State Licensing

Subscribe to State Licensing

A group of 21 state attorneys general have sent a letter to the Senate majority and minority leaders as well as to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee urging them to reject H.R. 3299 (“Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017”) and H.R. 4439 (“Modernizing Credit Opportunities Act”).

H.R. 3299, known as the “Madden fix” bill, was passed by the House in February 2018.  It attempts to address the uncertainty created by the Second Circuit’s decision in Madden v. Midland Funding.  In that decision, the Second Circuit held that a nonbank that purchases loans from a national bank could not charge the same rate of interest on the loan that Section 85 of the National Bank Act (NBA) allows the national bank to charge.  The bill would amend Section 85, as well as the provisions in the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), the Federal Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) that provide rate exportation authority to, respectively, federal savings associations, federal credit unions, and state-chartered banks, to provide that a loan that is made at a valid interest rate remains valid with respect to such rate when the loan is subsequently transferred to a third party and can be enforced by such third party even if the rate would not be permitted under state law.

H.R. 4439 was referred to the House Financial Services Committee in November 2017.  It is intended to address a second source of uncertainty for some loans that are made by banks with substantial origination, marketing and/or servicing assistance from nonbank third parties and then sold shortly after origination.  These loans have been challenged by regulators and others on the theory that the nonbank agent is the “true lender,” and therefore the loan is subject to state licensing and usury laws.

The bill would amend the Bank Service Company Act to add language providing that the geographic location of a service provider for an insured depository institution “or the existence of an economic relationship between an insured depository institution and another person shall not affect the determination of the location of such institution under other applicable law.”  The bill would amend the HOLA to add similar language regarding service providers to and persons having economic relationships with federal savings associations.

It would also amend Section 85 of the NBA to add language providing that a loan or other debt is made by a national bank and subject to the bank’s rate exportation authority where the national bank “is the party to which the debt is owed according to the terms of the [loan or other debt], regardless of any later assignment.  The existence of a service or economic relationship between a [national bank] and another person shall not affect the application of [the national bank’s rate exportation authority] to the rate of interest rate upon the [loan, note or other evidence of debt] or the identity of the [national bank] as the lender under the agreement.”  The bill would add similar language to the provisions in the HOLA and FDIA that provide rate exportation authority to, respectively, federal savings associations and state-chartered banks.

The state AGs assert in their letter that the bills “would legitimize the efforts of some non-bank lenders to circumvent state usury law” and “would constitute a substantial expansion of the existing preemption of state usury laws.”  As support for their argument that Congress did not intend to allow nonbank entities to use NBA preemption, they cite to the OCC’s recent bulletin on small dollar lending in which the OCC stated that it “views unfavorably an entity that partners with a bank with the sole goal of evading a lower interest rate established under the law of the entity’s licensing state(s).”

While the context for the OCC’s statement was “specific to short-term, small-dollar installment lending,” we have expressed concern as to its implications for all banks that partner with third parties to make loans under Section 85.  As we noted, the statement also seems at odd with the broad view of federal preemption enunciated by the OCC with respect to the Madden decision.

While the enactment of legislation reaffirming the valid-when-made doctrine and addressing the “true lender” issue would be helpful, we have advocated for the OCC’s adoption of a rule providing that (1) loans funded by a bank in its own name as creditor are fully subject to Section 85 and other provisions of the NBA for their entire term; and (2) emphasizing that banks that make loans are expected to manage and supervise the lending process in accordance with OCC guidance and will be subject to regulatory consequences if and to the extent that loan programs are unsafe or unsound or fail to comply with applicable law.  In other words, it is the origination of the loan by a national bank (and the attendant legal consequences if the loans are improperly originated), and not whether the bank retains the predominant economic interest in the loan, that should govern the regulatory treatment of the loan under federal law.

In two enforcement actions pending in Colorado state court, the Administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code for the State of Colorado is employing the “true lender” theory and the Second Circuit’s Madden decision to challenge two bank-model lending programs.

 

The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has adopted a regulation that requires “consumer credit reporting agencies” (“CCRAs”) to register with the NYDFS, prohibits CCRAs from engaging in certain practices, and requires CCRAs to comply with certain provisions of the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation.

