Washington has become the latest state to impose a licensing requirement on student loan servicers. Yesterday, Governor Jay Inslee signed  SB 6029, which establishes a “student loan bill of rights,” similar to the bills that have been enacted in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Illinois.

The law has an effective date of 6/7/2018, and its requirements include the following:

  • Creation of Advocate Role: The law creates the position of “Advocate” within the Washington Student Achievement Council to assist student education loan borrowers with student loans. This role is analogous to that of “ombudsman” under proposed and enacted servicing bills in other states.  One of the Advocate’s roles is to receive and review borrower complaints, and refer servicing-related complaints to either the state’s Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) or the Attorney General’s Office, depending on which office has jurisdiction. The Advocate is also tasked with:
    • Compiling information on borrower complaints;
    • Providing information to stakeholders;
    • Analyzing laws, rules, and policies;
    • Assessing annually the number of residents with federal student education loans who have applied for, received, or are waiting for loan forgiveness;
    • Providing information on the Advocate’s availability to borrowers, institutions of higher education, and others;
    • Assisting borrowers in applying for forgiveness or discharge of student education loans, including communicating with student education loan servicers to resolve complaints, or any other necessary actions; and
    • Establishing a borrower education course by 10/1/20.
  • Licensing of Servicers: SB 6029 requires servicers to obtain a license from the DFI. There are various exemptions from licensing for certain types of entities and programs (trade, technical, vocational, or apprentice programs; postsecondary schools that service their own student loans; persons servicing five or fewer student loans; and federal, state, and local government entities servicing loans that they originated), although such servicers would still need to comply with the statute’s substantive requirements even if they are not licensed.
  • Servicer Responsibilities: All servicers, except those entirely exempt from the statute, are subject to various obligations. Among other things, servicers must:
    • Provide, free of charge, information about repayment options and contact information for the Advocate ;
    • Provide borrowers with information about fees assessed and amounts received and credited;
    • Maintain written and electronic loan records;
    • Respond to borrower requests for certain information within 15 days;
    • Notify a borrower when acquiring or transferring servicing rights; and
    • Provide borrowers with disclosures relating to the possible effects of refinancing student loans.
  • Modification Servicer Responsibilities: The bill imposes a number of requirements on third-parties providing student education loan modification services, including mandates that such persons: not charge or receive money until their services have been performed; not charge fees that are in excess of what is customary; and immediately inform a borrower in writing if a modification, refinancing, consolidation, or other such change is not possible.
  • Requirements for Educational Institutions: Institutions of higher education are required to send borrower notices regarding financial aid.
  • Fees: The bill also calls for the establishment, by rule, of fees sufficient to cover the costs of administering the program created by the bill.
  • Bank Exemption: The statute provides for a complete exemption for “any person doing business under, and as permitted by, any law of this state or of the United States relating to banks, savings banks, trust companies, savings and loan or building and loan associations, or credit unions.” Notably, this exemption does not expressly cover state banks chartered in other states.

As we recently noted, bills like  SB 6029 are being introduced in legislatures across the country at an increasing rate, and we are continuing to track the progress of these proposals as they move through various statehouses.

Hopefully the torrent of such proposals will soon be reduced to a trickle, now that the U.S. Department of Education has formally weighed in on this trend, issuing an interpretation emphasizing that the Higher Education Act, federal regulations, and applicable federal contracts preempt laws like SB 6209 that purport to regulate federal student loan servicers.

In a blog post entitled “How S.2155 (the Bank Lobbyist Act) Facilitates Discriminatory Lending” Professor Adam Levitin claimed that “This bill functionally exempts 85% of US banks and credit unions from fair lending laws in the mortgage market.”  The claim was set forth in bold and italic text.  If the intent was to draw attention to the claim, it worked.  Members of this firm saw the claim.  In short, the claim greatly mischaracterizes the limited implications of the amendment.

The Professor is referring to an amendment that S.2155 would make to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) for insured banks and insured credit unions that satisfy certain conditions.  First, I will address what the amendment would not do.  The amendment:

  • Would not exempt any institution from the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act or any other substantive fair lending law.
  • Would not exempt any institution from the mortgage loan data reporting requirements of HMDA that were in effect before January 1, 2018.
  • Would not prevent bank and credit union regulators from obtaining any information on the mortgage lending activity of institutions that they supervise.

