Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) published guidance on the Fair Housing Act’s treatment of Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs). An SPCP is a tool that lenders can use to target underserved communities without violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing
The set of federal agencies tasked with determining which residential mortgage loans may be exempt from credit risk retention in securitizations are continuing to think about it. Late last month, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (together, the “Agencies”) announced that they hope to have more answers by the end of this year. It seems likely those Agencies will continue to define those exempt mortgage loans (called “qualified residential mortgages,” or “QRMs”) in a manner that is fully aligned with the “qualified mortgage” (“QM”) definition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) (which interestingly is not among the Agencies tasked with the QRM/risk retention rules). If it were that easy, though, the Agencies probably would have done that by now. Of course, the CFPB’s QM definition has been a moving target itself.
Continue Reading Agencies Still Pondering QRM
As we detailed in our prior Legal Update, on January 19, 2021, the FHA expanded eligibility to apply for FHA-insured mortgages to individuals residing in the United States under the DACA program by waiving certain FHA Handbook requirements. On May 28, 2021, the FHA published Mortgagee Letter 2021-12, which clarifies FHA’s existing eligibility requirements for DACA participants and other non-permanent residents who apply for FHA loans and implements the eligibility requirements instituted by the prior waiver into the HUD Handbook.
Specifically, non-permanent residents, including DACA participants, individuals with refugee or asylee status, citizens of the Freely Associated States (“FAS”) and individuals with an H-1B visa, must meet the following requirements:…
Last week, a pair of fair housing organizations got their wish when a federal judge in Massachusetts granted their request for a preliminary injunction and stay of the effective date of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) new disparate impact rule (the “2020 Rule”), discussed in our recent fair lending newsletter. Plaintiffs Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and Housing Works, Inc. filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking to vacate HUD’s 2020 Rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), on the grounds that it is “contrary to law,” “arbitrary and capricious,” and that certain of its provisions violate the APA’s notice and comment requirements. The court only addressed the plaintiffs’ second argument—that the 2020 Rule is arbitrary and capricious—which it found was likely meritorious.
The court compared the disparate impact rule HUD had issued in 2013 (“2013 Rule”) to the 2020 Rule. Both versions of the rule state the general premise that liability may be established under the Fair Housing Act based on a practice’s discriminatory effect, if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent. But as the court noted, the 2020 Rule significantly altered the 2013 Rule’s standards. The court found that the changes HUD had made constituted a “massive overhaul” of HUD’s disparate impact standards, by introducing onerous pleading requirements on plaintiffs while simultaneously easing the burden on defendants and arming them with broad new defenses.
Continue Reading More Uncertainty around the Future of the Disparate Impact Theory of Liability
Mayer Brown is pleased to announce that Krista Cooley, a partner in our Financial Services Regulatory and Enforcement group, has recently expanded her existing practice to take the lead in managing our state licensing practice. Krista is an experienced Consumer Financial Services attorney with over 19 years of experience. In this role, Krista advises clients on compliance with the requirements of federal and state laws governing the licensing, approvals and practices of brokers, lenders, purchasers and servicers of mortgages and other consumer loan products, as well as sales finance companies, money service businesses and collection agencies. She also assists clients in navigating the complex state and federal licensing and approval process in connection with, among others, new business lines, legal entity conversions, restructuring and change of control transactions.
Stacey Riggin, one of our Government Affairs Advisors, and Dana Lopez, our Licensing Manager, work closely with Krista and will continue to oversee our team of five regulatory compliance analysts, each of whom has over ten years of experience working together on licensing matters. Our team has decades of experience in managing nationwide licensing projects and assisting clients in obtaining approval with state and federal government agencies to engage in a variety of financial services related activities. Our team also coordinates regulatory approvals needed to facilitate mergers, equity investments, stock and asset acquisitions, and servicing sales and transfers.…
In recent weeks, the US federal housing agencies and government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that insure, guarantee, or purchase “federally backed mortgage loans” covered by Section 4022 of the CARES Act (Act) have continued their intense pace of issuing temporary measures, and updates to such measures, intended to implement the Act’s provisions applicable to such loans. These…
On Monday, March 30, 2020, from 4:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. EDT, Mayer Brown partners Holly Spencer Bunting and Krista Cooley will discuss actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic by the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This call is a part of Mayer Brown’s Global…
On Thursday, March 26, 2020, from 3:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. EDT, Larry Platt will discuss the provisions of recent federal legislation that impact residential mortgage loans. This call is a part of Mayer Brown’s Global Financial Markets Teleconference Series.
Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is expansive legislation that provides support to federal agencies,…
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
On October 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced: (1) proposed revisions to lenders’ loan-level lender certifications in Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured mortgage transactions; (2) issuance of a revised Defect Taxonomy; (3) execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding False Claims Act (FCA) actions…