The new regulation became effective upon the publication of a Notice of Adoption by the NYDFS in the State Register on July 3, 2018.  Its definitions of “consumer credit report”  and “consumer credit reporting agency” closely track the definitions of, respectively, the terms “consumer report” and “consumer reporting agency” in the FCRA.  However, the term “consumer credit report” is limited to “a consumer report…bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity.”  Similarly, the term “consumer credit reporting agency” is limited to “a consumer reporting agency that regularly engages in the practice of assembling or evaluating and maintaining [information from furnishers] for the purpose of furnishing consumer credit reports to third parties.”  The term “New York consumer” is defined as “an individual who is a resident of New York State as reflected in the most recent information in the possession of a [CCRA].”

Registration.  A CCRA must register with the NYDFS if “within the previous 12-month period, [it] has assembled, evaluated, or maintained a consumer credit report on one thousand or more New York consumers.”  Every CCRA “that is required to register…at any time between June 1, 2018 and September 1, 2018” must register by September 15, 2018.  Registration must be renewed by February 1, 2019 for the 2019 calendar year and by February 1 of each year thereafter.

The regulation prohibits a CCRA that is required to be registered and has not done so from engaging in the business of a CCRA in New York by furnishing a consumer credit report on a New York consumer to any individual or entity.  It also prohibits any “regulated person” from paying “any fee or other compensation” or transmitting any information about a New York resident to a CCRA that is required to be registered and has not done so.  A “regulated person” is defined as “any person operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation or similar authorization under the Banking Law, the Insurance Law or the Financial Services Law.”

Prohibited Practices.  A CCRA that is required to be registered is prohibited from engaging in various practices including engaging in any “unfair, deceptive, or predatory act or practice toward any consumer that is prohibited by any federal law, or by any New York State law that is not preempted by federal law,” or engaging in “any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in violation of section 1036 of the [Dodd-Frank Act].”

Cybersecurity.  A CCRA that is required to be registered must comply with specified provisions of the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation.  Except for the provisions that have a February 28, 2019 compliance date, a CCRA must comply with the specified provisions of the cybersecurity regulation by November 1, 2018.

The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) has issued a second round of revised emergency and proposed rules under the Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Amendment Act of 2016.  The latest revision, backdated to April 20 from its May release, provides “numerous substantive changes” in response to public comments.  A blackline of the revised emergency rules showing changes from the rules adopted in December 2017 can be found here.  The Student Loan Servicing Alliance filed a lawsuit in March 2018 challenging the rules as preempted by federal law.

The first revision made one substantive change from the initial rules by reducing the annual assessment fee from $6.60 per loan to $.50 per borrower.  The second revision further modifies the annual assessment fee by eliminating the additional “fixed” component.  Now, licensees are subject only to the volume-based assessment.  Application fees (initial and renewal) and reinstatement fees have also been reduced by $100.

For the first time, the proposed rules explicitly acknowledge and yield to federal law.  The DISB recordkeeping rules now apply “[e]xcept to the extent prohibited by federal law” and allow the Commissioner to “waive or reduce” the requirements if compliance “would require the licensee to violate federal law.”  The revisions also add protections by prohibiting public disclosure of the records under the Freedom of Information Act.

Unlike the recordkeeping provisions, the examination authority contains no deference to federal law.  The examination authority has also been expanded to allow the Commissioner to consider reports prepared by other federal or state agencies in conducting an examination and to conduct joint examinations with federal or state agencies.  The rules now also explicitly allow the Commissioner to request “policies and procedures, consumer complaints, financial statements, and any other reasonable information.”

Most significantly, the revisions have eliminated the initial penalty provisions, which allowed the Commissioner to impose a penalty of up to $5,000 “for each occurrence of each violation of the act” by a licensee and up to $25,000 “for each occurrence of each violation of the act” by an unlicensed person.  The revisions have also reduced the penalty for failure to timely file an annual report from up to $1,000 per business day to up to $50 per day.

