On May 14, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued guidance on stress tests for banks with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. The final guidanceThe final guidance provides, in a manner largely consistent with the proposed guidance, principles for banks to follow when conducting stress tests, including: (i) a stress testing framework, (ii) general stress testing principles, (iii) stress testing approaches and applications, (iv) the importance of stress testing in assessing the adequacy of capital and liquidity, and (v) the need for internal governance and controls over the stress testing framework. The regulators amended the final guidance to clarify certain issues raised during the comment period, including changes to (i) incorporate an additional principle for stress testing, (ii) clarify application of the guidance to U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, (iii) clarify the role of a bank’s liabilities and operational risk in conducting a stress test, (iv) explain that senior management should have the primary responsibility for stress testing implementation and technical design, and (v) clarify that a banking organization’s minimum annual review and assessment should ensure that stress testing coverage is comprehensive, tests are relevant and current, methodologies are sound, and results are properly considered. In a separate announcement, the banking regulators explicitly addressed concerns raised by community bankers by explaining that community banks are neither required nor expected to conduct the stress tests described above. However, the statement stresses that all banking organizations, regardless of size, should have the capacity to analyze the potential impact of adverse outcomes on their financial condition.

On May 16, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida certified a nationwide class of plaintiffs alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer protection statutes with regard to the overdraft practices of a national bank. In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036, slip op. (S.D. Fla. May 16, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that the bank created a scheme in which it manipulated debit card transactions to increase the number of overdraft fees charged to customers by re-ordering daily transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount, resulting in a higher number of individual overdraft transactions. After a year of class discovery, the court held that the class meets the four prerequisites for certification under Rule 23(a)–numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The defendant argued that the claims made by the plaintiffs were similar to questions raised in the Supreme Court’s decision in Walmart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), where the Court rejected class certification in an employment discrimination suit due to insufficient commonality. The district court disagreed, holding that because the plaintiffs all were subject to the same uniform corporate policy, the reason why each class member was harmed is not at issue, as it was in Dukes. Other bank defendants have faced and continue to face similar allegations in several other suits, including some that have been consolidated with the above action. Several of those defendants have settled, including most recently a $62 million agreement announced on May 11, 2012.

Recently, the United Kingdom’s Upper Tribunal overturned a decision of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) that held a top bank executive liable for failure to take reasonable steps to adequately address certain regulatory compliance problems. Specifically, the FSA charged that the executive failed to take reasonable steps to identify and remediate serious flaws in the design and operational effectiveness of the firm’s governance and risk management frameworks and was too slow to initiate a comprehensive review of systems and controls across the business, which should have been conducted when he was appointed to lead the firm. The executive challenged the FSA penalty, arguing that his actions to investigate every specific compliance issue that arose and remedy problems in accordance with a defined plan were sufficient and reasonable and that he had undertaken efforts to strengthen his company’s compliance monitoring team. The Upper Tribunal agreed, holding that the FSA’s expectation that the executive institute a broad overhaul at an earlier date was beyond the bounds of reasonableness. The Upper Tribunal also noted that the majority of the compliance failures originated in one division, that the firm was addressing those issues, and that no one within that or other departments of the firm, nor anyone from the FSA, had ever suggested to the executive a need for a more comprehensive review. The Upper Tribunal directed the FSA to take no action against the executive.

On May 14, the Federal Housing Finance Agency released for public comment a draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2013-2017draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2013-2017. The draft plan updates FHFA’s existing strategic plan document to incorporate a proposal sent to Congress in February 2012 that outlined FHFA’s plan to build a new infrastructure for the secondary mortgage market, contract Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s current market dominance, and maintain the Enterprises’ roles in foreclosure prevention activities and refinance initiatives. The draft plan sets forth four strategic goals: (i) Safe and sound housing GSEs; (ii) Stability, liquidity, and access in housing finance; (iii) Preserve and conserve Enterprise assets; and (iv) Prepare for the future of housing finance in the U.S.

