The holidays are a time for deals — rebates, discounts and special financing offers. Especially prevalent are automobile advertisements with images of big red bows atop shiny new cars and exhilarated families dashing out into the snow to unpack presents out of the back. Well, the regulators are watching those advertisements too. For the fourth time in a month, the CFPB is warning consumers, especially servicemembers, about the potential pitfalls of the car buying process and understanding exactly what they are buying and what they are financing. The FTC is joining in to help, with its own resources as well.

Add-On Products are an area of special concern and focus for the CFPB. The CFPB recommends that buyers “be prepared to say ‘No, thank you’ if [they’re] offered add-ons [they] don’t want or need.” But the CFPB also adds a warning that customers should be sure to review their contracts carefully to make sure the items declined are not included. Dealer sales practices vary on these types of products, and the CFPB appears to be suggesting not so subtly that buyer had better beware.

Value & Actual Costs/ Financing. Products and services the regulators highlight include: (a) guaranteed auto protection (GAP), (b) tire, dent, paint and fabric protection packages, (c) extended warranties, and (d) service contracts. These additional products and services can be valuable to consumers depending on how long they intend to keep the car, how they want to maintain it, and their own economic circumstances and budget cashflow. The CFPB and FTC focus signals that in marketing these products and services, institutions and their business partners must be direct and forthright about the product, its features, its limitations, and the price. High pressure sales tactics or aggressive marketing may result in customer complaints, regulatory inquiries, and litigation and reputation risk.

KISS. An acronym first utilized in military equipment design in the 1960’s, “Keep it Simple Stupid.” Litigators rely on KISS in formulating trial themes and presentations to juries. Simple messages resonate. In that vein, I offer three KISS takeaways from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection’s Supervisory Highlights, Issue 17, Summer 2018.

KISS #1: Details Matter. 

On two key levels: (a) your business compliance operations and consumer interactions, and (b) in the Bureau’s supervision and examination conclusions. Taking these in reverse order, the Bureau’s Introduction (p. 2) provides important guardrails:

[L]egal violations described in this and previous issues of Supervisory Highlights are based on the particular facts and circumstances reviewed by the Bureau as part of its examinations. A conclusion that a legal violation exists on the facts and circumstances described here may not lead to such a finding under different facts and circumstances.

This is critical to your supervision and examination preparedness and your interactions with the Bureau.  If the Bureau spots a concern, consider providing a fulsome explanation of the analysis that went into the policy formulation, how your organization believed it was operating in good faith under applicable laws and believed that the practice would not harm or mislead consumers, what steps your organization has done in monitoring and addressing any consumer concerns regarding the policy or practice. This may sound basic, but the Bureau’s statement matters and can be referenced. The Bureau should, in my view, consider such information in assessing whether any violation has occurred, whether any consumers actually were harmed and whether any remediation is necessary. Sometimes the conclusion may be that the practice presents a risk of potential confusion or harm and simply should be modified going forward. Present your best case; the Bureau appears to be open to considering all the facts and circumstances.

Effective as of April 19, 2018, successors in interest to property secured by mortgage loans that are covered by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) and Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”) now have certain rights under those acts.

These amendments are part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s 2016 Mortgage Servicing Rule amendments to RESPA and TILA.  The CFPB issued the new rules because “it had received reports of servicers either refusing to speak to a successor in interest or demanding documents to prove the successor in interest’s claim to the property that either did not exist or were not reasonably available.”  81 Fed. Reg. 72,160 at 72,165. The rules are therefore designed to make it easier for potential successors in interest to communicate with servicers and establish that they are successors in interest.

At the outset, the new rules define a “successor in interest” as anyone who obtains an ownership interest in a property secured by a mortgage loan, provided that the transfer occurs under one of the scenarios listed in the new rule.  The scenarios range from a transfer resulting from the death of the borrower to a transfer from the borrower to a spouse or child.  The person does not have to assume the loan in order to be a successor in interest.

The amendments create several potential pitfalls for servicers because certain obligations are triggered when a servicer receives actual or inquiry notice that someone might be a successor in interest.  As discussed below, the amendments require servicers to “promptly” communicate with anyone who may be a successor in interest.  Servicers must also only request documents “reasonably” required to confirm whether that person is in fact a successor in interest.  And a “confirmed” successor in interest now has the same rights as the original borrower under RESPA and TILA mortgage servicing rules.

Enforcement of the Law, Quantitative Impact Analysis & Other Gems

Last week CFPB Acting Director Mick Mulvaney had a busy speaking calendar in Washington, D.C. and we all should be listening. He addressed the Credit Union National Association (CUNA)’s Government Affairs Conference on Tuesday, February 27th and the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) Winter Meeting on Wednesday, February 28th. While there were differences in the two presentations because of the respective audiences, Mulvaney’s strategic themes were clear. You can watch the CUNA speech here and the NAAG speech here.