The revised rules also expand the oversight of the DISB.  The rules now require updating of any information on file with the commissioner within ten business days of it become inaccurate.  Additionally, licensees must now notify the Commissioner in writing of “any material fact or condition” which may preclude the licensee from fulfilling its contractual obligations.

 

 

On May 15, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed into law a bill that, among other things, establishes the role of Student Loan Ombudsman within the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation and sets forth various duties related to that position.

Maryland SB 1068, titled the Financial Consumer Protection Act of 2018, represents a scaled down version of an attempt by state lawmakers to regulate student loan servicers. An earlier version of the bill contained language that would have created a licensing regime for servicers, similar to what the District of Columbia, California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Washington have enacted over the past couple of years. Instead, SB 1068 enacts the other key prong of such recent legislation: the creation of an ombudsman role to monitor student lending and servicing activity within the state.

Under the new law, the Student Loan Ombudsman is required to:

  • Receive and review complaints from student loan borrowers;
  • Attempt to resolve complaints by collaborating with higher education institutions, student loan servicers, and others, as specified;
  • Compile and analyze complaint data (and, as specified, disclose that data);
  • Help student loan borrowers understand their rights and responsibilities;
  • Provide information to the public and others;
  • Disseminate information about the availability of the ombudsman to address student loan concerns;
  • Analyze and monitor the development and implementation of federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and policies on student loan borrowers;
  • By October 1, 2019, establish a student loan borrower education course that includes educational presentations and material about student education loans;
  • Make recommendations regarding statutory and regulatory methods to resolve borrower problems and concerns; and
  • Make recommendations on necessary changes to Maryland law to ensure the student loan servicing industry is fair, transparent, and equitable, including whether licensing or registration of student loan servicers should be required in Maryland.

The last item on this list suggests that a licensing or registration requirement could be forthcoming. However, under the law as enacted, new obligations for student loan servicers are presently limited to requiring each student loan servicer operating in Maryland to (1) designate an individual to represent the servicer in communications with the ombudsman and (2) provide appropriate contact information for that designee to the ombudsman.

In addition to establishing the Student Loan Ombudsman role, SB 1068 contains a number of noteworthy changes to Maryland’s consumer finance statutes, including (1) expanding the definition of “unfair and deceptive trade practices” under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) to include “abusive” practices; (2) providing that unfair, abusive, or deceptive trade practices include violations of the federal Military Lending Act or the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; (3) adding various provisions related to consumer lending, including raising the Maryland Consumer Loan Law’s licensing trigger from $6,000 to $25,000 (thus expanding the scope of the statute’s licensing requirement); (4) increasing the maximum civil penalties for violations of MCPA and several other financial licensing and regulatory laws; (5) allocating additional resources for enforcement of Maryland’s consumer protection laws; and (6) prohibiting consumer reporting agencies from charging for a placement, temporary lift, or removal of a security freeze.

The District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) has released for comment a revised “Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights.”  The District of Columbia Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Act of 2016 (Servicing Act), which became effective February 18, 2017, directed the DISB to draft the Bill of Rights.  (In September 2017, pursuant to the Servicing Act, the DISB began licensing student loan servicers operating in D.C.)

As originally released in October 2017, the Bill of Rights contained five articles.  We commented that instead of tracking the student loan servicing principles articulated by other regulators, the Bill of Rights seemed to borrow copiously from principles for the origination, servicing, and collection of small business loans adopted by the Responsible Business Lending Coalition, a network of for-profit and non-profit lenders, brokers and small business advocates.  In the revised Bill of Rights, which contains 17 articles, the DISB now appears to be proposing student loan servicing principles that more closely resemble those articulated by other regulators.

The revised Bill of Rights contains numerous requirements that were not in the original version.  For example, the revised version contains requirements concerning payment allocation and partial payments (Article IV), monthly billing statements (Articles V and VI), annual tax statements (Article VII), schedule of fees (Article IX), reporting to credit bureaus (Article XI), access to default diversion services (Article XII), and refinancing disclosures (Article XIII).  However, the DISB does not identify the source of those rights, which are not separately set forth in the Servicing Act.