On May 15, the CFPB published a notice and request for comment regarding its collection of information concerning the costs expected to be incurred by institutions required to comply with CFPB rules. The notice identifies specifically the need to collect information about costs to mortgage and remittance industry participants in connection with upcoming CFPB rules. The notice further states that the CFPB seeks to understand the effect of compliance costs on financial service providers and consumers, but that it is particularly interested in the impact of regulations on the unit costs of delivering specific consumer products and services. The CFPB plans to use structured interviews, focus groups, written questionnaires, and other methods to collect the needed information, and will attempt to collect a representative sample of providers from affected markets. The public is invited to comment on the notice through June 19, 2012.

On May 17, the CFPB announced that it will hold a public hearing to discuss issues in the prepaid cards market. The hearing is scheduled to take place on May 23, 2012 inDurham,NC, and will include remarks from Director Cordray.

On May 15, Fannie Mae issued Selling Guide Announcement SEL-2012-04, which includes numerous changes to various Selling Guide topics. To address questions from lenders, the Announcement enhances and clarifies certain DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus requirements in connection with HARP program modifications. Fannie Mae also updated the eligibility and underwriting requirements for DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus to specifically permit financing provided through state Hardest Hit Fund programs to be used to pay down the mortgage balance at closing or to pay closing costs. All of the DU Refi Plus and Refi Plus updates are detailed in an attachment to the Announcement. A second attachment provides myriad updates to Fannie Mae’s employment and income policies, which are designed to provide additional flexibility and efficiency in processing employment and income documentation. The Announcement also includes miscellaneous Guide changes, including changes to Fannie Mae’s (i) restructured mortgage loan policy, (ii) Eligibility Matrix, (iii) eCommitONE User’s Guide, and (iv) Standard ARM Plan Matrix.

Also on May 15, Freddie Mac issued Bulletin 2012-11, which amends and adds a number of selling requirements, many of which are effective immediately. The Bulletin permits federally regulated sellers to conduct “Electronic Transactions” using electronic versions of certain loan documents during the initial loan origination process. Several new Guide provisions also are included in the Bulletin. The new requirements: (i) entitle Freddie Mac to recapture premiums and buyups associated with mortgages that are paid off within 120 days of their sale to Freddie Mac, regardless of the reason for the payoff; (ii) remove the requirement that ARMs sold to Freddie Mac have a note rate, margin, and lifetime ceiling that are divisible by one-eighth of one percent; (iii) prohibit the sale of Mortgages encumbered by certain private transfer fee covenants as of July 16, 2012; and (iv) cease Freddie Mac’s practice of purchasing mortgages originated on Fannie Mae balloon documents as of September 1, 2012. The Bulletin also notifies sellers that Freddie Mac will contact customers with counterparty authorization (CPA) compliant accounts for resubmission of outdated CPA compliance forms. Finally, the Bulletin reiterates guidance from a number of previous bulletins and email updates regarding Freddie Mac Relief Refinance Mortgages and UAD Field-Specific Standardization Requirements.

Alabama Enacts Residential Mortgage Satisfaction Act. On May 3, Alabama enacted Senate Bill 347, which establishes procedures by which a borrower can obtain a payoff statement for a residential mortgage, including the form of such a request, deadlines for responding to a request (14 days), and the method for providing the statement, among other things. The bill also requires a secured creditor to record a mortgage satisfaction within 30 days after it receives full payment and performance of the obligation, and establishes a process for enforcing the recording requirement. The bill takes effect March 1, 2013. 

West Virginia Amends Mortgage Record Keeping Requirements. Recently, West Virginia amended regulations that implement the record keeping requirements for all licensed residential mortgage lenders, brokers, and servicers. For lenders who provide the initial funding on a loan, the rules now make clear that the requirement to retain electronic records includes emails between the lender and borrower. Initial lenders and mortgage brokers also must maintain an itemized list of all fees and charges imposed on each loan and received by the lender or broker and by any third party. Further, the regulation adds a new requirement that a lender or broker document tangible net benefit to the borrower prior to refinancing a residential mortgage. The regulation also contains a new section on the process by which the state Division of Banking will determine if mortgage loan originator applicants meet certain standards of financial responsibility required by West Virginia law. The requirements took effect May 1, 2012.