1. CFPB will reflect the current administration. Not surprisingly, the CFPB will be run differently under the Trump administration than it had been under the Obama administration. Whatever one’s politics, the Acting Director made abundantly clear that a new sheriff is in town. Mulvaney highlighted the time he has been spending with CFPB staff to share his priorities and to re-align departments and to focus activities under the new strategic constructs. He assured both CFPB staff and the two audiences that despite the strategy shift, he is not anticipating employee layoffs.

2. CFPB enforcement activity will enforce the law. A bit circular? Maybe. Nonsensical in light of past CFPB activity? No. Mulvaney emphasized that institutions should “know what the rules are” before being sued for allegedly failing to comply. In other words, the CFPB should not be challenging company activities which leaders did not reasonably understand violated applicable law. And related, CFPB should not push the envelope. Mulvaney rejected the notion that enforcement suits should be “creative” or that the CFPB should regulate by enforcement. Mulvaney will leave legislative tasks to the Congress. Waxing literary at CUNA, Mulvaney quoted Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America: “When justice is more certain and more mild, is at the same time more efficacious.” Mulvaney acknowledged the great power the CFPB has and opined that power should be wielded humbly and judiciously.

3. CFPB will quantitatively assess regulatory impacts. Mulvaney spoke to leveraging cost-benefit analysis at the Bureau. He will require quantitative benefits and burdens to be assessed before changes are made to regulatory requirements. He intends rule making with substantial accountability and transparency, including input from consumer groups, Attorneys General, and industry. Mulvaney hopes the CFPB will “hear” (not just listen) when engaging in these analyses, acknowledging previous criticism that the Bureau may have been “checking in the box” in that regard.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

On the latest episode of The Bank Account, Jonathan and Ken Achenbach discussed the Federal Reserve’s proposed supervisory expectations for boards of directors.

Before digging into the Federal Reserve’s proposed guidance, Jonathan and Ken first discussed the CFPB’s statistical analysis of frequent overdrafters.  As noted in the CFPB’s analysis, “very frequent overdrafters account for about five percent of all accounts at the study banks but paid over 63 percent of all overdraft and NSF fees.”  They also touched on the CFPB’s prototype model forms for overdrafts.   As might be expected from the CFPB, the sample forms do a good job of highlighting the economic consequences of utilizing overdrafts, but not mention the potentially significant benefits (tangible and psychological) that can be provided by allowing such payments to proceed.

As noted by Jonathan and Ken, the Federal Reserve’s proposed supervisory guidance identifying expectations for boards of directors of banking holding companies would only apply to institutions with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.  However, we believe the guidance is appropriate for all bank directors to look at, particularly as it draws on the Federal Reserve’s experience with approaches that improve bank governance.

Per the Federal Reserve guidance, effective boards are those which:

1. set clear, aligned, and consistent direction regarding the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance;
2. actively manage information flow and board discussions;
3. hold senior management accountable;
4. support he independence and stature of independent risk management (including compliance) and internal audit; and
5. maintain a capable board composition and governance structure.

We believe this Federal Reserve guidance is consistent with our advice that boards need to get out of the weeds and focus on the big picture, a topic we have addressed on earlier podcasts as well.

On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a rule prohibiting class action waivers in certain pre-dispute arbitration agreements. The rule drastically impacts arbitration clauses currently used by many financial products and services providers in their consumer agreements.

The rule has three main components. First, the rule prohibits providers from using a pre-dispute arbitration agreement to prevent consumers from bringing or participating in class actions in federal and state court. Second, the rule requires that arbitration agreements inform consumers that their right to bring a class action is unrestricted. Third, the rule requires providers to supply certain records and data relating to arbitral proceedings to the CFPB.

The rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and generally applies to agreements entered into more than 180 days after the effective date. Congress, however, can use the Congressional Review Act to prevent the rule from taking effect.

What is the effect of the rule?

The new rule prohibits pre-dispute arbitration agreements for certain consumer financial products or services that block consumer class actions in federal and state courts. The rule accomplishes this in two ways:

1. providers cannot rely on any pre-dispute arbitration agreement entered after the compliance date that restricts or eliminates a consumer’s right to a class action in state or federal court (§ 1040.4(a)(1)); and
2. providers must include certain specified plain language in arbitration agreements that explicitly disclaims the arbitration agreements applicability to class actions (§ 1040.4(a)(2)).