What the amendment would do is exempt small volume mortgage lenders from the expanded HMDA data reporting requirements that became effective on January 1, 2018 if they met certain conditions.  The conditions are that:

  • To be exempt from the expanded data reporting requirements for closed-end mortgage loans, the bank or credit union would have to originate fewer than 500 of such loans in each of the preceding two calendars years
  • To be exempt from the expanded data reporting requirements for home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), the bank or credit union would have to originate fewer than 500 of such credit lines in each of the preceding two calendars years.
  • The bank or credit union could not receive a rating of (1) “needs to improve record of meeting community credit needs” during each of its two most recent Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examinations or (2) “substantial noncompliance in meeting community credit needs” on its most recent CRA examination.

The exemption for HELOC reporting would have no implications initially, and perhaps longer.  For 2018 and 2019 the threshold to report HELOCs is 500 transactions in each of the preceding two calendar years.  The 500 HELOC threshold was implemented by a temporary rule adopted by the CFPB under former Director Cordray in August 2017, which amended the HMDA rule adopted by the CFPB in October 2015 to revise the HMDA reporting requirements.  The October 2015 rule for the first time mandated the reporting of HELOCs, and set the reporting threshold at 100 HELOCs in each of the two preceding calendar years.  The CFPB indicated in the preamble to the temporary rule that it had evidence that the number of smaller institutions that would need to report HELOCs under the 100 threshold may be higher than originally estimated, and that the costs on those institutions to implement reporting may be higher than originally estimated.  The temporary rule allows the CFPB time to further assess the appropriate threshold.

While Professor Levitin inaccurately claims that the S.2155 amendment creates a functional exemption from the fair lending laws for small volume lenders, the statement that 85% of banks and credit unions would be covered by the exemption mischaracterizes the scope of lending activity subject to HMDA reporting requirements.  Based on the data used by the CFPB to assess the 2015 rule, the change from the 100 to 500 threshold would reduce the number of institutions reporting HELOCs from 749 to 231, but would reduce the percentage of HELOCs reported only from 88% to 76%.  Additionally, 2016 HMDA data reflect that while credit unions and small banks comprised over 73% of HMDA reporting entities, the institutions received under 15% of the reported applications for the year.  While the CFPB now acknowledges it may have underestimated the number of institutions that would be covered at the 100 HELOC threshold, these statistics reflect that focusing on the percentage of institutions subject to reporting, and not the percentage of transactions subject to reporting, paints an inaccurate picture of lending activity subject to HMDA reporting requirements.

Even for institutions that would qualify for the exemption from reporting the expanded HMDA data, the CFPB and financial institution regulators will still receive the traditional HMDA data from these institutions.  And regulators can use that information to assess whether they should take a closer look at the mortgage lending activity of any institutions.  Of great significance, as noted above, the S.2155 amendment would not limit the amount of information on mortgage lending that bank or credit union regulators can obtain from institutions that they supervise.

While the expansion of the HMDA data is intended to permit regulators to better assess the mortgage lending of an institution before having to request additional information from the institution, even the expanded data does not provide for a conclusive assessment of whether or not a given institution has engaged in discrimination when evaluating mortgage loan applications.  In fact, even with data that is more comprehensive than the expanded HMDA data, a statistical analysis still does not provide for a conclusive determination regarding underwriting determinations.  You have to get your hands on the actual loan files.

The main impact from the S.2155 amendment would be the reduction of some HMDA information from small volume lenders that will be made available to the public.  With new leadership at the CFPB, we don’t know what parts of the expanded HMDA data will be released to the public.  However, even under Director Cordray, the CFPB did not plan to issue credit score information, which is an important item of information to conduct a fair lending analysis.  A significant concern of the mortgage industry regarding the expanded HMDA data is that members of the public will improperly use the data that is released to claim that the data conclusively show that the institutions engaged in discrimination.  Given that Professor Levitin paints an inaccurate picture of the impact of the HMDA amendment under S.2155, those concerns appear to be warranted.

In response to the wave of new state student loan servicing laws and enforcement activity, the U.S. Department of Education has published an interpretation emphasizing that the Higher Education Act (HEA) preempts state regulation of federal student loan servicers.

Citing Supreme Court and appellate court precedent, ED stresses that the servicing of loans made by the federal government under the Direct Loan Program is an area involving “uniquely federal interests” and that state regulation of servicers of Direct Loans impermissibly conflicts with federal law and is entirely preempted. Further, state regulation of servicers of Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans is preempted to the extent that it conflicts with, impedes, or otherwise undermines uniform administration of the program.

