Consumer Financial Services Watch – Page 2 – News and developments related to consumer financial services, litigation, and enforcement.

COVID-19: Credit Reporting in the Age of COVID-19

Apr 30 2020

The CARES Act’s Impact on Furnisher Liability Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act

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

As part of the federal government’s efforts to provide relief from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to consumers, Congress took aim at financial services companies that provide consumer account information to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). The reporting activities of those companies, which are known as “furnishers” and include, among others, creditors, mortgage loan servicers and credit card account servicers, are governed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). [1] The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, [2] enacted on March 27, 2020, expressly amends FCRA and alters the duties of furnishers when reporting the status of accounts provided with COVID-19-related payment relief. [3] Despite the potential exposure carried by a violation of FCRA generally—either through private civil litigation, most notably class actions, or government enforcement—key defenses remain in place for furnishers to mitigate FCRA liability.

COVID-19: Attention Massachusetts Mortgagees – New State Legislation Impacting Foreclosure Rights

Apr 21 2020

By Sean R. Higgins, Gregory R. Youman, David E. Fialkow, and Jack S. Brodsky

On Monday April 20, 2020, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed into law an emergency act that will temporarily ban almost all eviction and foreclosure proceedings statewide during the COVID-19 pandemic. That law, H4647 (the “Act”), will significantly impact the rights of financial services companies to enforce mortgage loans through foreclosure in the Commonwealth. Mortgagees need to be aware of many new restrictions and obligations to avoid missteps as the crisis unfolds.

COVID-19: The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office Issues Emergency Regulations Significantly Limiting Debt Collection in Massachusetts During Pandemic

Apr 20 2020

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

The rapid spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) has caused unprecedented disruptions to the U.S. economy, both at the state and national levels.

On March 10, 2020, the Governor of Massachusetts declared a State of Emergency, imposed stringent social distancing measures, and ordered all “non-essential” businesses to cease in-person operations.[1] While these measures were intended to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, they also have caused many Massachusetts residents to experience significant financial hardships.

COVID-19: New England States Embrace Remote Notarization as Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont Temporarily Eliminate “In-Person” Requirements

Apr 16 2020

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

Among the dilemmas facing companies trying to conduct business through the COVID-19 crisis is the question of how to notarize documents while complying with social-distancing guidelines. As offices adapt to remote work and businesses are ordered to reduce person-to-person contact wherever possible, documents must still be notarized for many traditional commercial activities to continue. In response to COVID-19 and related governmental actions, some states are temporarily easing their notarization requirements to permit remote notarization through the use of videoconferencing technology. Consequently, individuals seeking to have a document notarized no longer need to appear in person before a notary in these states for the duration of the COVID-19 crisis.

COVID-19: Defending Class Actions in Massachusetts in the Wake of COVID-19

Apr 14 2020

By Brian M. Forbes, Robert W. Sparkes, III, and Michael R. Creta

The novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) has caused severe business disruptions throughout Massachusetts. Many companies doing business in Massachusetts have been forced to indefinitely shut their doors, while others are facing supply problems or decreased product demand. In addition to navigating these choppy economic waters, business leaders must also consider the risks likely to follow the current crisis.

COVID-19: Impact on Consumer Financial Service Providers

Apr 01 2020

A Summary of Federal and State Statutes, Rules and Orders

By David E. Fialkow, Brian M. Forbes, and Jeffrey S. Patterson

The coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic has been and will continue to be a major business disrupter that will have a substantial impact on the consumer financial services industry in the weeks and months to come. Notably, federal, state and local governments and agencies are acting swiftly and changing the rules by which consumer financial services companies are to do business in the short and long term. K&L Gates LLP (“K&L Gates”) has developed a COVID-19 Task Force to closely monitor these developments and is tracking them in several jurisdictions across the firm’s footprint. Below is a summary, current as of March 30, 2020, of key new and proposed statutes, rules, and orders that are likely to impact consumer financial services companies. Keeping track of these almost daily developments to foreclosure, eviction, debt collection, student loans and other business lines, which vary state to state, is critical for consumer financial services companies to respond to their customers. As with previous nationwide crises, how these companies implement and apply these changes will have a substantial impact on post-pandemic compliance, litigation, and risks. K&L Gates has team members assigned to each of the states listed below who are able to help answer your questions and help companies address ongoing issues associated with the pandemic. Please click on a jurisdiction below for more information:

COVID-19: How the CARES Act Will Impact Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Consumer Bankruptcies

Mar 31 2020

By Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, Stacey Gorman, Emily Mather

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the historic Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act” or “Act”), a $2.2 trillion stimulus package designed to mitigate the widespread economic effects of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”). The Act includes several temporary modifications to chapter 7 and chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.[1] This alert details these modifications.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Considers the Effect of a State-Mandated Default Notice on the Validity of Non-Judicial Foreclosures

Feb 24 2020

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, and Hollee M. Boudreau

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) heard argument on February 13, 2020, on whether compliance with a state-mandated default notice could, nevertheless, void foreclosure sales in Massachusetts. Specifically, the SJC examined whether the provision of the state-mandated notice has the potential to deceive a borrower where it describes a period for reinstating a loan that varies (to the benefit of the borrower) from the period contained in the mortgage.

The Shifting Currents of Arbitration: The Supreme Court of Texas Reverses Course, Holding That the Availability of Class Arbitration Is for the Courts to Decide

Dec 05 2019

By Andrew C. Glass and Robert W. Sparkes, III

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Texas first addressed the issue of whether an arbitrator or a judge decides if an arbitration agreement permits (or prohibits) class arbitration. [1] Purportedly following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in Green Tree Financial Co. v. Bazzle, [2] the Texas Court held then that arbitrators “should rule on class certification issues when the contracts at issue commit[] all disputes arising out of the agreement to the arbitrator.” [3]

Absent But Not Forgotten: The Second Circuit Addresses the Impact of Arbitration on Absent Class Members

Nov 26 2019

By: Andrew C. Glass and Robert W. Sparkes, III

In their 2013 concurrence in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, questioned whether absent class members “will be bound by the arbitrator’s ultimate resolution of th[e] dispute” in a class arbitration.[1] Justice Alito suggested that where an arbitration agreement provides “no reason to think that the absent class members ever agreed to class arbitration,” an affirmative answer was unlikely.[2] He posited that “an arbitrator’s erroneous interpretation of contracts that do not authorize class arbitration cannot bind someone who has not authorized the arbitrator to make that determination.”[3] Taken to its logical end, Justice Alito’s rationale would support an argument that class arbitrations should be limited to adjudicating only the claims of class members who affirmatively opt in to the class arbitration proceedings.