The rule also requires providers to submit certain records relating to arbitral proceedings to the bureau, including copies of pleadings, the pre-dispute arbitration agreement, and the judgment. (§ 1040(b).)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

On the latest episode of The Bank Account, Jonathan and I discuss the CFPB’s request for comments regarding information about the small business lending market.

Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to compile, maintain and report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses.  In connection with this obligation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is now seeking comments to identify, among other things, how to define small business lending, what business lending data is currently easily available, and what kinds of institutions should be obligated to make such reports.

Jonathan and I discuss the need for the depository industry to provide comments in response to this request.

In the past few months, there has been a lot of speculation regarding the future of many administrative agencies under Trump’s administration. However, two current cases pending in the D.C. Circuit have the potential to have a dramatic impact on administrative agencies and past and present regulatory enforcement actions by such agencies.

In Lucia v. SEC, the SEC brought claims against Lucia for misleading advertising in violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The enforcement action was initially resolved by an administrative law judge (ALJ); however Luica was later granted a petition for review based on an argument that the administrative hearing was unconstitutional because the ALJ was unconstitutionally appointed. The issue made it up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who recently held that the ALJ was constitutionally appointed because the judge was an “employee”, not an officer. However, other courts have held just the opposite. In December, the 10th Circuit held in Bandimere v. SEC that ALJs were “inferior officers” and thus must be appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause. A rehearing en banc has been granted in Lucia to address this issue.

On the heels of Lucia, in PHH v. CFPB, the CFPB brought claims against PHH for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Similarly, this enforcement proceeding was originally decided by an ALJ. However, PHH appealed the ALJ decision for a multitude of reasons and the appeal has also made it up to the D.C. Circuit where a rehearing en banc was granted last month. In the court’s order granting a rehearing en banc, the court ordered, among other things, that the parties address what the appropriate holding would be in PHH if the court holds in Lucia that the ALJ was unconstitutional.

CFPB watchers know that since 2013 customer complaints have been solicited and complaint data has been made available on the CFPB website. January is ubiquitous with New Year’s resolutions (perhaps you’ve already broken all of yours, but hopefully not). It is a great time to review the 2016 customer complaint data and see what the Plaintiffs’ Bar sees about your customers and your institution.

Undoubtedly, in due course, the CFPB has contacted your compliance and legal teams directly about these consumer complaints on an individualized basis. And undoubtedly, you have investigated the issue and provided responsive information to the CFPB and the consumer. Hopefully, each individual customer complaint matter is resolved and closed.

As a class action litigator, however, it is important to highlight that there is more here than just each individual complaint. We are living in an age of big data. The CFPB knows it. Your institution knows it. And, guess what, the Plaintiffs’ Bar knows it. The individual complaints posted to the CFPB database may be only the tip of the iceberg, or the issues may not have been fully resolved.

Eight bold regulatory predictions on the direction of U.S. Banking and Fintech regulation in light of the election results.

1.   The era of “outside the law” Federal regulation is over. Critics of the CFPB (exclusively Republicans) have criticized and challenged the agency’s structure and tactics.  These challenges include criticism of the agency’s broad jurisdiction and rulemaking power as an unconstitutional delegation by Congress of its legislative power.  Members of Congress and private litigants have assailed the CFPB’s reliance on enforcement actions instead of true rulemaking as undercutting due process and basic fairness.  Republicans have been united in believing that the agency’s existence and actions violated the Constitution, the agency’s grant of power under Dodd-Frank and the Administrative Procedures Act.  Increasingly, the courts have dealt the agency significant setbacks.  This author believes that Director Cordray only persisted in his aggressive pursuit of policy goals because he believed that pursuit was blessed by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.  Whatever one thinks of President-Elect Trump and his incoming administration, we can be certain that it will not support or defend an aggressive pursuit of policy goals even when that pursuit is perceived to exceed the scope of the law.  If a CFPB official decides to pursue such an enforcement action will be doing so without political cover.  As a result, I believe the CFPB will not bring enforcement actions unless the law and the facts clearly support that decision.  This is a major change of direction for the agency.  Once the agency is limited to strictly enforcing the law and promulgating only regulations that comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, it will be able to obtain many fewer settlements (and for much lower amounts) than it was able to do before when it enforced standards that it essentially made up on the spot.

2.  Director Cordray will either resign or be fired by the President. The extent of the anger and resentment towards Director Cordray by Republicans in Congress cannot be overstated.  I suspect President Trump does not have a strong personal opinion on the matter, but his advisors are close to Congressional leaders and I think there is zero chance that Republicans will not give the Director what they see as his long-overdue comeuppance.  A recent District Court opinion supports the Constitutional authority of the President to fire the Director, but I think President Trump will not hesitate to articulate a “for cause” basis to fire the Director under Dodd-Frank if the Director were to contest the President’s power to fire him at will.