The interpretation also reaffirms the preemption of state laws that prohibit (1) misrepresentation or the omission of material information, because the HEA expressly preempts state disclosure requirements; and (2) unfair or deceptive acts or practices, to the extent such laws “proscribe conduct Federal law requires” or “require conduct Federal law prohibits.”

Direct Loan Program Servicers

In the interpretation, ED identifies the following conflicts between state laws that regulate Direct Loan servicers and federal law:

  • The licensing requirements interfere with ED’s power to select contractors for Direct Loan servicing. For example, states require servicers to satisfy certain financial requirements, secure a surety bond, and undergo background checks as a condition of licensure. Such requirements add to, and thereby conflict with, the “responsibility determinations” ED makes in accordance with federal contracting law.
  • State-imposed servicing standards pertaining to loan transfers, payment application, and borrower disputes, for example, would conflict with federal law and regulations and ED’s servicing contracts and “skew the balance the Department has sought in calibrating its enforcement decisions to the objectives of the [Direct Loan] program.”
  • State licensing fees, assessments, minimum net worth requirements, surety bonds, data disclosure requirements, and annual reporting requirements will increase the costs of student loan servicing, “distorting the balance the Department has sought to achieve between costs to servicers and taxpayers and the benefits of services delivered to borrowers.”
  • State laws that restrict the actions a servicer may take to collect on a loan impede ED’s ability to protect federal taxpayers by obtaining repayment of federal loans.
  • State-level regulation cuts against the HEA’s goal of creating a uniform set of rules to govern the federal student loan program and “subjects borrowers to different loan servicing deadlines and processes depending on where the borrower happens to live, and at what point in time.”

As ED correctly notes, U.S. Supreme Court precedent involving federal contractors compels the conclusion that the potential civil liability of student loan servicing contractors for non-compliance with state law is an area of unique federal concern because it would raise the price of servicing contracts and because “servicers stand in the shoes of the Federal government in performing required actions under the Direct Loan Program.” Moreover, federal student loan servicing “requires uniformity because State intervention harms the Federal fisc.”

FFEL Program Servicers

As for the servicing of loans made by private lenders and guaranteed by the federal government through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program (which Congress discontinued and replaced with the Direct Loan Program in 2010), ED says that state regulation is preempted “to the extent that it undermines uniform administration of the program.” ED provides several examples of the kinds of state laws that invariably conflict with federal FFEL Program regulations, including deadlines for borrower communications and requirements around the resolution of disputes raised by borrowers. ED also notes that state servicing laws appear to conflict with express preemption provisions applicable to guaranty agencies (34 C.F.R. 682.410(b)(8)) and lender due diligence in collecting guaranty agency loans (34 C.F.R. 682.411(o)(1)).

State Disclosure Requirements

ED also stresses that Section 1098g of the HEA expressly preempts state disclosure requirements for federal student loans. ED interprets this to “encompass informal or non-written communications to borrowers as well as reporting to third parties such as credit reporting bureaus.” ED points out that state servicing laws that attempt to impose new prohibitions on misrepresentation or the omission of material information would likewise be preempted by Section 1098g.

Consistency with Earlier Pronouncements

As ED emphasizes, it is not breaking new ground here. Its interpretation is consistent with earlier U.S. responses to state laws that conflict with ED’s administration of federal student loan programs. For example, in 2009, it intervened in litigation in the Ninth Circuit to demonstrate to the Court that the state consumer protection laws on which the plaintiff relied were preempted by the HEA.

Most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest in litigation brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) alleging violations of Massachusetts law for allegedly unfair or deceptive acts related to the servicing of Federal student loans and administration of programs under the HEA. That Statement of Interest made clear that Massachusetts “is improperly seeking to impose requirements … that conflict with the HEA, Federal regulations, and Federal contracts that govern the Federal loan programs.” (Ballard Spahr LLP represents PHEAA in that matter.)

In its interpretation, ED reaffirms that such claims are preempted because they seek to “proscribe conduct Federal law requires and to require conduct Federal law prohibits.” ED continues, “We believe that attempts by other States to impose similar requirements will create additional conflicts with Federal law.”

