As we reported previously, in June 2018 Zillow Group (Zillow) announced that it is no longer under investigation by the CFPB for Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and UDAAP compliance with regard to its co-marketing program. The CFPB investigation triggered a securities lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (C17-1387-JCC). The plaintiffs alleged in a putative class action that they purchased Zillow shares at an inflated price and were damaged by alleged material misrepresentations by the defendants regarding the Zillow co-marketing program and CFPB investigation of the program. The court noted that there was a decline in the price of Zillow stock in the two days after Zillow provided an update in August 2017 regarding the status of the CFPB investigation. Underlying the plaintiffs’ claims were alleged violations of RESPA with regard to the co-marketing program, which are the focus of this blog post.

The court noted that because the plaintiffs alleged securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and section 10b-5 of Securities and Exchange Commission rules, in order to survive a motion to dismiss the complaint must satisfy the general standard of setting forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, and meet additional standards. One additional standard is that that the complaint must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.

With regard to RESPA, the plaintiffs asserted that the co-marketing program (1) acted as a vehicle to allow real estate agents to make illegal referrals to lenders in exchange for the lenders paying to Zillow a portion of the agents’ advertising costs, and (2) facilitated RESPA violations by allowing lenders to pay to Zillow a portion of their agents’ advertising costs that was in excess of the fair market value of the advertising services that the lenders received from Zillow. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead either theory of RESPA liability.

In support of the theory that when lenders pay a portion of the real estate agent’s advertising costs to Zillow they are effectively paying to receive unlawful mortgage referrals from the agent, the plaintiffs cited the CFPB enforcement action against PHH Mortgage Corporation regarding mortgage reinsurance arrangements. We have extensively reported on the matter, in which the CFPB deviated from prior government interpretations of RESPA by effectively reading out of RESPA the section 8(c)(2) safe harbor that permits payments for goods and services between parties even when there are referrals of settlement services business between the parties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA. Summarizing the holding of the D.C. Circuit, the court in the Zillow case stated the “D.C. Circuit held that RESPA’s safe harbor allows mortgage lenders to make referrals to third parties on the condition that they purchase services from the lender’s affiliate, so long as the third party receives the services at a “reasonable market value.””

The court in the Zillow case determined the plaintiffs’ assertion that the co-marketing program violates RESPA because it allowed agents to make referrals in exchange for lenders paying a portion of their advertising costs “is neither factually nor legally viable.” The court first noted that the complaint does not contain particularized facts demonstrating that real estate agents participating in the co-marketing were actually providing unlawful referrals to lenders. The court then stated that, even if it “draws an inference that co-marketing agents were making mortgage referrals, such referrals would fall under the Section 8(c) safe harbor because lenders received advertising services in exchange for paying a portion of their agent’s advertising costs.”

Addressing the plaintiffs’ second theory of liability—that the co-marketing program facilitated RESPA violations by allowing lenders to pay more the than fair market value for advertising services they received from Zillow—the court states that the plaintiffs failed to provide particularized facts that demonstrate that the lenders actually paid more than the fair market value of the advertising services they received from Zillow.

While the mortgage industry will welcome the favorable decisions on the RESPA issues, industry members should be mindful that the context is a securities fraud case with specific pleading standards.

 

American Banker has reported that that CFPB is planning to dismiss its lawsuit against PHH.  According to the American Banker report, the CFPB and PHH have issued a joint statement in which the parties confirm that they have conferred and agreed to recommend the dismissal and request that Acting Director Mulvaney proceed to dismiss the CFPB’s administrative proceeding.

On January 31, 2018, the D.C. Circuit issued its en banc PHH decision reinstating the RESPA-related portions of the D.C. Circuit’s October 2016 panel decision.  The panel had held that the plain language of RESPA permits captive mortgage re-insurance arrangements like the one at issue in the PHH case, if the mortgage re-insurers are paid no more than the reasonable value of the services they provide.  However, disagreeing with the panel decision, the en banc court rejected PHH’s challenge to the CFPB’s constitutionality based on its single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure.  Neither PHH Corporation nor the CFPB filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the en banc decision.

For the first time in 2015, in prosecuting the case against PHH, the CFPB announced a new interpretation of RESPA under which captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements were prohibited.  The panel rejected this interpretation on the ground that the statute unambiguously allows the kinds of payments that the CFPB’s 2015 interpretation prohibited.  The panel remanded the case to the CFPB to determine whether PHH complied with RESPA under the longstanding interpretation previously articulated by HUD.   The en banc court’s reinstatement of that aspect of the panel decision led it to order that the case be remanded to the CFPB for further proceedings.

Although the D.C. Circuit panel had agreed with PHH that the RESPA three-year statute of limitations applies to administrative proceedings, it left undecided another statute of limitations issue for the CFPB to consider on remand.  The panel stated:  “We do not here decide whether each alleged above-reasonable-market value payment from the mortgage insurer to the reinsurer triggers a new three-year statute of limitations for that payment.  We leave that question for the CFPB on remand and any future court proceedings.”

