Illinois District Court Enters Final Judgment Against For-Profit College to Resolve CFPB Litigation

On October 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a default judgment and order against a for-profit college company to resolve litigation with the CFPB. In a September 2014 lawsuit, the CFPB alleged that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by making false and misleading representations to students to encourage them to take out private student loans. The CFPB also alleged that the company violated the FDCPA by taking aggressive and unfair action to collect on the loan payments when they became past due. The court order requires the company to pay approximately $531 million in redress to student borrowers, which the company is unable to pay because it has dissolved and its assets have been distributed in its bankruptcy case. The CFPB indicated that it will continue to seek additional relief for students affected by the company’s practices despite the company’s inability to pay the judgment.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB Orders Auto Finance Company to Pay Over Three Million for Alleged Unfair Debt Collection Practices

On October 28, the CFPB filed an administrative order against an Ohio-based auto lender specializing in extending credit to servicemembers. The CFPB alleged that the company violated the CFPA by engaging in unfair, abusive, and deceptive debt collection practices, including: (i) contacting and threatening to contact servicemembers’ commanding officers to inform them of delinquencies and alleged military violations requiring discipline; (ii) exaggerating the potential disciplinary actions, such as demotion, loss of promotion, and discharge, that servicemembers may face if they failed to make payments; (iii) representing that the company could commence an involuntary allotment or wage garnishment without obtaining a court judgment; and (iv) threatening legal action when the company did not intend to take legal action at the time. Among other things, the consent order requires that the company: (i) refund or credit over $2 million to consumers; and (ii) pay a $1 million civil money penalty.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB Sues World Law Group Over Illegal Fees and False Promises in Debt-Relief Scheme

On September 15, the CFPB announced a preliminary injunction obtained against World Law Group and its senior leaders for allegedly running a debt-relief scheme that charged consumers costly and illegal upfront fees. According to the CFPB, “the debt-relief scheme falsely promised consumers a team of attorneys to help negotiate debt settlements with creditors, failed to provide legal representation, and rarely settled consumers’ debts.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants charged consumers upfront fees before providing debt-relief services in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The complaint also alleges that World Law Group falsely promised legal representation to consumers who did not receive the promised legal representation. The underlying lawsuit remains pending following the granting of the preliminary injunction.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

CFPB Issues Consent Orders Regarding Debt Collection Practices

On September 9, the CFPB ordered the two largest U.S. debt buyers and collectors to pay a combined total of nearly $80 million in civil penalties and consumer restitution related to their debt collection practices. The CFPB alleged that both companies, among other things, engaged in robo-signing, sued (or threatened to sue) on stale debt, made inaccurate statements to consumers, and engaged in other illegal collection practices. In particular, the CFPB criticized the practice of purchasing debts without obtaining important documentation or information about the debt, or verifying to ensure the debts were accurate and enforceable before commencing collection activities. Under the consent orders, one company agreed to provide up to $42 million in consumer refunds, pay a $10 million civil money penalty, and cease collecting on a portfolio of consumer debt with a face value of over $125 million. The other company agreed to provide $19 million in restitution, pay an $8 million civil money penalty, and cease collecting on a consumer debt portfolio with a face value of over $3 million. In addition, both companies are also generally prohibited from reselling consumer debt. In prepared remarks announcing the enforcement action, CFPB Director Richard Cordray noted, “the terms of the orders will help reform and improve the tactics and approaches” within the debt collection market. The CFPB’s action comes as the industry anticipates the CFPB’s issuance of new debt collection rules.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

BuckleySandler Secures Major Victory on Behalf of Mortgage Servicer in Putative Class Action Suit

On August 25, BuckleySandler secured a substantial victory in a putative class action in the Northern District of Illinois. McGann v. PNC, No. 11-c-6894 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2015). The suit alleged that a major mortgage servicer failed to convert Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Trial Period Plans (TPPs) into permanent modifications. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with jurisdiction over the Northern District of Illinois, has allowed similar claims to survive dismissal. See Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012). And the Ninth Circuit has allowed such claims to go forward on a classwide basis. See Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Nos. 11-16234, 11-16242, 2013 WL 4017279 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2013).

Despite this potentially adverse precedent relevant to the pleadings stage, BuckleySandler secured summary judgment in its client’s favor following extensive discovery by extracting key admissions from Plaintiff. These admissions established that the servicer “repeatedly told her either that her application was being reviewed or that it had been rejected but would be reinstated. A promise to review or even to reinstate an application is not a promise that the application will result in a permanent loan modification . . . she still had to meet HAMP’s requirements. That was clear from the TPP agreement itself.” Opinion at 9. The Court further held that even if these statements led Plaintiff to a subjective belief that the loan would be modified, Plaintiff could not show any actions she took in reliance, nor that any reliance would be reasonable. Opinion at 11.

Finally, the Court also held that the servicer did not engage in any unfair conduct under Illinois’ UDAAP statute, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The plaintiff in the matter was not a borrower on the note, but rather a non-borrower mortgagor, for whom HAMP was not available during the time in question. The Court agreed the servicer complied with HAMP guidelines in denying the permanent modification. Opinion at 16-17. And the Court went on to hold that the servicer was entitled to summary judgment for the additional reason that the evidence in discovery established that the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was her non-qualification for HAMP, her inability to pay the mortgage, and the resulting foreclosure of the home, none of which was proximately caused by any wrongful conduct of the servicer. Opinion at 15-16.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterGoogle+Share