The National Council of Higher Education Resources (NCHER), a national trade association representing higher education finance organizations, has sent a letter to the DISB commenting on the revised Bill of Rights.  As a general matter, NCHER expresses its view that the principles should not create enforceable obligations and highlights the enormous compliance burden that would be created for servicers if the DISB were to attempt to require federal and private student loan servicers to follow separate servicing routines for D.C. residents.  We agree, and find it particularly troubling that the DISB appears to be seeking to create obligations that may not only be inconsistent with the terms of the underlying loans but also preempted by federal law.  

With respect to specific provisions of the revised Bill of Rights, NCHER’s comments include the following:

  • Article IV provides that a borrower “has the right to have his or her payments applied to outstanding loan balance(s) timely, appropriately, and fairly” and that the servicer’s application process “shall result in partial payments being applied in the best interest” of the borrower.  NCHER questions what it means to apply payments “appropriately,” “fairly,” and “in the best interest” of the borrower and states that servicers currently post their payment allocation procedures but “should not be held to a vague standard that could be interpreted to create fiduciary responsibilities.”
  • Articles V and VI provide that a borrower has a right to “a monthly billing statement” and quarterly periodic statements containing certain information.  NCHER questions whether these articles establish separate servicing requirements for D.C. residents and comments that if so, they “would be overly burdensome to require that monthly payments be sent to borrowers in an in-school deferment.”
  • Article IX provides that a borrower has a right to have the servicer’s current schedule of fees that could be charged to the borrower.  NCHER comments that this article “seems to be based on an inaccurate understanding of roles of the various players in the student loan industry.”  It notes that as a general matter, “loan fees such as late fees and NSF fees are charged by lenders, not servicers, and are disclosed as part of the lender’s Truth-in-Lending Act requirements.”  NCHER also comments that if the article purports to cover expedited payment or convenience fees, “it should be understood that these optional payment services are selected by the borrower.”
  • Article XII provides that a borrower has the right to access “default diversion services” from the servicer that notifies the borrower when he or she is at risk of default and requires the servicer to assist the borrower with avoiding a default.  NCHER raises numerous questions about this article, including what timeframe the DISB contemplates using when measuring whether a servicer has appropriately notified a borrower that he or she is at risk of default and what “default diversion services” are contemplated by the DISB.
  • Article XIII provides that to the extent a servicer or an agent of a servicer provides any financing to a borrower, including a loan modification or refinancing, the borrower has a right  to receive financing that complies with certain principles.  Such principles include that the financing “is in the best interest” of the borrower.  NCHER comments that this article also “misconstrues the role of servicers since they do not make loans or extent credit” and that the reference to financing that “is in the best interest” of the borrower “sets up a fiduciary or suitability standard where compliance may be impossible.”

 

By a vote of 245-171, the House passed H.R. 3299, the “Madden fix” bill (whose official title is the “Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017.”)  In Madden, the Second Circuit ruled that a nonbank that purchases loans from a national bank could not charge the same rate of interest on the loan that Section 85 of the National Bank Act allows the national bank to charge.

The bill would add the following language to Section 85 of the National Bank Act: “A loan that is valid when made as to its maximum rate of interest in accordance with this section shall remain valid with respect to such rate regardless of whether the loan is subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to a third party, and may be enforced by such third party notwithstanding any State law to the contrary.”

The bill would add the same language (with the word “section” changed to “subsection” when appropriate) to the provisions in the Home Owners’ Loan Act, the Federal Credit Union Act, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that provide rate exportation authority to, respectively, federal and state savings associations, federal credit unions, and state-chartered banks.  (A Senate bill with identical language was introduced in July 2017 by Democratic Senator Mark Warner.)

The House passed the bill despite strong Democratic opposition, with only 16 Democrats voting for the bill and 170 voting against.  As a result, the bill is expected to face an uphill battle in the Senate even though it can be passed with only 60 votes.

While adoption of a “Madden fix” would eliminate the uncertainties created by the Second Circuit’s Madden decision, it would not address a second source of uncertainty for some loans that are made by banks with substantial marketing and servicing assistance from nonbank third parties and then sold shortly after origination. These loans have been challenged by regulators and others on the theory that the nonbank marketing and servicing agent is the “true lender,” and therefore the loan is subject to state licensing and usury laws.  In November 2017, a bipartisan group of five House members introduced a bill (H.R. 4439) that is intended to address the “true lender” issue.