Borrower Protections

ED concludes by describing its efforts to “ensure that borrowers receive exemplary customer service and are protected from substandard practices,” including:

  • Monitoring compliance with regulatory and contractual obligations, including call monitoring, account-level review and remote and on-site auditing;
  • Allocating more loans to servicers with better customer service performance metrics and paying servicers higher rates for loans that are in a non-delinquent status such as income-driven repayment; and
  • Maintaining processes for borrowers to report issues or file complaints about servicers.

We encourage servicers of federal and private student loans to consult with counsel regarding the interpretation as well as other defenses to the application of state student loan servicing laws and state enforcement actions.

Yesterday, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Military Lending Act website was temporarily taken offline to accommodate various “security and performance enhancements.”

Notably, the DoD has added the ability to search using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). An ITIN is a tax processing number that the IRS makes available to certain nonresident and resident aliens, their spouses, and dependents who are unable to get a Social Security Number (SSN). This change was needed in light of the fact that being a U.S. citizen is not a requirement to serve in the armed forces, and thus the prior search functionality (which only used SSNs) potentially excluded covered individuals.

The full notice posted on the website read as follows:

Changes to MLA

The MLA website will be unavailable from 4 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on Thursday, March 15, 2018 to 12 a.m. Pacific Standard Time on Friday, March 16, 2018. During that time, security and performance enhancements will be made to the MLA website to include updates to the reCAPTCHA functionality and increasing search capabilities by adding Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) as a search parameter.

The U.S. Senate on March 14 passed S.2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), by a vote of 67 to 31.  Although the Act would not make the sweeping changes to the Dodd-Frank Act found in the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (CHOICE Act), it, nevertheless, would provide financial institutions welcome relief from a number of specific Dodd-Frank provisions.

Representative Jeb Hensarling, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has indicated that further negotiations between the House and Senate must take place before the House votes on the Act.  House Speaker Paul Ryan has taken a more conciliatory tone, commenting on the need for common sense bipartisan solutions in the final bill.  As a result, while a final bill can be expected to include changes to the Act, it is unclear how substantial those changes will be.  Assuming a final bill signed by President Donald J. Trump retains many, if not most, of the Act’s provisions, the Act should positively impact both smaller and larger financial institutions.  The Act would make a number of changes to provisions of Dodd-Frank and other federal laws regarding consumer mortgages, credit reporting, and loans to veterans and students.

On May 10, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. ET, Ballard Spahr attorneys will hold a webinar: Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act: Anatomy of the New Banking Statute.  The webinar registration form is available here.

The Act would also reduce the regulatory burdens on financial institutions—particularly financial institutions with total assets of less than $10 billion.  Bank holding companies with up to $3 billion in total assets would be permitted to comply with less restrictive debt-to-equity limitations instead of consolidated capital requirements.  This change should promote growth by smaller bank holding companies, organically or by acquisition.  Larger institutions should benefit from the higher asset thresholds that would apply to systemically important banks subject to enhanced prudential standards.  The higher thresholds may lead to increased merger activity between and among regional and super regional banks.

Although the banking industry can be expected to view the Act positively should it become law, it falls short of the CHOICE Act in several important respects. The CHOICE Act would:

  • reduce regulatory burdens on institutions based on capital levels irrespective of asset size
  • reduce the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s powers
  • repeal Dodd–Frank’s orderly liquidation authority, and
  • scale back the CFPB’s powers.

For a summary of some of the Act’s key provisions applicable to financial institutions, click here for our full alert.

The CFPB has issued a request for information that seeks comment on its adopted regulations and new rulemaking authorities.

As used in the RFI, the “Adopted Regulations” generally include “all final rulemakings that the Bureau issued after providing notice and seeking public comment, including any accompanying Official Interpretations (commentary) issued by the Bureau.”  For purposes of the RFI, the Adopted Regulations include statutorily–mandated or discretionary rules issued by the CFPB pursuant to rulemaking authority transferred by Dodd-Frank from another agency to the CFPB as well as new CFPB rulemaking authorities created by Dodd-Frank.  Comments on the RFI must be received no later than 90 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which the CFPB expects to occur on approximately March 19, 2018.

The RFI’s Supplementary Information distinguishes the Adopted Regulations from the CFPB’s Inherited Regulations.  The Inherited Regulations are the regulations issued by other agencies pursuant to rulemaking authority transferred to the CFPB by Dodd-Frank.  Many of the Adopted Regulations amended the Inherited Regulations.

