NMLS”) Mortgage Call Report. For purposes of determining coverage under the Model Standards, “residential mortgage loans serviced” excludes whole loans owned and loans being “interim” serviced prior to sale. Additionally, the financial condition requirements in the Model Standards do not apply to servicers solely owning and/or conducting reverse mortgage servicing or the reverse mortgage portfolio administered by forward mortgage servicers that may otherwise be covered under the standards. The capital and liquidity requirements also have limited application to entities that only perform subservicing for others. Moreover, the whole loan portion of portfolios are not included in the calculation of the capital and liquidity requirements.

While CSBS drafted the Model Standards, they are implemented only through individual state legislation or other rulemaking.

Connecticut’s and Maryland’s Implementation of the Model Standards

The CT and MD Standards both track the Model Standards in many respects, including the following:

  • Covered servicers are required to satisfy the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (“FHFA”) Eligibility Requirements for Enterprise Single-Family Seller/Servicers for minimum capital ratio, net worth and liquidity, whether or not the mortgage servicer is approved for servicing by the government sponsored enterprises (i.e., Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) (the “GSEs”), as well maintain policies and procedures implementing such requirements; these requirements do not apply to servicers solely owning and/or conducting reverse mortgage loan servicing, or the reverse mortgage loan portfolio administered by covered institution that may otherwise be covered under the standards, and do not include the whole loan portion of servicers’ portfolios.
  • With respect to corporate governance, covered servicers are required to establish and maintain a board of directors responsible for oversight of the servicer; however, for covered servicers that are not approved to service loans by one of the GSEs, or Ginnie Mae, or where a federal agency has granted approval for a board alternative, a covered servicer may establish a similar body constituted to exercise oversight and fulfill the board of directors’ responsibilities.
  • A covered mortgage servicer’s board of directors, or approved board alternative, must (1) establish a written corporate governance framework, including appropriate internal controls designed to monitor corporate governance and assess compliance with the corporate governance framework, (2) monitor and ensure institutional compliance with certain established rules, and (3) establish internal audit requirements that are appropriate for the size, complexity and risk profile of the servicer, with appropriate independence to provide a reliable evaluation of the servicer’s internal control structure, risk management and governance.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must receive an annual external audit, which must include audited financial statements and audit reports, conducted by an independent accountant, and which must include: (1) annual financial statements, (2) internal control assessments, (3) computation of tangible net worth, (4) validation of MSR valuation and reserve methodology, (5) verification of adequate fidelity and errors and omissions insurance, and (6) testing of controls related to risk management activities, including compliance and stress testing, as applicable.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must establish a risk management program under the oversight of the board of directors, or the approved board alternative, that addresses the following risks: credit, liquidity, operational, market, compliance, legal, and reputation.
  • Covered mortgage servicers must conduct an annual risk assessment, concluding with a formal report to the board of directors, which must include evidence of risk management activities throughout the year including findings of issues and the response to address those findings.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CT Standards appear to deviate from the Model Standards in a few notable ways. First, with respect to coverage, the CT Standards differ from the Model Standards, in that the CT Standards can apply to a servicer who only services Connecticut residential mortgage loans, whereas the Model Standards do not apply unless the servicer operates “in two or more states as of the most recent calendar year end, reported in the [NMLS] Mortgage Call Report.” Additionally, the capital and liquidity requirements under the Model Standards have limited application to entities that only perform subservicing for others, including limiting the definition of “servicing liquidity or liquidity” to entities who own servicing rights. The comments to the Model Standards explain that “[f]inancial condition requirements for subservicers are limited under the FHFA eligibility requirements due to the lack of owned servicing. For example, net worth add-on and liquidity requirements apply only to UPB of servicing owned, thereby limiting the financial requirements for subservicers, and servicers who own MSRs and also subservice for others. However, the base capital and operating liquidity requirements … apply to subservicers.” On the other hand, the capital and liquidity requirements under the CT Standards explicitly do not apply to an entity that solely “performs subservicing for others with no responsibility to advance moneys not yet received in connection with such subservicing activities.”

