Consumer Financial Services Watch

News and developments related to consumer financial services, litigation, and enforcement.

 

1
Request For Further Review Delays Lifting Of DOL Interpretation On Loan Officer Overtime
2
Township of Mount Holly: The United States Supreme Court Considers Whether the Fair Housing Act Recognizes Disparate-Impact Liability
3
K&L Gates Legal Insight: Housing Finance Reform Efforts Heat Up in Summer Session
4
CFPB Brings First Action for Violations of Loan Originator Compensation Rule
5
Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo: Eminent Domain Needs More Than a Magic Wand to Overcome Title Defects
6
Cordray Confirmed as Director of CFPB
7
Will the CFPB Give Credit Where Credit Is Due? It Depends on the Circumstances
8
Guilty Unless Proven Innocent: FHA’s Potential New Enforcement Regime
9
Appeals Court Strikes Down Labor Department’s Interpretation Regarding Exempt Status of Mortgage Loan Officers
10
CFPB Tweaks Ability to Repay Rule for Small Portfolio Creditors, Housing Assistance Programs, and Nonprofits

Request For Further Review Delays Lifting Of DOL Interpretation On Loan Officer Overtime

By: Thomas H. Petrides, John L. Longstreth

The federal Court of Appeals’ decision in July ordering the withdrawal of a 2010 DOL Administrator’s Interpretation regarding the eligibility of mortgage loan officers to be paid overtime has been further delayed by an August 16 petition for rehearing. Several employee loan officers intervened in the case and filed a request for the full D.C. Circuit to review the July 2 decision. The DOL is also expected to file a similar request and has until September 6 to do so. Under court rules, the request automatically delays sending the case back to the district court to vacate the DOL Interpretation. There is no set time frame for the Appeals Court to rule on the rehearing request. If the court grants the request and agrees to rehear the case, the DOL Interpretation would likely remain in place until a decision on the rehearing issues. If the request is denied, the case will promptly move back to the district court to vacate the DOL Interpretation, unless a further stay is sought and obtained in connection with a request for Supreme Court review.

In the interim, the 2010 DOL Interpretation, determining that loan officers in the mortgage banking industry do not qualify as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption of the FLSA, currently remains in place. The July 11, 2013 K&L Gates Alert discussing the appeals court decision has been updated to reflect the petition for rehearing having been filed.

To read the full alert, click here.

 

Township of Mount Holly: The United States Supreme Court Considers Whether the Fair Housing Act Recognizes Disparate-Impact Liability

By: Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, Melanie Brody,  John L. Longstreth, Roger L. Smerage 

On September 3, 2013, K&L Gates LLP filed a brief as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., a case in which the Court will consider whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate-impact theory of liability. The brief addresses the effect that the Court’s recognition of the disparate-impact theory would have on the residential mortgage lending industry and was filed on behalf of the American Financial Services Association, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. A copy of the as-filed brief is available here. The Court is likely to schedule oral argument in the matter for late 2013 or early 2014.

To read the full alert, click here.

 

 

 

K&L Gates Legal Insight: Housing Finance Reform Efforts Heat Up in Summer Session

By: Kristie D. Kully, Andrew L. Caplan

This summer has brought a wave of housing finance reform efforts in both chambers of Congress. To date, the House and Senate have proposed different approaches to housing finance reform. The leading House proposal, introduced by Republicans, leans heavily toward privatization and would eliminate the affordable housing responsibilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In contrast, the Senate proposal, introduced in a bipartisan effort, would combine a government backstop (arguably through more transparent means than those GSEs currently provide) with a continued attempt to fund affordable housing programs. Notwithstanding those differences, there is one common element of both proposals – a reduced government role in the housing finance sector. This core principle has been echoed by the President, who recently laid out general principles for housing finance reform that include winding down the GSEs, amplifying the role of private risk capital, and preserving the function of FHA insurance. In this alert, we summarize key aspects of several recent housing finance proposals, which we will continue to monitor once Congress reconvenes after its August recess.