Although the CFPB’s 2015 HMDA rule and its 2017 small dollar loan rule are Adopted Regulations, the CFPB is not currently requesting feedback on those rules because it has previously announced that it intends to engage in further rulemaking to reconsider those rules. The CFPB also notes that although it had previously announced that it was conducting assessments of certain Adopted Regulations concerning remittance transfers, mortgage servicing, and ability to repay and qualified mortgages, respondents to the RFI are free to comment on those rules.  However, for purposes of the RFI, the CFPB will consider any comments previously received in connection with the assessments.

Subject to those qualifications, the CFPB seeks feedback on all aspects of the Adopted Regulations, including the following:

  • Aspects of the Adopted Regulations that should be tailored to institutions of particular types or sizes, create unintended consequences, overlap or conflict with other laws or regulations so as to make compliance difficult or particularly burdensome, are incompatible or misaligned with new technologies, or could be modified to provide consumers more protection from identity theft
  • Changes the CFPB could make to the Adopted Regulations to more effectively meet the statutory purposes and objectives set forth in the federal consumer financial laws and the CFPB’s goals for a particular regulation
  • Changes the CFPB could make to the Adopted Regulations that would advance the CFPB’s statutory purposes set forth in Section 1021 of Dodd-Frank
  • Pilots, field tests, demonstrations, or other activities the CFPB could launch to better quantify benefits and costs of potential revisions to the Adopted Regulations or to make compliance with the Adopted Regulations more efficient and effective
  • Areas where the CFPB has not fully exercised its rulemaking authority in connection with a specific Adopted Regulation or with regard to rulemaking authority created by Dodd-Frank and where rulemaking would be beneficial and align with the purposes and objectives of applicable federal consumer financial laws

The new RFI represents the eighth in a series of RFIs announced by Mr. Mulvaney.  The subjects of the CFPB’s first seven RFIs and their comment deadlines are as follows:

In its press release announcing the latest RFI, the CFPB stated that the next RFI in the series will be issued next week and will address the CFPB’s Inherited Regulations and inherited rulemaking authorities.



In a blog post yesterday, Professor Sovern referenced Politico’s report that at the Consumer Bankers Association’s annual conference this week, unlike from 2012-2016, the “regulatory environment” was not identified as a “top worry” by bankers.  According to Professor Sovern, this “raises a question about why Congress is working on a bill to reduce the regulatory burden banks face.”  S. 2155, one of the bills to which Professor Sovern presumably was referring, passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of 67-31.

In our view, Professor Sovern’s suggestion that bankers do not view the reduction of regulatory burden as a priority is misguided for several reasons.  First of all, what attendees at the CBA conference were actually asked was “what will be the top issue facing our industry over the next three years.”  Although described in the Politico report as “regulatory environment,” the issue presented to attendees was actually worded “navigating through a new regulatory environment.”  Concerns about “navigating through a new regulatory environment” are hardly synonymous with concerns about regulatory burden.  In all likelihood, the CBA conference attendees’ reduced concern about navigating a new regulatory environment reflects their perception that the regulatory environment has become more favorable to industry under the Trump Administration.

More specifically, the attendees at CBA conferences (as the CBA’s name suggests) are primarily focused on consumer banking.  “Navigating through a new regulatory environment” for consumer finance would have obviously been a primary concern under former CFPB Director Cordray.  It is not surprising, however, that because of the change in CFPB leadership under the Trump Administration and the improvement in the regulatory environment for industry, navigating the regulatory environment would no longer be viewed by attendees as a top concern.

Second, the CBA’s membership is not composed principally of the community banks and credit unions who are most burdened by the regulatory requirements that would be eased by the banking bill.  As a result, an audience composed principally of attendees from such community banks and credit unions would likely express greater concern about the regulatory environment than the attendees at the CBA conference.

Despite Professor Sovern’s suggestion that there is a question why Congress is working on a bill to reduce the regulatory burden that banks face, the reason is clear.  The reason is that the bipartisan group of Senators that voted for the bill recognized that regulatory relief is necessary to relieve small banks and credit unions from burdensome regulatory costs and paperwork and to increase access to credit for individuals and small businesses.

It bears noting that the issue identified by the CBA conference’s attendees as the top issue facing their industry over the next three years was “innovating and creating new products and solutions.”  The fact that attendees now feel they can focus their efforts on innovation and the creation of new products and solutions rather than on navigating a challenging regulatory environment is a positive development for industry, consumers, and the overall economy.