The MD Standards, on the other hand, largely adopt the Model Standards. However, with respect to internal audit requirements, the MD Standards contain additional guidance, specifying that “[u]nless impracticable given the size of the licensee, internal audit functions shall be performed by employees of the licensee who report to the licensee’s owners or board of directors and who are not otherwise supervised by the persons who directly manage the activities being reviewed.” That said, it is worth noting that in an accompanying notice to servicers and lenders, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation clarified that the purpose of the MD Standards is “aligning Maryland regulations with nationwide model standards and creating uniform standards regarding safety and soundness, financial responsibility, and corporate governance for certain mortgage service providers.”

Takeaway

Connecticut and Maryland are the first two states to adopt implementing laws or regulations following the CSBS’s adoption of the Model Standards. Connecticut-licensed mortgage servicers subject to the CT Standards must comply by October 1, 2022, the section’s effective date. The MD Standards took effect on June 27, 2022. Servicers subject to the CT and/or MD Standards should review the standards and ensure their business satisfies the applicable requirements. As with any model law, the Model Standards require states to adopt implementing laws or regulations. Accordingly, we expect to see additional states begin to adopt similar measures.

Maryland Regulator Puts Lenders and Servicers on Notice Regarding the Assessment of So-Called “Convenience Fees”

By ,

A&B Abstract:

On May 12, 2022, the Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation (the “OCFR”) issued an Industry Advisory (the “Advisory”) “put[ting] [the] industry on notice” of the recent decision issued by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ashly Alexander, et. al. v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC.  The Advisory directs lenders and servicers to review their practices in charging consumer borrowers loan payment fees (referred to herein as “convenience fees”) both to ensure on-going compliance with the law and to determine whether any improper fees have previously been assessed so that they can undertake appropriate reimbursements to affected borrowers.

The Carrington Decision

In Carrington, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) incorporates §§ 804 through 812 of federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), including the FDCPA’s prohibition on “[t]he collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law,” under § 808(1). Because Maryland law does not expressly permit or authorize the assessment of convenience fees, the court held that such fees must be expressly authorized by the loan documents in order to be permitted under § 808(1).

The Carrington court further clarified that the FDCPA’s substantive provisions apply to any person who meets the broad definition of a “collector” under the MCDCA, even if such person would not be considered a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. Notably, the FCDPA contains important exclusions from the definition of “debt collector”, such as when a person is collecting a debt that was obtained prior to default, or if the person collecting the debt was the original creditor.  On the other hand, as amended effective October 1, 2018, the MCDCA defines a “collector” broadly to include all persons collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt arising out of a consumer transaction and does not provide for similar exclusions.  We discussed the Carrington decision in greater detail in a prior blog post.

The Advisory

The Advisory reminds Maryland “collectors” of the Carrington court’s ruling, that collecting fees on any form of loan payment violates the MCDCA if the fees are not set forth in the loan documents. As a result, Maryland lenders and servicers are cautioned “that any fee charged, whether for convenience or to recoup actual costs incurred by lenders and servicers for loan payments made through credit cards, debit cards, the automated clearing house (ACH), [or other payment methods], must be specifically authorized by the applicable loan documents.” The Advisory makes clear that “[i]f such a fee is not provided for in the applicable loan documents, it would be deemed illegal.” Further, attempts to circumvent this fee restriction by directing consumers to a payment platform associated with the lender or servicer that collects a loan payment fee or requiring consumers to amend their loan documents for the purposes of inserting such fees could also violate Maryland law.”

The Advisory anticipates that some lenders or servicers may discontinue offering certain payment options as a result of the Carrington decision. However, the Commissioner expressly requests that such lenders or servicers promptly notify their customers of such change and encourages lenders and servicers “to work with consumers to minimize the impact any change in payment options could have, including where possible, continuing such payment options without fees, especially when consumers are attempting to pay their obligations in a timely manner.”

Lenders and servicers are directed to review their records to determine whether any improper fees have previously been assessed and, if so, make appropriate reimbursements to affected borrowers. The OCFR intends to monitor the impact that the Carrington decision has on lender and servicer fee practices and lenders and servicers can expect a follow-up on this topic from the OCFR in the coming months.