To read the full alert, click here.

 

CFPB Brings First Action for Violations of Loan Originator Compensation Rule

By: Jonathan D. Jaffe,  Rebecca Lobenherz

On July 23, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued a national mortgage lender and two of its officers for allegedly violating Regulation Z’s loan originator compensation rule (the LO Comp Rule or the Rule) by paying bonuses to employees for steering borrowers to loans with higher interest rates. (See here.) The case was referred to the CFPB by investigators with the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Real Estate. This is the first publicly announced judicial action the CFPB has brought enforcing the Rule. Read More

Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo: Eminent Domain Needs More Than a Magic Wand to Overcome Title Defects

By: Laurence E. Platt

Title issues that arise by virtue of the controversial use of eminent domain could impair the sale or insurance of residential mortgage loans but have received scant attention. A city seizes “underwater” loans through eminent domain, waves its magic wand, says Abracadabra or Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo, and then the mortgage lien of the prior loan holder evaporates into thin air. The city is free to write down loan principal and, for a fee, arrange for private interests to refinance the no longer underwater loan for a grateful borrower. In this land of make believe, the prior holder accepts the city’s offer of reasonable compensation without a fight. Yeah, right! The more likely result is that holders of seized mortgages will resort to litigation to stop the governmental seizure of their loans. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of that litigation, the mere filing of litigation could cloud title on the new refinancings and make them unmarketable and uninsurable. Read more to see why.

To read the full alert, click here.

Cordray Confirmed as Director of CFPB

By: Kristie D. Kully,  *Nathan Pysno
*Mr. Pysno is admitted only in Maryland / Not admitted in D.C.

On July 16, 2013, the Senate confirmed Richard Cordray as the first Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The 66-34 vote to confirm Cordray ends nearly two years of uncertainty over his position. Read More

Will the CFPB Give Credit Where Credit Is Due? It Depends on the Circumstances

By: Melanie Brody, Stephanie C. Robinson, Amanda D. Gossai

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) recently elaborated on some of the factors it will consider in determining what actions to bring, if any, against those subject to its enforcement authority. In a bulletin very reminiscent of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s so-called Seaboard Report, the CFPB announced that it may consider a party’s conduct favorably if the conduct “substantially exceeds” what is required by law in its interactions with the Bureau. Specifically, the CFPB “may” in its discretion award some form of affirmative credit in an enforcement action, such as potentially reducing the sanctions or penalties it seeks, if a party meaningfully engages in responsible business conduct.

Like the SEC’s Seaboard Report, CFPB Bulletin 2013-06 – while encouraging responsible business conduct – is full of caveats. The CFPB makes no promises in the bulletin. No matter how “substantial” or “meaningful” a party’s responsible business conduct in the course of an investigation, the Bureau’s evaluation will depend on the circumstances. Whatever “best protects consumers” is ultimately the Bureau’s main priority, because consumer protection is its singular purpose.

The bulletin lays out four broad categories of responsible business conduct: self-policing for potential violations, self-reporting to the CFPB, remediating any harm resulting from violations, and cooperating in investigations beyond what the law requires. In many cases mirroring the language of the Seaboard Report, the CFPB lists some of the factors it will consider in determining whether and how much to take into account those four categories of conduct.

