The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a Statement of Policy (Statement) on March 8 making it clear that going forward it will exercise its full authority to penalize covered persons found to have engaged in abusive acts or practices, 12 U.S.C. §5536(a)(1)(B), in violation of its core consumer protection authority. In doing so, the Bureau’s acting director rescinded a January 20, 2020, Policy Statement (2020 Statement) issued by a director appointed by former President Donald Trump, in which the Bureau advised, among other things which we have previously discussed, that it would generally not seek civil penalties for “abusive conduct” unless there had been a lack of a good faith effort to comply with the law.
We previously reported on recent mortgage rulemakings that were finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) late last year. Of the two final rules from the Bureau, one drastically simplifies the definition of a “qualified mortgage” (QM) (the General QM Final Rule), and the other provides an alternate pathway to QM safe harbor status for certain seasoned mortgage loans (the Seasoned QM Final Rule). Both of these final rules—with potentially major impacts on the housing market—were published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2020, with effective dates of March 1, 2021 (although the General QM Final Rule contains a mandatory compliance date of July 1, 2021).
The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced in its January 2021 monthly bulletin that it will begin exercising its enhanced powers under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) that came into effect January 1.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a final rule on October 27 that determines when a national bank or federal savings association (bank) makes a loan and is the “true lender” in the context of a partnership between a bank and a third party, such as a marketplace lender.
The five federal banking agencies (Federal Reserve, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC – collectively Agencies) issued a proposed rule on October 20 on the role of supervisory guidance. The proposal codifies and expands upon a 2018 statement from the same agencies about which we previously reported. In November 2018, the Agencies (aside from the NCUA) received a petition for a rulemaking, as permitted under the Administrative Procedure Act, requesting that the Agencies codify the 2018 statement.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) on October 20 issued a final rule to extend the government-sponsored enterprises patch (GSE Patch), i.e., the “temporary qualified mortgage” exemption within the qualified mortgage/ability-to-repay rule.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a policy statement on October 5 establishing a process to allow for early termination of consent orders.
An August 31 memorandum issued by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), an arm of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) within the Executive Branch, could dramatically change the way agencies handle civil and administrative enforcement proceedings. The memorandum directs covered agencies to provide greater due process to individuals and companies under investigation and reemphasizes the principle that the burden of proof of a violation rests solely with the government. The memorandum was issued to implement the directives contained in Section 6 of Executive Order 13924, Executive Order on Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery (issued May 19, 2020). In relevant part, the executive order directed agency heads to revise agency procedures and practices in light of “the principles of fairness in administrative enforcement and adjudication.”
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule that requires minimum standards for anti-money laundering (AML) programs for banks lacking a federal functional regulator (the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, OTS, NCAU, and SEC), i.e., banks and similar financial institutions that are subject only to state regulation and supervision, and certain international banking entities (collectively, “covered banking entities”).
California’s governor is expected to sign into law soon a bill creating a state consumer financial protection agency, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), which some have called California’s “mini-CFPB.” We reported previously on the importance of this law in January and March.