 

 

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced yesterday that seven states have agreed to a multi-state compact that, according to the CSBS, “standardizes key elements of the licensing process for money services businesses (MSB).”

The seven states consist of Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.  The CSBS expects other states to join the compact.  Under the compact, if one participating state has reviewed key elements of a company’s operations in connection with the company’s application for money transmitter license (IT, cybersecurity, business plan, background check, and compliance with the federal Bank Secrecy Act), the other participating states will accept that state’s findings.

The CSBS describes the compact as “the first step among state regulators in moving towards an integrated, 50-state system of licensing and supervision for fintechs.”  It is expected to significantly streamline the MSB licensing process.

 

The Illinois House of Representatives and Senate have voted to override the veto by the state’s Republican governor of Senate Bill 1351, known as the Illinois Student Loan Servicing Rights Act.  The override means that the new law will become effective on December 31, 2018.  The bill was drafted by the office of Lisa Madigan, the Democratic Illinois Attorney General, and had strong Democratic support in the state’s House and Senate.

The Act includes the following key provisions:

  • Licensing. The Act makes it unlawful “for any person to operate as a student loan servicer in Illinois except as authorized by this Act and without first having obtained a license in accordance with this Act.”   For purposes of the Act,  a “student loan” includes federal and private student loans, including loans to refinance a student loan.  The Act contains exclusions for various types of entities, such as federal- or state-chartered banks, and for open-end credit and loans secured by real property or a dwelling.  Credit extended by a postsecondary school is also excluded if the credit term is no longer than the borrower’s school program, the remaining principal balance at the time of the borrower’s graduation or completion of the program is less than $1,500 ,or the borrower failed to graduate or successfully complete the program and had a balance due at the time of disenrollment.  The Act authorizes the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation, or his or her designee, to license and supervise servicers and issue implementing regulations.
  • Servicing Practices. Article 5 of the Act, titled “Student Loan Bill of Rights,” prohibits certain servicing practices and imposes various requirements.  The Act authorizes the Attorney General to enforce a violation of Article 5 as an unlawful practice under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  Article 5 prohibits a servicer from engaging in any unfair or deceptive practice toward any borrower or cosigner or misrepresenting or omitting any material information in connection with servicing a loan.   A servicer is also prohibited from misapplying payments to the loan balance and is required to oversee third parties to ensure their compliance with Article 5 when working on the servicer’s behalf.  In addition, Article 5 contains provisions addressing the following specific areas:
    • Payment processing. Provisions include a requirement for prompt and accurate crediting of payments, a prohibition on charging a penalty if within 90 days of a change in address, a payment is received at a previous address, and a requirement to allow borrowers or cosigners to provide instructions for applying payments.
    • Fees. Unless otherwise provided by federal law, a servicer can only charge late fees that are reasonable and proportional to the cost it incurred related to the late payment and cannot charge a borrower or cosigner for modifying, deferring, forbearing, renewing, extending, or amending a loan.
    • Billing statements. A servicer is prohibited from misrepresenting various items of information in billing statements or information “regarding the $0 bill and advancement of the due date on any billing statement that reflects $0 owed.”
    • Payment histories. A servicer must provide a written payment history to a borrower or cosigner at no cost within 21 days of receiving a request.
    • Specialized assistance. A servicer must “specially designate servicing and collections personnel deemed repayment specialists who have received enhanced training related to repayment options.”  The  Act contains a definition of “federal loan borrower eligible for referral to a repayment specialist” that covers a borrower who has certain specified characteristics such as a borrower who requests information about options to reduce or suspend payments, has missed 2 consecutive payments, or is at least 75 days delinquent.  Servicers must provide specified information to such borrowers and make certain assessments regarding available payment options and are prohibited from implementing any compensation plan that incentivizes a repayment specialist to violate the Act.
    • Disclosures related to discharge and  cancellation.  Servicers must make disclosures information related to the Department of Education’s procedures for asserting a defense to repayment or claiming a discharge to borrowers eligible to assert such a defense or claim a discharge.
    • Income-driven repayment plan certifications.  A servicer must disclose the date a borrower’s income-driven payment plan certification expires and the consequences, including the new repayment amount, of failing to recertify.
    • Information provided to private student loan borrowers. A servicer’s website must provide a description of any alternative repayment plan offered by the servicer for private student loans.  The servicer must establish policies and procedures for evaluating private student loan alternative repayment arrangement requests and such arrangements must consider certain specified information.
    • Cosigner release. A servicer’s website must provide information on the availability and criteria for the release of cosigners on private student loans.
    • Payoff statements.  A servicer’s website must indicate that a borrower can request a payoff statement.  The servicer must provide a statement within 10 days, including information needed for the requester to pay off the loan, and must send a paid-in-full notice within 30 days of a payoff.
    • Transfer of servicing. The Act requires specified information to be provided by a transferor and transferee servicer within a specified time period, prohibits the charging of late fees and interest and furnishing of negative credit information in connection with certain payments made after a transfer of servicing, requires prompt transfer of payments received by a transferor servicer, and requires a transferee servicer to establish a process for a borrower to authorize recurring electronic fund transfers (unless the borrower’s authorization was automatically transferred to the transferee servicer.)
    • Requests for assistance and account dispute resolution. A servicer must implement policies and procedures for dealing effectively and timely with requests for assistance that meet certain specified requirements, including providing information about submitting such requests on its website, responding to such requests within specified time frames, and implementing a process for a requester to escalate such a request.  When a request for assistance contains an account dispute, a servicer must comply with specified dispute resolution procedures that must include a process for a requester to appeal a servicer’s determination.  The Act contains requirements that the appeal process must satisfy.
  •  Ombudsman. The Act creates the position of Student Loan Ombudsman within the Attorney General’s office “to provide timely assistance to student loan borrowers.”  The Ombudsman’s responsibilities include attempting to resolve complaints from student loan borrowers and compiling and analyzing complaint data.