  • Self-policing: Some of the factors the CFPB will consider are the nature of the violation, whether senior management turned a blind eye toward obvious indicia of misconduct, and whether the conduct was pervasive or an isolated act. Unlike the Seaboard Report, the bulletin also poses the question, “Was the conduct significant to the party’s profitability or business model?”
  • Self-reporting: The CFPB particularly emphasizes this category because self-reporting reduces the need for the CFPB to expend its own resources. In deciding whether to favorably consider self-reporting of violations or potential violations of federal consumer financial laws, the CFPB will consider, among other things, whether affected consumers received appropriate information related to the violations or potential violations within a reasonable period. The CFPB may be less inclined to consider self-reporting favorably if the party waited to report the violation until the disclosure was likely to happen anyway through, for example, impending supervisory activity.
  • Remediation: Remediation involves stopping the misconduct immediately, implementing an effective response that includes disciplining individuals responsible for the misconduct, preserving information, and redressing the harm. The CFPB will consider whether the party improved its internal controls and procedures to “remove harmful incentives” and “encourage proper compliance.”
  • Cooperation: It appears that a party will have to really, really cooperate for the Bureau to reward it with affirmative credit. To receive credit for cooperation, a party cannot just meet its obligations under the law. Rather, it must take “substantial and material steps above and beyond what the law requires” in interacting with the CFPB. The CFPB will ask whether the party cooperated promptly and completely throughout the course of the investigation, and whether it conducted (or hired an unbiased third party to conduct) a full and impartial internal investigation and promptly provided the CFPB with a thorough written report of its findings.

How the CFPB will in practice choose to apply the principles outlined in the bulletin remains to be seen. At the end of the day, there is no magic formula, no rule, and no promise. To quote the SEC in its Seaboard Report, “[b]y definition, enforcement judgments are just that – judgments.”

Guilty Unless Proven Innocent: FHA’s Potential New Enforcement Regime

By: Phillip L. Schulman, Krista Cooley

The use of statistical sampling to evidence compliance violations without actually performing loan level reviews is at the center of a new enforcement regime that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” or “Department”) announced on Tuesday it is considering to monitor and sanction Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) approved mortgagees. The announcement, published as a Notice in the Federal Register, raises a host of questions, not the least of which is how HUD will implement these proposed enforcement efforts given the potential draconian consequences for FHA program participants. Those who already perceive that the risks of doing business with the federal government are increasingly excessive, should sit up and take notice. HUD has offered lenders 60 days to comment on the Notice, and lenders would be wise to carefully consider the changes and make their voices heard.

 To read the full alert, click here.

Appeals Court Strikes Down Labor Department’s Interpretation Regarding Exempt Status of Mortgage Loan Officers

By: Thomas H. Petrides , John L. Longstreth

In a victory for the Mortgage Bankers Association (“MBA”), a federal Court of Appeals has vacated an “Administrator’s Interpretation” issued in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“DOL”) regarding the non-exempt status of mortgage loan officers. This court decision reinstates a prior Opinion Letter issued by the DOL in 2006 that had concluded loan officers in the mortgage banking industry generally may qualify as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). MBA had challenged the contrary 2010 Interpretation because it had been issued by the DOL without first conducting the “notice and comment” rulemaking process required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The Appeals Court agreed with the MBA, but took no position on the merits of whether mortgage loan officers may in fact qualify under the administrative exemption to be exempt from the payment of overtime wages. Thus, the DOL may subsequently readopt the 2010 Interpretation after conducting the proper rulemaking procedures. In the interim, however, mortgage industry employers may choose to rely on the 2006 Opinion Letter to potentially escape overtime liability regarding their loan officers if they follow the guidance of that letter.

To read the full alert, click here.

CFPB Tweaks Ability to Repay Rule for Small Portfolio Creditors, Housing Assistance Programs, and Nonprofits

By: Kristie D. Kully , Andrew L. Caplan

On May 29, 2013, the CFPB finalized certain amendments to its January 2013 Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule. In addition to clarifying how loan originator compensation will be factored into the QM’s three percent limit on points and fees (as discussed in a recent K&L Gates Consumer Financial Services Watch blog post), the May 2013 amendments (which will become effective at the same time as the QM Rule, in January 2014) will exempt new categories of creditors and transactions from the Rule’s ability to repay requirements; expand the definition of QM to include a new set of loans made by small portfolio lenders; and create a two-year window in which certain balloon payment loans will enjoy QM status, without requiring that such loans be made to borrowers in rural or underserved areas. Read More

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.