In late December 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed S.B. 5470 into law, which will impose a range of Truth in Lending Act-like disclosure requirements on providers of commercial financing in amounts of $500,000 or less. The law will have a significant impact on providers beyond traditional commercial lenders, as it broadly defines “commercial financing” to include the providers, and third-party solicitors, of sales-based financing, closed-end commercial financing, open-end commercial financing, factoring transactions, and other forms of commercial financing as the New York Department of Financial Services may provide. S.B. 5470 will affect a broad range of nonbank and fintech companies offering smaller balance commercial financing, following in the footsteps of a similar law enacted in California in 2018.

Read more in Mayer Brown’s Legal Update.

New California legislation will impose disclosure requirements, similar to those under the federal Truth in Lending Act, on commercial-purpose loans of $500,000 or less, including arrangements such as factoring, merchant cash advances, and certain assignments of accounts and receivables. The disclosures will generally include the total cost of the financing, expressed both as a dollar amount and an annualized rate, with variations applicable to different types of transactions. While the requirements will not apply to depository institutions, they will apply to certain bank partner arrangements, such as a non-depository institution that enters into a written agreement with a depository institution to arrange for commercial financing via an online lending platform. The requirements will not, however, apply to transactions secured by real property, among other exemptions. The law becomes effective January 1, 2019, but providers are not required to comply with the disclosure requirements until final regulations become effective.

Read about the new California requirements in Mayer Brown’s latest Legal Update.

The New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) has issued “pre-proposed” rules under New York’s commercial financing disclosure law that was enacted at the end of 2020. The pre-proposed rules are 45 pages long and were posted on the NYDFS website on September 21. Comments on the pre-proposed rules are due by October 1. There will be a longer comment period once a proposed rule is published in the State Register. The NYDFS aims to finalize the rules before the law takes effect on January 1, 2022.

The pre-proposed rules give the state’s commercial financing disclosure law, colloquially known as the “NY TILA,” the formal name of the “Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (CFDL).” The pre-proposed rules also define terms and provide detailed requirements for the content and formatting of the CFDL-required disclosures. The proposed definitions borrow heavily from, but do not exactly mirror, those under the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (DPFI) proposed rules to implement its own commercial financing disclosure law. The lack of uniformity between the two states’ regulations will complicate compliance for commercial financers subject to both laws. Where the NYDFS rules borrow most substantially from the California rules, the NYDFS tends to draw from the prior version of those rules, before the DFPI’s second round of modifications issued August 9, 2021. This raises the question of whether the NYDFS will incorporate California’s latest modifications when the NYDFS issues the next version of its proposed rules. Continue Reading NYDFS Issues Pre-Proposed Rules to Implement New Commercial Financing Disclosure Law

On September 7, 2021, the CFPB announced that it had entered into a consent order with an education finance nonprofit (“nonprofit”) in connection with the nonprofit’s offering of income share agreements (“ISAs”). In the consent order, the CFPB asserted that ISAs are extensions of credit covered by the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) as well as TILA’s requirements with respect to “private education loans.” Because the CFPB asserts in the consent order that it views the nonprofit’s ISAs as credit, the CFPB takes the position that they are also subject to numerous other federal consumer financial protection laws that impose requirements and restrictions on student loan products. This consent order has significant implications for those in the ISA market, as it indicates how the CFPB views re-characterization for ISAs and similar products. Continue Reading CFPB Finds that Income Share Agreements are Credit Products

On November 30, 2020, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued its final Advisory Opinion Policy, along with two Advisory Opinions (AOs) addressing the applicability of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to certain earned wage access (EWA) programs and private education loans. The CFPB first proposed a pilot AO program in June 2020. In this Legal Update, we analyze the EWA AO, including: (1) the regulatory landscape for EWA programs prior to the AO; (2) application of TILA and consumer credit laws to EWA programs based on the AO; and (3) the practical implications of the AO on EWA programs more generally.

Read more in Mayer Brown’s Legal Update.

The agencies responsible for the securitization credit risk retention regulations and qualified residential mortgages (“QRMs”) are asking for public input as part of their periodic review of those requirements. Comments on the review are due by February 3, 2020.

Five years ago, in response to the Dodd-Frank Act, an interagency final rule provided that a securitizer of asset-backed securities (“ABS”) must retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the securities. Sponsors of securitizations that issue ABS interests must retain either an eligible horizontal residual interest, vertical interest, or a combination of both. The Act and the rule establish several exemptions from that requirement, including for ABS collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as “qualified residential mortgages,” as defined in the rule.

The Act provides that the definition of QRM can be no broader than the definition of a “qualified mortgage” (“QM”), as that term is defined under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and applicable regulations. QMs are a set of residential mortgage loans deemed to comply with the requirement for creditors to determine a borrower’s ability to repay. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) decided to define a QRM in full alignment with the definition of a QM. The agencies concluded that alignment was necessary to protect investors, enhance financial stability, preserve access to affordable credit, and facilitate compliance. Their rule also includes an exemption from risk retention for certain types of community-focused residential mortgages that are not eligible for QRM status but that also are exempt from the TILA ability-to-pay rules under the TILA. The credit risk retention requirements became effective for securitization transactions collateralized by residential mortgages in 2015, and for other transactions in 2016.