 

 

 

 

The District of Columbia Student Loan Ombudsman Establishment and Servicing Regulation Act of 2016 (Servicing Act) became effective February 18, 2017.  The Servicing Act set an October 1 deadline for the Student Loan Ombudsman to prepare course materials to help borrowers understand their student loans and to draft a separate student loan Bill of Rights.  While the course materials apparently have not yet been released, the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) did release its “Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights” on October 11.

The list of specific rights set forth by the DISB is preceded by the following statement:

Student loan borrowers in the District of Columbia deserve a loan repayment process built on fairness, professionalism, and transparency. This bill of rights sets out the basic principles and protections that borrowers can rely on as they work to reduce their student debt. Beyond that, student loan servicers in the District are expected to uphold these key tenets with respect to all student loan borrowers and each student loan they service.

The Bill of Rights contains five articles as follows:

  • Article I: Transparent Pricing and Terms – Rates must be disclosed transparently pursuant to the Truth in  Lending Act requirements, there can be no hidden fees, plain-English terms should be used to describe key terms, and pricing and other key terms should be presented clearly and prominently.
  • Article 2: Receive Non-Abusive Products – There should be no debt traps, no “double-dipping” (i.e. no fees can be charged on the borrower’s outstanding principal when refinancing or modifying a loan with a fixed-fee as the primary financing charge unless there is tangible cost benefit to the borrower), and the design of loan products should be consistent with their use.
  • Article 3: Fair and Responsible Underwriting – Financing should be only offered only with high confidence in the borrower’s ability to repay, loans should be aligned with borrower interests and  be right-sized, and servicers and lenders should engage in responsible credit reporting.
  • Article 4: Fair Collection Practices – Servicers should abide by the spirit of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, must  vet and oversee the collection practices of third-party collectors and debt buyers, and must maintain and communicate accurate loan information.
  • Article 5: Quality Customer Service – Servicers should provide a confirmation of receipt of a complaint in writing (within five days when possible), research and resolve every complaint in a timely manner, and take proactive steps to inform borrowers of relevant organizational changes that could affect loan repayment, consumer interaction with the servicer, or the transfer of the borrower’s account.  Borrowers shall not be discriminated against based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, sexual orientation or identity, or any other protected classification.

