Consumer Financial Services Watch – News and developments related to consumer financial services, litigation, and enforcement.

“No Concrete Harm, No Standing:” U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Solidifies Standing Requirements for Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims

Jul 01 2021

By: Andrew C. Glass, Brian M. Forbes, Gregory N. Blase, and R. Nicholas Perkins

On 25 June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying the nature of the harm sufficient to establish Article III standing to maintain a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim.[1] After Ramirez, plaintiffs seeking to pursue FCRA class litigation must establish concrete harm that is more than just speculative, and they must do so for all class members with the requisite type of evidence called for at each particular stage of litigation. The impact of the holding in Ramirez will likely extend to class standing issues beyond the FCRA context.

Not a Preferred Course: 11th Circuit Decides FDCPA Question in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services

May 14 2021

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, David E. Fialkow, and Keith J. McCarthy

On 21 April 2021, the 11th Circuit held that a debt collector’s transmittal of a customer’s debt-related data to a third-party letter preparation vendor without authorization stated a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The 11th Circuit’s decision may have implications for the debt-collection businesses that outsource customer-related tasks to vendors.

2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition: Panel 2 – Litigation and Enforcement in a Post-Pandemic World

May 07 2021

Thursday
20 May 2021
1:00 – 2:15 p.m. ET

Moderator: Jeffrey S. Patterson; Panelists: Ryan M. Tosi, Phoebe S. Winder, David E. Fialkow, Edward Mikolinski

Please join K&L Gates for our 2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition. This symposium will consist of a series of webinars over the course of several weeks. Below is a description of our second webinar that will focus on litigation and enforcement in a post-pandemic world and we invite you to register. Separate blog posts and invitations for the other webinars in this series will be forthcoming.

COVID-19: CFPB’s Proposed Mortgage Servicing Amendments Add Loss Mitigation Protections for Borrowers and Signal Heightened Expectations for Mortgage Servicers’ Operational Loss Mitigation Efforts

Apr 24 2021

By: Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, and Stacey L. Gorman

On 5 April 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) solicited comments on proposed amendments to Regulation X,[1] which amendments are intended to assist mortgage borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Though the proposal to extend the current foreclosure moratorium to January 2022 is gaining the headlines, it is important to note that the proposed amendments, if adopted, once again require modification to servicers’ existing loss mitigation programs in order to “maximize the likelihood that borrowers exiting forbearances have sufficient time to complete a loss mitigation application.”[3]

2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition: Panel 1 – FinTech Trends, Developments, and New Directions

Apr 12 2021

Wednesday
21 April 2021
1:00 – 2:00 p.m. ET
Virtual – Login information will be sent after you complete your registration.
1 hour of CLE/CPD credit available in: Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Australia, and the UK
REGISTER HERE by 20 April 2021.

Moderator: Andrew C. Glass, Panelists: Gregory N. Blase, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Judith Rinearson, Melissa Koide

Please join K&L Gates for our 2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition. This symposium will consist of a series of webinars over the course of several weeks. Below is a description of our first webinar that will focus on FinTech, and we invite you to register. Separate blog posts and invitations for the other webinars in this series will be forthcoming.

Our first webinar will address recent developments in FinTech compliance and litigation, covering issues ranging from machine learning in credit underwriting and attendant fairness questions to the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with respect to consumer protection law. We will also address developments that the financial services industry is likely to see under the Biden administration, including the use of technology in extending credit and making other credit-related decisions. Attendees will have an opportunity to submit questions during this webinar.

Potential Major Change for U.S. Prepaid Products: PayPal vs CFPB Court Vacates Two Significant Restrictions in CFPB’s Prepaid Account Rule

Jan 12 2021

By Judith Rinearson, Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, and Hollee M. Boudreau

On 30 December 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered an order invalidating two provisions of the “Prepaid Account Rule” (the Rule) promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically, the order invalidated the Rule’s mandatory short form disclosure requirement and the requirement for a thirty-day delay before linking prepaid products to credit, on the basis that the CFPB had exceeded its statutory authority.[1]

An Abundance of Riches: Do Increasing Deposits Mean Less for Borrowers?

Jun 23 2020

By Rebecca H. Laird

Attracting deposits for banks isn’t always an easy thing, witness the use of brokered deposits. But these days, since the beginning of the pandemic, deposits in banks have jumped to over $15.8 trillion in the first quarter, or over 13% increase from the prior year, and were up again for most of the second quarter.[1] Both businesses and individuals seem to be awash in liquidity. Individuals are selling stocks and holding cash, companies are holding on to their cash and not investing in capital or other expenditures. Many small businesses that received PPP or similar COVID-related loans are holding the proceeds and assessing which expenses they can be allocated against.

COVID-19: Echoes Don’t Fade: Lessons Learned From the Home Affordable Modification Program for the Next Wave of Mortgage Class Action Litigation

May 18 2020

By Brian M. Forbes and Robert W. Sparkes, III

As the country grapples with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, financial service providers should hold fast to the adage that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it. The last financial crisis centered in large part on the mortgage industry, both in its inception and its slow climb to stabilization. Like the last crisis, a growing percentage of homeowners are not able to make their mortgage payments, requiring loan servicers to employ various loss mitigation tools to reduce individual’s financial hardships. While the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting nearly all sectors of the economy, the mortgage industry can look back to past experiences to help mitigate present and future risks. If past is prologue, one risk likely to increase in the coming months is class action litigation.

COVID-19: Emergency Regulations Do Not Pass Constitutional Muster

May 13 2020

Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of Massachusetts Attorney General’s Debt Collection Ban Under First Amendment

By Sean R. Higgins, John ReVeal, and Hollee M. Boudreau

In response to the COVID-19 emergency, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) issued a set of emergency regulations [1] intended to broadly prohibit certain debt collection activities in Massachusetts, including prohibitions against initiating debt collection calls or lawsuits, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency. [2] On May 6, 2020, U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns enjoined the AGO’s enforcement of those regulations as an unconstitutional restraint on commercial free speech. The court found that the AGO’s broad prohibitions violated the constitutional rights of creditors and debt collectors in Massachusetts without providing any meaningful protections to consumers greater than those afforded by existing state and federal consumer protection laws. [3]

COVID-19: Massachusetts Joins the Five Other New England States in Temporarily Permitting Remote Notarization

May 06 2020

By Lindsay Sampson Bishop, Abigail P. Hemnes, Christopher J. Valente, and R. Nicholas Perkins

On 27 April 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed Senate Bill 2645, “An Act Providing for Virtual Notarization to Address Challenges Related to COVID-19” (the Act) into law. With the enactment of this law, Massachusetts joins the other five New England states—Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont—in temporarily permitting remote notarization through the use of videoconferencing technology [1]. Like the remote notarization provisions in effect across the region, the Act allows individuals and businesses to get documents notarized while complying with social distancing and other health and safety guidelines.