The agencies of the credit risk retention regulations committed to reviewing those regulations and the definition of QRM periodically, and in coordination with the CFPB’s statutorily mandated assessment of QM. Continue Reading Agencies to Review QRM / Securitization Credit Risk Retention Rule

Congress amended the Truth in Lending Act in May 2018 by directing the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to prescribe ability-to-repay regulations with respect to Property Assessed Clean Energy (“PACE”) financing. PACE financing helps homeowners cover the costs of home improvements, which financing results in a tax assessment on the consumer’s property. Ability-to-repay regulations, which TILA and the CFPB currently impose in connection with most closed-end residential mortgage loans, would generally require a creditor to consider specific factors about a consumer’s finances, including income, assets, and debt obligations, and to verify the income and assets with reliable third-party documentation, prior to extending the financing.

On March 4, 2019, the CFPB issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) seeking information regarding, and responses to specific questions related to, PACE financing.

Read more in Mayer Brown’s Legal Update.

On October 17, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“BCFP” or “Bureau”) issued its Fall  2018 regulatory agenda.  Notable highlights include:

  • Payday Lending Rule Amendments. In January 2018, the Bureau announced that it would engage in rulemaking to reconsider its Payday Lending Rule released in October 2017.  According to the Bureau’s Fall 2018 agenda, the Bureau expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking by January 2019 that will address both the merits and the compliance date (currently August 2019) of the rule.
  • Debt Collection Rule Coming. The Bureau expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing debt collection-related communication practices and consumer disclosures by March 2019.  The Bureau explained that debt collection remains a top source of the complaints it receives and both industry and consumer groups have encouraged the Bureau to modernize Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) requirements through rulemaking.  The Bureau did not specify whether its proposed rulemaking would be limited to third-party collectors subject to the FDCPA, but its reference to FDCPA-requirements suggests that is likely to be the case.
  • Small Business Lending Data Collection Rule Delayed. The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) to require financial institutions to submit certain information relating to credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses to the Bureau and gave the Bureau the authority to require financial institutions to submit additional data.  In May 2017, the Bureau issued a Request for Information seeking comment on small business lending data collection.  While the BCFP’s Spring 2018 agenda listed this item as in the pre-rule stage, the Bureau has now delayed its work on the rule and reclassified it as a long-term action.  The Bureau noted that it “intends to continue certain market monitoring and research activities to facilitate resumption of the rulemaking.”
  • HMDA Data Disclosure Rule. The Bureau expects to issue guidance later this year to govern public disclosure of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) data for 2018.  The Bureau also announced that it has decided to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking to govern public disclosure of HMDA data in future years.
  • Assessment of Prior Rules – Remittances, Mortgage Servicing, QM; TRID up next. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Bureau to conduct an assessment of each significant rule adopted by the Bureau under Federal consumer financial law within five years after the effective date of the rule.  In accordance with this requirement, the Bureau announced that it expects to complete its assessments of the Remittance Rule, the 2013 RESPA Mortgage Servicing Rule, and the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule by January 2019.  At that time, it will begin its assessment of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID).
  • Abusiveness Rule? Consistent with recent statements by Acting Director Mick Mulvaney that while unfairness and deception are well-established in the law, abusiveness is not, the Bureau stated that it is considering whether to clarify the meaning of abusiveness through rulemaking.  The Bureau under former Director Richard Cordray rejected defining abusiveness through rulemaking (although the payday rule relied, in part, on the Bureau’s abusiveness authority), preferring instead to bring abusiveness claims in enforcement proceedings to establish the contours of the prohibition.  Time will tell if the Bureau will follow through on this.

Continue Reading BCFP’s Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda

The Summer 2018 edition of Supervisory Highlights –the first one the BCFP has issued under Mick Mulvaney’s leadership – is much the same as previous editions. In it, the Bureau describes recent supervisory observations in various industries, and summarizes recent public enforcement actions as well as supervision program developments.

One aspect of the report that is notably different, however, is the introductory language. In prior regular editions of Supervisory Highlights, the report’s introduction would emphasize the corrective action that the Bureau had required of supervised institutions. It would highlight the amount of total restitution to consumers and the number of consumers affected by supervisory activities, and would note the millions of dollars imposed in civil money penalties.

This new version eliminates all of that discussion from the introduction. Instead, the Bureau has added language emphasizing that “institutions are subject only to the requirements of relevant laws and regulations” and that the purpose of disseminating these Supervisory Highlights is to “help institutions better understand how the Bureau examines institutions” to help industry limit risks to consumers.

The first sentence of the report, which in previous iterations used to say that the Bureau is “committed to a consumer financial marketplace that is fair, transparent, and competitive, and that works for all consumers” now says the Bureau is committed to a marketplace that is “free, innovative, competitive, and transparent, where the rights of all parties are protected by the rule of law, and where consumers are free to choose the products and services that best fit their individual needs.”

Ultimately, time will tell whether this is simply rhetoric or if the Bureau’s supervisory and enforcement posture will be dramatically different from that under Mulvaney’s predecessor. Continue Reading BCFP’s Latest Supervisory Highlights

A creditor’s inability to reset fee tolerances with a revised Closing Disclosure more than four business days before closing has been one of the more adverse unintended consequences of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) regulations that became effective in October 2015. However, a fix is on the horizon. On Thursday, April 26, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced final amendments to TRID to eliminate the timing restrictions that have plagued creditors and, in certain cases, increased creditors’ costs to originate residential mortgage loans. With an effective date 30 days after the final amendments are published in the Federal Register, this change is a welcome relief to mortgage lenders.  Continue Reading A Ray of Light Through the “Black Hole”: TRID Amendment Permits Tolerance Reset with Revised Closing Disclosure