A bipartisan bill introduced in the House earlier this week, the Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2018 (H.R. 5266), would create a bipartisan five-member commission to run the CFPB.  The bill was introduced by two Democratic House members and its cosponsors include a Republican House member.  H.R. 5266 would also change the CFPB’s name to the “Financial Product Safety Commission.”

The bill is likely to have the strong support of consumer finance and banking trade groups.  Industry, which has long viewed a commission as a more appropriate structure for bringing stability and predictability to the CFPB over the long run, has previously urged Congress to change the CFPB’s leadership from a single director to a commission.  Although the Financial CHOICE Act as initially proposed would have created a commission to run the CFPB, the version of the Act passed by the House last year dropped the proposal for a five-member commission in favor of a single director removable at will.


The CFPB recently issued its final rule amending the timing requirements for transitioning between unmodified periodic statements and modified statements for consumers in bankruptcy.  Initially proposed on October 4, 2017, the CFPB finalized the amendments without further revision.  These changes will go into effect on April 19, 2018, along with the other servicing rule amendments adopted in 2016 that require sending periodic statements to consumers in bankruptcy.  (Part of the 2016 amendments were implemented in October 2017, and the remaining amendments will be implemented April 19, 2018.)

Under the amended rule, the single billing cycle exemption is replaced with a more uniform single statement exemption, when a mortgage servicer transitions between an unmodified and a modified bankruptcy periodic statement.  Accordingly, after a triggering event (e.g., the borrower enters bankruptcy, personal liability is discharged, or the borrower exits bankruptcy), the servicer is exempt from providing the next periodic statement or coupon book that would otherwise be required, regardless of when in the billing cycle the triggering event occurs.  As previously drafted, the exemption applied for the next periodic statement or coupon book only if the payment due date for that ensuing billing cycle was 14 days or less after the triggering event.

The amendments provide welcome help to mortgage servicers by eliminating an aspect of the new bankruptcy requirements that was unnecessarily complex and difficult to operationalize.




The 23rd Annual Consumer Financial Services Institute, sponsored by the Practising Law Institute, will take place on March 26-27, 2018, in New York City (and by live webcast and groupcast in Atlanta, Cleveland, and New Brunswick, New Jersey); and on May 7-8, 2018, in Chicago.  For the first time in many years, on June 25-26, 2018, the Institute will also be presented in San Francisco (and by live webcast).

This year’s Institute will explore in detail a number of important developments in consumer financial services regulation and litigation. I am again co-chairing the event, as I have for the past 22 years.

With the resignation of former CFPB Director Cordray and President Trump’s appointment of Mick Mulvaney as CFPB Acting Director, the agenda and activity of the CFPB is already undergoing significant change.  Further significant change can be expected under the new permanent Director who is eventually appointed and confirmed.  At the same time, state attorneys general and regulators are threatening to fill any void created by a less aggressive CFPB.

As was the case last year, the lead-off morning session on the first day will feature a panel discussion devoted to CFPB developments. During that almost two-hour program, I will moderate a discussion among experienced industry lawyers (one of whom will be my partner Chris Willis at the New York and Chicago programs) and consumer lawyers who closely follow the CFPB’s regulatory, supervisory, and enforcement activities.  If your practice involves the CFPB, you will not want to miss this panel discussion.

The first day will also include a one-hour panel titled “Federal Regulators Speak: Priorities & Coordination” that will feature representatives of the FTC and DOJ who will be joined in New York and Chicago by former Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Keith Noreika.  In San Francisco, the FTC and DOJ representatives will be joined by a FDIC representative.

New to the Institute this year will be a panel on the second day that will discuss the rapidly changing landscape for marketplace lending and fintech.  My partner Scott Pearson will be part of the San Francisco panel.

The Institute will also focus on a variety of other cutting-edge issues and developments, including:

  • Privacy and data security issues
  • FCRA/debt collection issues
  • Class action and litigation developments
  • State regulatory and enforcement developments
  • Plaintiff lawyers’ perspective of regulatory and litigation issues under Trump Administration

We hope you can join us for this informative and valuable program.  PLI has made a special 25 percent discounted registration fee available to those who register using the link that follows.  To register and view a complete description of PLI’s 23rd Annual Consumer Financial Services Institute, click here.

For more information, contact Danielle Cohen at 212.824.5857 or dcohen@pli.edu.