The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) recently issued its final rule clarifying the “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred”.
Posts published in “Federal Regulation”
On April 1, the CFPB issued a policy statement addressing the responsibility of furnishers under the CARES Act and describing the flexible approach the Bureau intends to take with respect to supervision and enforcement of the FCRA and Regulation V during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Maryland Court of Appeals recently held that victims on whose behalf money is collected or property is recovered by the Maryland Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office (CPD) or federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have no authority, through a private settlement, whether or not approved by a court, to preclude the CPD or CFPB from pursuing their own remedies.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the restrictions on the president's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, allowing for the removal of the CFPB's director only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” are valid and constitutional.
Following its enaction, the Dodd-Frank Act left the financial services industry with uncertainty in many areas. For nearly 10 years, the industry has wondered and speculated about the inclusion of a prohibition against abusive acts and practices. What exactly is abusive conduct? Is abusive conduct different from false and misleading acts or unfairness? How will the CFPB handle enforcement?
Effective Jan. 15, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau increased the maximum civil monetary penalty it can impose within its jurisdiction. The increases are required by federal law, which requires agencies to adjust for inflation each civil monetary penalty within an agency’s jurisdiction by Jan. 15.
It has been an extraordinary 365 days for consumer financial services law. I cannot recall a year where so many states introduced legislation or proposed regulations or rules impacting the credit industry. At the federal level, proposed rules for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were (finally) released and California also proposed regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25, 2018, and introduced privacy concepts that were new to some U.S. businesses. Fortunately, the GDPR was developed over a period of time that allowed for thoughtful deliberation and careful drafting. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), on the other hand, was speedily enacted under the threat of a ballot initiative.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a collection letter offering payment options on a time-barred debt and listing “benefits” of paying the debt was not deceptive or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meanwhile, the CFPB is expected to take up the issue of time-barred debt disclosures early next year.
Lenders foreclosing FHA-insured mortgages in Ohio often face challenges that contest the lender’s compliance with relevant regulations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Like most courts throughout the nation, Ohio courts treat HUD regulations as contractual terms incorporated into FHA-insured mortgage loan documents. As Ohio case law on this issue continues to evolve, confusion—and sometimes shock—can arise for out-of-state lenders unfamiliar with the state-specific intricacies of litigating contested foreclosures involving FHA-insured mortgage loans in Ohio.
The federal banking regulators and the CFPB recently issued an “Interagency Statement on the Use of Alternative Data in Credit Underwriting,” stating in sum that the agencies “encourage responsible use” of alternative data, especially in the context of credit underwriting.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) both recently issued proposed rules to “fix” the potential problems arising from the ruling in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2nd Cir. 2015), which called into question the “valid when made” doctrine. In addition, the FDIC’s proposal would make clear that the permissible interest on a loan would be determined at the time the loan is made, regardless of subsequent events such as changes in state law or the sale or assignment of the loan. The OCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available…