Takeaway

The implications of the Carrington decision are numerous. First, lenders and servicers must immediately cease the collection of convenience fees from Maryland borrowers, unless such fees are expressly authorized by the loan documents. Lenders and servicers choosing to discontinue certain payment services as a result of the Carrington decision, must also ensure that affected consumers are promptly notified of such change.  In addition, lenders and servicers who meet the definition of a “collector” under the MCDCA must ensure compliance with §§ 804 through 812 of the federal FDCPA, regardless of whether they meet the FDCPA’s definition of a “debt collector.” Finally, while the Carrington decision was focused on the permissibility of convenience fees, we note that the court also held that “[t]he FDCPA’s far-reaching language [under § 808(1)] straightforwardly applies to the collection of ‘any amount.’” Thus, the implications of the Carrington decision go beyond convenience fees to arguably any other fee that is not expressly authorized by the loan documents or permitted by law, and we understand that Maryland regulators have informally indicated as much.  Accordingly, lenders and servicers should carefully review all fees that are, or may be, assessed to Maryland borrowers to ensure such fees are either expressly authorized by the loan documents or permitted by law.

Application Deadline Looms Under California Debt Collection Licensing Act

By

On September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 908 – enacting the Debt Collection Licensing Act (DCLA). The DCLA, which takes effect January 1, 2022, requires a person or entity engaging in the business of debt collection in California to be licensed and provides for regulatory oversight of debt collectors by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI). Pursuant to the DCLA, debt collectors who submit an application by Dec. 31, 2021 may continue to operate in California pending the denial or approval of their application. On April 23, 2021, the Commissioner of the DFPI (the Commissioner) issued proposed regulations (the Regulations) to adopt procedures for applying for a debt collection license under the DCLA. On June 23, 2021, after consideration of public comments, the Commissioner issued a Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Modifications). On November 15, 2021, the Commissioner issued a second Notice of Modifications to the Regulations (the Additional Modifications).

The Regulations

The Regulations – among other things –  define relevant terms, include information regarding application procedures, and contain other miscellaneous information regarding licensing. The definition of “debt collector” was substantially the same as the broad definition under the enacted DCLA (which in turn is very similar to the Rosenthal FDCPA definition) and encompasses a wide array of activity in relation to consumer debt, including mortgage debt. Likewise, the regulations define “debt buyer” identical to the existing definition in Section 1788.50 of the Civil Code, which contains an exception for purchasers of a loan portfolio predominantly consisting of consumer debt that has not been charged off. See our prior post on the DCLA for more information regarding the scope of the licensure requirement.

The Regulations designate NMLS for the submission and processing of applications and reference and rely upon uniform NMLS forms and procedures. The application process includes completion of the NMLS uniform licensing form (MU1), including by any affiliates to be licensed under the same license. The application process includes collection of information regarding other trade names, web addresses used by the applicant, contact employees, organizational information (including information on any indirect owners), a detailed statement of business activities, certificates of good standing, and sample dunning letters. Applicants do not need to provide bank account information in Section 10 of Form MU1 or information on a qualifying individual in Section 17 of Form MU1. Fingerprinting (which is processed outside of NMLS), criminal history checks, and credit report authorizations are required for certain related individuals, including officers, directors, managing members, trustees, responsible individuals, and any individual owning directly or indirectly 10% or more of the applicant. An investigative background report is also required for any such individual who is not residing in the United States. Branches must also be licensed through NMLS uniform forms (MU3). Notice and additional filing requirements apply upon any change in the information submitted. The Regulations also contain surety bond requirements and outline the Commissioner’s authority in reviewing and examining applicants.

First Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On June 23, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Modifications which made several changes to the Regulations including, revising the definition of “applicant” to make clear that an affiliate who is not applying for a license is not an “applicant” – this revision, however, does not seem to impact the ability of applicants to include affiliates under a single license. Further, the Modifications added an English language requirement for documents filed with the DFPI. The Modifications also eliminated certain requirements to provide the Commissioner with additional copies of documents submitted through NMLS and otherwise revised requirements to allow information to be processed predominately through NMLS. The Modifications also eliminated the need to file certain fingerprinting documents in NMLS. Additionally, the Modifications added a requirement to explain derogatory credit accounts for any individual subject to credit reporting requirements. The Modifications also removed requirements that applicants provide information concerning compliance reporting and audit structure, the extent to which they intend to use third parties to perform any of their debt collection functions, that applicants file a copy of their policies and procedures with the NMLS, and certain annually collected financial information. The Modifications also eliminate the Commissioner’s ability to modify surety bond amounts.