On May 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded a lower court’s dismissal of an FDCPA claim, finding that the contents of a “dunning” notice from the lender’s foreclosing law firm constitutes an attempt to collect a debt under the FDCPA. Reese v. Ellis, Painter, Rattertree & Adams, LLP, No. 10-14366, 2012 WL 1500108 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012). The borrowers received a letter and documents from the lender’s law firm demanding payment of the debt on the borrowers’ defaulted mortgage loan and threatening to foreclose on their home if they did not pay the outstanding debt. The borrowers filed a class action lawsuit against the law firm alleging that the communication violated the FDCPA. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under the FDCPA. On appeal, the court held that the borrowers’ obligation to pay off the promissory note, which the court distinguished from a security interest, represents a debt under the FDCPA. The court then rejected the law firm’s argument that the purpose of the letter and accompanying documents was not to collect a debt, but rather to inform the borrowers of the lender’s intent to enforce its security interest through possible foreclosure. The court determined that the documents at issue, which contained disclaimers such as “This law firm is acting as a debt collector attempting to collect a debt,” had a dual purpose of providing notice of foreclosure and collecting a debt. In so holding, the court noted that following the law firm’s reasoning would create a giant loophole in the FDCPA wherein the law only would apply to efforts to collect on unsecured debt and would permit collectors to “harass or mislead [secured] debtors without violating the FDCPA.”

The federal government is increasing scrutiny of financial services companies’ practices affecting active military members, veterans and their families. Earlier this year, the CFPB along with the FTC, the Department of Defense and the New York Attorney General announced the launch of the Repeat Offenders Against Military (ROAM) database, which will track enforcement actions against companies and individuals who repeatedly scam military personnel, veterans and their families.

According to John Redding, Counsel in BuckleySandler’s Southern California office, this new effort is an important development that the financial services industry needs to be aware of. He says the firm has been advising clients on how to refine their policies and procedures for doing business with servicemembers and their families.

“We are suggesting they be aware of the increased focus on SCRA [Servicemembers Civil Relief Act] issues and, in part because of the new database and other efforts surrounding increased protections, need to review their practices to ensure continued compliance.”

According to the CFPB, law enforcement officials across the country, including state attorneys general, US attorneys, and judge advocates from all five branches of the armed forces, will be able to search the ROAM database for information about completed civil and criminal actions against businesses that have scammed military personnel, veterans, and their families.

On May 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) outlined in its outreach materials to small business representatives its proposals to implement the loan originator compensation provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). These proposals will amend the rules applicable to compensation in mortgage loan transactions, and they would also “help level the playing field” in connection with regulation of mortgage loan originators under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act). The CFPB intends to finalize rules on these topics by January 21, 2013.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, restrictions were placed on the ability of creditors and consumers to compensate mortgage loan originators (which includes employee loan officers, mortgage brokerages, and employees of mortgage brokerages). This restriction is similar to the restrictions implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (Board), effective April 2011, that prohibit a creditor from compensating a loan originator based on the terms and conditions of the transaction.

The Dodd-Frank Act generally provides that loan originators may be compensated only by consumers, unless two conditions are met: (i) the loan originator must not receive any compensation directly from a consumer; and (ii) the consumer must not make an upfront payment of discount points, origination points, or fees, other than bona fide third-party fees that are not retained by the creditor, the loan originator, or either company’s affiliates.

The CFPB has the authority to create exemptions to the second “points and fees” provision if it finds that an exemption is “in the interest of consumers and in the public interest.” In its proposal, the CFPB states that it is considering using this exemption authority to permit consumer payment of upfront points and fees under certain circumstances, and the CFPB is further considering whether to propose particular conditions for payments to affiliates. The CFPB is considering a number of proposals that would carry out this restriction:

• No-Discount-Point Loan Option: Under the CFPB’s proposal, the loan originator would be required to offer a no-discount-point transaction. Offering this option, according to the CFPB, would enable the homebuyer to better compare competing offers from different lenders.

• Interest-Rate Reductions When Consumers Pay Discount Points: The CFPB’s proposal would mandate that any “discount point” be a “bona fide” discount point that actually reduces the interest rate by at least a minimum amount.

