By:
Recent activity in Congress suggests that the return from the July 4th recess will see a continued push to reform the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”) before year’s end. This alert provides an overview of the current state of play and the most likely outcome.
By Daniel F. C. Crowley, Bruce J. Heiman, William A. Kirk, Karishma Shah Page, Eric A. Love, Dean A. Brazier
On November 16, Senate Banking Committee (“SBC”) Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) introduced S. 2155, the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” long-awaited Senate legislation designed to foster economic growth and reduce regulatory burdens for small- and medium-sized financial institutions. A SBC section-by-section summary of the bill is available here. Earlier this year, the House passed on a party-line vote H.R. 10, the “Financial CHOICE Act of 2017” (the “FCA”), House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-TX) bill to comprehensively reform the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”). S. 2155 is narrower in scope than the House bill and has to date garnered the support of nine Democratic Senators.
By Daniel F. C. Crowley, Bruce J. Heiman, William A. Kirk, Karishma Shah Page, Eric A. Love, Dean A. Brazier
On October 26, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released a report entitled “A Financial System That Creates Economic Opportunities: Asset Management and Insurance,” the third in a series of reports that President Trump’s Executive Order 13772 on Core Principles for Regulating the U.S. Financial System (the “Core Principles”) requires Treasury to issue about potential ways to legislatively and administratively reform the U.S. financial system, consistent with the Core Principles. Earlier this month, Treasury released its second such report, which outlined recommendations concerning the capital markets. Treasury’s first report on banks and credit unions was released in June 2017 (See K&L Gates Alert: Dodd-Frank Reform; What Comes Next?), and one additional report is expected to be released in the near future. Treasury’s recommendations are likely to inform the efforts currently underway in Congress to advance financial regulatory reform legislation. This alert highlights a number of notable recommendations contained in the asset management and insurance report, as well as the capital markets report.
To read the full alert, click here.
By Daniel F. C. Crowley, Soyong Cho, Jennifer Janeira Nagle, Roger L. Smerage, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Mark A. Roszak, and Brandon R. Dillman
Since its inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has been a lightning rod, and there is little dispute that recent events threaten, at a minimum, the current operational structure of the CFPB and possibly its future existence. Specifically, the constitutionality of the CFPB has been under direct judicial attack and President-elect Trump’s incoming administration, and legislative reform that may follow, threatens to make good on Mr. Trump’s plan to “dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act,” which created the CFPB, “and replace it with new policies to encourage economic growth and job creation.” In the aftermath of these developments, there has been no shortage of predictions on the CFPB’s future and some predictions allude to a near certain doomsday for the agency. But many may have rushed to judgment. While the continued existence of the CFPB is certainly an open question, it is more likely that the CFPB will receive a makeover, not a shutdown.
To read the full alert, click here.
By Andrew C. Glass, Brian M. Forbes, Gregory N. Blase, and Roger L. Smerage
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) recently took the next step toward promulgating regulations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by releasing its “Outline of Proposals under Consideration and Alternatives Considered” (the “Outline”). The Outline sheds light on the approach the CFPB may take in regulating the debt-collection industry. As detailed in this alert, the proposed approach would implement comprehensive and substantial changes.
To read the full alert, click here.
By Daniel F. C. Crowley, Bruce J. Heiman, William A. Kirk, Karishma Shah Page, Mark A. Roszak and Eric A. Love
On June 23, 2016, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) released as a “discussion draft” legislative text of the Financial CHOICE Act (“FCA”), a proposal to reform the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”).
Importantly, the FCA is more than just another Dodd-Frank reform proposal; it is the culmination of several years of House Financial Services Committee activity. Many of its provisions enjoy bipartisan support at a time when Brexit focuses attention on global financial regulatory reform. Therefore, we anticipate that the bill is likely to be marked up before the election, and it could be a road map for post-election reform. In addition, some of its provisions could be enacted in year-end omnibus legislation.
To read the full alert, click here.
By Jennifer J. Nagle, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Gregory N. Blase, and Hayley Trahan-Liptak
On June 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) proposed a new rule under its authority to supervise and regulate certain payday, auto title, and other high-cost installment loans (the “Proposed Rule” or the “Rule”). These consumer loan products have been in the CFPB’s crosshairs for some time, and the Bureau formally announced that it was considering a rule proposal to end what it considers payday debt traps back in March 2015. Over a year later, and with input from stakeholders and other interested parties, the CFPB has now taken direct aim at these lending products by proposing stringent standards that may render short-term and longer-term, high-cost installment loans unworkable for consumers and lenders alike. At a minimum, the CFPB’s proposal seriously threatens the continued viability of a significant sector of the lending industry.
To read the full alert, click here.
Last Fall, in its 2015 Rulemaking Agenda, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) signaled its intent to “to develop rules to define larger participants in markets for consumer installment loans.”[1] Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to issue “larger participant” rules to define entities in a particular market for consumer financial products or services. The issuance of such rules opens the door for supervisory and examination authority over such entities. Fast forward to Spring 2016, when the CFPB announced that it is accepting complaints from consumers regarding alleged problems with online marketplace loans, and it appears that the CFPB has marketplace lenders squarely in its sights.[2]
Last month, we wrote about how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) administrative enforcement action against Integrity Advance might signal that the agency believes it can pursue claims of unfair and deceptive conduct without regard to either the statute of limitations or the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act. In a brief made public yesterday, the CFPB revealed its hand when it filed its opposition to Integrity Advance’s motion to dismiss. In its brief, the CFPB indeed asserted that its administrative enforcement authority is not limited by any statute of limitations. But the CFPB did not seek to pursue its claims for conduct that occurred before the July 21, 2011 effective date of Dodd-Frank.
In the first court decision to opine on the “service provider” and “substantial assistance” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, a federal district court in Georgia denied a motion to dismiss brought by payments processors who had been sued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) for their role in an alleged phantom debt collection scheme. The decision addresses two novel areas of the CFPB’s jurisdiction – its ability to enforce the prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices (“UDAAPs”) against “service providers,” and its ability to go after those individuals and entities that “knowingly or recklessly provide substantial assistance” to the commission of a UDAAP. While grounded in the specific facts pled in the CFPB’s detailed complaint, the opinion nevertheless provides insight into how the federal courts may interpret these provisions, and serves as a warning sign to companies about the importance of implementing robust compliance programs.
Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.