Second Notice of Modification to the Regulations

On November 15, 2021 the Commissioner issued the Additional Modifications to the Regulations which amended the definitions of “branch office” and “debt collector.” “Branch office” was amended to mean any location other than the applicant’s or licensee’s principal place of business so long as “activity related to debt collection occurs” at that location and that the location is “held out to the public as a business location or money is received at the location or held at the location.” The Additional Modifications state that “holding a location out to the public” includes the receipt of postal correspondence and meeting with the public at the location, placing the location on letterhead, business cards, and signage, or making “any other representation to the public that the location is a business location.”

The definition of “debt collector” was amended to reference the definition set forth in the DCLA, rather than actually defining the term. Thus, any future revisions to the DCLA definition will automatically apply to the regulations as well.

Conclusion  

Debt Collection agencies and participants in California should anticipate additional regulations from the DFPI as aspects of the DCLA continue to be hammered out – in the interim any entity subject to licensing who has not done so already should submit an application before end of year to ensure continued operations.

New CFPB Chief Rohit Chopra Confirmed by Senate and Takes Immediate Action Against Big Tech Firms

By

A&B Abstract:

On September 30, 2021, the Senate confirmed Rohit Chopra to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in a 50-48 vote along party lines. He had been serving as a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) where he had been a vocal critic of big tech companies and advocated for increased restitution for consumers. He previously served as the CFPB’s private education loan ombudsman under former CFPB Director Richard Cordray. Prior to that, he had worked closely with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the CFPB’s establishment. Consistent with his past practices, Chopra’s CFPB has now ordered six Big Tech companies to turn over information regarding their payment platforms.

Expectations for Chopra’s CFPB

President-elect Biden announced Chopra as his choice to lead the CFPB before Inauguration Day, and the Biden Administration subsequently referred his nomination to the Senate in February. Chopra succeeds Kathy Kraninger, who became Director in December 2018 after having served as a senior official at the Office of Management and Budget. She led the CFPB for two years before the incoming Biden Administration demanded her resignation on January 20. It is expected that Chopra will aggressively lead the CFPB and unleash an industry crack down. The October 21, 2021 order issued to Big Tech regarding payment products appears to be the first step in that plan. Additionally, credit reporting companies, small-dollar lenders, debt collectors, fintech companies, the student loan industry, and mortgage servicers are among the financial institutions expected to face scrutiny from Chopra’s CFPB. Prior to the Big Tech inquiry, the CFPB, under interim leadership, had already taken initial steps to implement pandemic-era regulations and to advance the Biden administration’s priorities. It is also expected that the enforcement practices under former-Director Cordray will be revived under a Chopra-led CFPB.

After his confirmation, Chopra stated an intent to focus on safeguarding household financial stability, echoing prior statements regarding his commitment to ensuring those under foreclosure or eviction protections during the pandemic are able to regain housing security. He has also declared an intent to closely scrutinize the ways that banks use online advertising, as well as take a hard look at data-collection practices at banks. In his remarks related to the market-monitoring order issued to Big Tech, Chopra was critical of the way companies may collect data and his concern that it may be used to “profit from behavioral targeting, particularly around advertising and e-commerce.”

Just one week later, Chopra delivered remarks in his first congressional hearing as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director. In his prepared statements before both the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, he cited mortgage and rent payments, small business continuity, auto debt, and upcoming CARES Act forbearance expirations as problems he plans to address. He also stated an intent to closely monitor the mortgage market and scrutinize foreclosure activity. And, echoing his action from a week earlier, Chopra reiterated an intent to closely look at Big Tech and emerging payment processing trends. Chopra also noted a lack of competition in the mortgage refinance market and stated an intent to promote competition within the market.

Although appointed to a five year term, the CFPB director serves at the pleasure of the president after a landmark decision last year from the Supreme Court.

Takeaway

Industry participants, including credit reporting companies, small-dollar lenders, debt collectors, fintech companies, the student loan industry, and mortgage lenders and servicers can anticipate additional scrutiny in the coming months and years from the CFPB. As Chopra gets settled into his new role, we will be keenly watching where he turns his attention to next.