Oddly, the Bill of Rights does not appear to be based on student loan servicing principles articulated by other regulators.  Instead, it seems to borrow copiously from principles for the origination, servicing, and collection of small business loans adopted by the Responsible Business Lending Coalition, a network of for-profit and non-profit lenders, brokers and small business advocates.  Accordingly, because it is not based on anything involving student loan servicing, the Bill of Rights may be on shaky legal ground.

The National Council of Higher Education Resources (NCHER), a national trade association representing higher education finance organizations, has raised questions with the DISB regarding the application of some of the requirements of the Bill of Rights to student loan lenders, as opposed to servicers, which arguably goes far beyond the activities authorized by Congress in approving the Servicing Act given that D.C. laws must be approved by Congress, and has likewise raised questions regarding the conflicts between the requirements of the Bill of Rights and the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), which arguably preempt those requirements.  In July 2017, NCHER wrote to the Department of Education to express concern about the broad coverage of recently-enacted state laws requiring servicers of student loans to be licensed and the need for covered entities, which can include guaranty agencies, to comply with varying state-specific requirements that, in some cases, are contrary to the HEA.  In its letter, NCHER urged the ED to issue preemption guidance that would clearly state that “federal student loan servicers and guaranty agencies are governed by the Department’s rules and requirements and those of other federal agencies, and preempt state and local laws and actions that purport to regulate the activities of participants in the federal student loan programs, including federal contractors.”

Meanwhile, the DISB continues to accept Student Loan Servicer License applications.  As we have previously reported, the Servicing Act directed the DISB to issue rules implementing its licensing provisions within 180 days of the Act’s effective date.  Although it did not meet that deadline, the DISB started to accept applications and transition filings for the Student Loan Servicer License on the National Mortgage Licensing System on August 10, 2017.  After nearly a month of accepting Student Loan Servicer License applications, the DISB released a Notice of Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking to implement the Act.  The Student Loan Servicer emergency rules were adopted and made effective September 8, 2017.  The emergency rules still have not been published in the D.C. Register, however, meaning that the deadline for comments has yet to be established.  In its notice setting forth the Student Loan Borrower’s Bill of Rights, the DISB did indicate that it began licensing student loan servicers effective September 8, 2017.

 

 

Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities issued a letter to “all persons engaged in activity regulated or licensed by the [Department] regardless of the means of delivery of such regulated financial service” which it described as intended to “reiterate[] and remind[]” such persons of its existing licensing guidance.  A number of states, including California, have previously undertaken initiatives to enforce licensing requirements applicable to fintech and other companies.  The Pennsylvania letter is a reminder of the need for such companies to make sure that they have all required licenses for the states in which they operate.

In the letter, the Department comments that “recent public and industry discourse regarding the delivery of financial services via ‘Fintech’ companies has clouded the regulatory environment concerning the regulation and oversight of the financial services and companies via existing consumer protection and licensing statutes.  The notion that a company labels itself as ‘Fintech’ because of the means by which it offers or delivers a financial service does not alter the underlying nature of the transaction or service it is offering.”

The Department states that it is “reiterating its previous guidance that a regulated financial service activity offered to consumers of the Commonwealth will be regulated in accordance with the statute governing the offering of that service regardless of the person offering such service or the means by which such service is offered.”  The Department states further that “a person that offers a financial service to the residents of Pennsylvania…regardless of whether they designate themselves as a ‘Fintech’ company or any other type of nomenclature, must be licensed in accordance with the appropriate statute and comply with all the provisions of the law under which they are regulated.  Compliance is required based upon the activity conducted and not the means in which that activity is conducted.”

In the letter, the Department cites to its previous guidance supporting this position.  Such guidance includes a 2008 notice regarding the need for nondepository entities charging more than 6% simple interest per annum on nonmortgage loans made to Pennsylvania residents to be licensed under the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act regardless of the method used to make the loans.  The Department’s position was upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.