• Origination Charges Must Not Vary with the Size of the Loan: The CFPB proposes that mortgage brokerage firms and creditors would be allowed to charge only flat origination fees instead of fees that vary with the size of the loan. The CFPB proposes that upfront fees may be paid to affiliates, provided that these fees are likewise flat and so do not vary with the size of the loan (except for title insurance payments).

In connection with these proposals, the CFPB indicates that it may allow (i) certain payments and bonuses to loan originator based on profitability, (i) certain payments to mortgage brokerage employees when the consumer pays the brokerage, and (iii) certain types of pricing concessions to be covered by the loan originator’s compensation. The CFPB’s proposal also considers whether to permit certain types of “point banks,” and whether to impose record-retention requirements on loan originators directly. Further, the CFPB is considering whether to “sunset” any potential partial exemption from the statute that it implements.

Read more…

On May 8, the FTC announced that it had joined the CFPB and the DOJ to file a brief supporting the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The brief was filed in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in which a consumer alleged that a consumer reporting agency (CRA) violated FCRA by reporting on arrest records that were more than seven years’ old. Responding to these allegations, the CRA argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Sorell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), rendered FCRA’s seven-year limitation unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The federal entities’ brief counters that Sorell does not alter the test for commercial speech restrictions established in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). It goes on to argue that, under this test, the government has a substantial interest in protecting individuals’ privacy and that FCRA protects this interest while accommodating businesses’ competing interest in obtaining complete information about potential borrowers.

On May 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit published an opinion that a trade group has standing to sue the Attorney General of New Mexico over that state’s credit reporting and identify theft requirements. Consumer Data Industry Assoc. v. King, No. 11-2085, 2012 WL 1573563 (10th Cir. May 7, 2012). In 2010, New Mexico enacted the Fair Credit Reporting and Identity Security Act, which, among other things, requires consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to oblige a consumer’s request to remove credit report information resulting from identify theft until told otherwise by a court or the requesting consumer. The Consumer Data Industry Association challenged the law on behalf of its members, arguing that the state law is preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Under FCRA, a CRA can deny a consumer request to remove information based on identify theft if the CRA reasonably determines that the request is fraudulent or erroneous. The district court held that the CDIA failed to prove redressability and therefore lacked constitutional standing to sue. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court holding and ordered further proceedings. It found that federal courts consistently have found a case or controversy in suits between private parties subject to enforcement and the state entity responsible for enforcement and that if a plaintiff faces a credible threat of enforcement, redressability is established. Here, the court held, the threat of enforcement faced by the CDIA members is sufficient to provide standing to sue for both injunctive and declaratory relief.

On May 10, the FTC released an advisory opinion affirming that the Holder in Due Course Rule does not limit or preclude a consumer’s right to recovery other than to restrict awards to monies paid under a contract. The opinion was prepared in response to a request by consumer groups concerned by court decisions, beginning with Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Morgan, 536 N.E.2d 587 (Mass. 1989), that had limited recovery under the Rule to cases in which the consumer is entitled to rescission or similar relief under state law. Noting that such courts have misinterpreted the Rule’s Statement of Basis and Purpose, the advisory opinion states that the plain language of the Rule is clear and does not limit affirmative recovery to those circumstances where rescission is warranted or where the goods or services sold to the consumer are worthless.

On May 4, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied, in large part, a motion to dismiss one of the many pending mortgage-backed securities (MBS) cases brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). Federal Housing Finance Agency v. UBS Americas, Inc., No. 11-5201, 2012 WL 1570856 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2012). The court’s decision allows FHFA’s federal securities action to proceed while dismissing related state law negligent misrepresentation claims. In July 2011, as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs), FHFA initiated multiple lawsuits alleging that billions of dollars of MBS purchased by the GSEs were based on offering documents that “contained materially false statements and omissions.” Defendants in the instant case argued that these claims were time-barred. FHFA countered that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) controlled questions of timeliness, a point on which the court agreed in refusing to dismiss related federal claims. In this regard, the court concluded that a reasonably diligent plaintiff (here, the FHFA) could not have “discovered” the underlying federal claim within the year before the GSEs were placed into conservatorship. Rather, such a plaintiff could only have “discovered” this claim when the securities were “downgraded from investment grade to near-junk status,” which was less than a year before conservatorship.