Catagory:Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB)

By: Laurence E. Platt

Larry Platt testified at a hearing held by the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, October 29, considering standards for mortgage loan servicers, particularly in connection with loss mitigation activities. The hearing was one of several designed to examine housing finance reform and the essentials of a functioning housing finance system in the Committee’s continuing deliberations over the fate of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other provisions in the proposed Housing Finance Reform and Taxpayer Protection Act of 2013. Read More

For a fourth consecutive year, K&L Gates has been ranked among the top two law firms with the most first-tier rankings in the annual U.S. News-Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” survey. Earning more than 200 first-tier rankings in offices and practices across the United States, K&L Gates also received the publication’s national “Law Firm of the Year” distinction, given to only one firm in each national practice area, for Securities Regulation and for Criminal Defense: White Collar. Read More

By: Laurence E. Platt, Stanley V. Ragalevsky, Sean P. Mahoney

Since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) government regulation has been pushing the mortgage banking industry toward homogenized residential mortgage loans with characteristics that the government considers “safe.” While this sounds simple enough, it has become complicated with at least three rulemaking processes dictating potentially different standards for residential mortgage loans:

• the “qualified mortgage” or “QM” definition in the Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards rule (the “ATR Rule”) promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) under Section 129C of the Truth in Lending Act;

• the “qualified residential mortgage” or “QRM” definition under the securitization risk retention rules (the “Risk Retention Reproposal”) reproposed by a consortium of regulatory and housing agencies under Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and

• the revised bank capital rules promulgated by bank regulators in accordance with Basel III (the “Basel III Rules”).

To read the full alert, click here.

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.