Since the en banc court reinstated the panel’s decision “insofar as it related to the interpretation of RESPA and its application to PHH,” the issue of when the RESPA three-year statute of limitations is triggered, which is of great significance to the mortgage industry, might have been addressed on remand.  The CFPB’s dismissal of the administrative proceeding means the CFPB will not have an opportunity to rule on that issue in this case.

A determination on remand as to whether PHH complied with RESPA under the longstanding interpretation previously articulated by HUD would have required the CFPB to consider whether the mortgage re-insurers were paid more than reasonable market value for the services they provided.  The dismissal of the administrative proceeding also means the CFPB will not have an opportunity to rule on how reasonable market value is determined in mortgage re-insurance arrangements.

 

On January 31, 2018, the en banc D.C. Circuit handed down its opinion in the PHH v. CFPB case, which we’ve discussed at length. It held, 7 to 3, that the CFPB’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure is constitutional but that the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA was wrong.

En Banc Court Reinstates Panel’s RESPA Ruling

The en banc Court reinstated the RESPA-related portions of the D.C. Circuit’s October 2016 panel decision. The panel had held that the plain language of RESPA permits captive mortgage re-insurance arrangements like the one at issue in the PHH case, if the mortgage re-insurers are paid no more than the reasonable value of the services they provide. This is consistent with HUD’s prior interpretation. For the first time in 2015, in prosecuting the case against PHH, the CFPB announced a new interpretation of RESPA under which captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements were prohibited. The panel rejected this on the ground that the statute unambiguously allows the kinds of payments that the CFPB’s 2015 interpretation prohibited.

In remanding the case to the CFPB for further proceedings, the panel had admonished the CFPB by alternatively holding that—even assuming that the CFPB’s interpretation was permitted under any reading of RESPA—the CFPB’s attempt to retroactively apply its 2015 interpretation, which departed from HUD’s prior interpretation, violated due process. It held that “the CFPB violated due process by retroactively applying that new interpretation to PHH’s conduct that occurred before the date of the CFPB’s new interpretation.” The en banc Court cited the panel’s due process analysis with approval.

The panel’s RESPA decision remanded the case to the CFPB to determine whether PHH violated RESPA under the longstanding interpretation previously articulated by HUD. The en banc Court’s reinstatement of that aspect of the panel decision led it to order that the case be remanded to the CFPB for further proceedings.

Statute of Limitations Continues to Apply to RESPA Cases Before CFPB

At the administrative stage of the case, the CFPB argued that no statute of limitations applies to any CFPB administrative action. The panel soundly rejected that argument, holding that RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations applies to any RESPA claims that the CFPB brings, whether administratively or otherwise. That aspect of the panel decision, because it pertains to RESPA, is also reinstated by the en banc Court’s ruling.

CFPB’s Structure Deemed Constitutional

The panel of the D.C. Circuit had also held that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional because it improperly prevented the President from “tak[ing] Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Rejecting this holding, the en banc Court held that “[w]ide margins separate the validity of an independent CFPB from any unconstitutional effort to attenuate presidential control over core executive functions.” In other words, the en banc Court found (wrongly, in our view) that it wasn’t even a close call.

In reaching this conclusion, the en banc Court considered two questions: First, it asked whether the “means” that Congress employed to make the CFPB independent was permissible? That is, were the independence-creating tools used ones that the Supreme Court approved of, such as for-cause removal or budgetary independence? The en banc Court found that the Supreme Court approved each of the “means” Congress used to achieve CFPB “independence” individually. It reasoned then, that those “means” could all be combined in a single agency without running afoul of the U.C. Constitution.

Second, the en banc Court asked whether “the nature of the function that Congress vested in the agency calls for that means of independence?” In answer to the second question, the en banc Court found it was consistent with historical practice to grant financial regulators like the CFPB such independence.

The en banc Court went further, however, and dismissed the panel’s other constitutional concerns under the heading “Broader Theories of Unconstitutionality.” For example, it rejected the panel’s concern that having a powerful unaccountable CFPB Director was a threat to individual liberty. It suggested that such an argument “elevat[ed] regulated entities’ liberty over those of the rest of the public.” “It remains unexplained why we would assess the challenged removal restriction with reference to the liberty of financial services providers, and not more broadly to the liberty of the individuals and families who are their customers,” it said. In doing so, it seems to have forgotten that Dodd-Frank gives the CFPB Director broad powers to go after individuals, “mom and pop” businesses, and large “regulated entities.”

Lucia Issue Regarding ALJ Appointment Not Addressed

Notably, the en banc Court in PHH specifically “decline[d]to reach the separate question whether the ALJ who initially considered this case was appointed consistently with the Appointments Clause.” That was the issue in Lucia, which we have blogged about extensively. In that case, Raymond J. Lucia challenged the manner in which the SEC appointed administrative law judges (“ALJs”), arguing that ALJs are “inferior officers” who must be appointed by the president, a department head, or the courts under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Lucia.

 

Last week, the OCC released its semiannual risk report highlighting credit, operational, and compliance risks to the federal banking system.  The report focuses on issues that pose threats to those financial institutions regulated by the OCC and is intended to be used as a resource by those financial institutions to address the key concerns identified by the OCC.  Specifically, the OCC placed cybersecurity and anti-money laundering (AML) issues among the three top concerns highlighted in the report.

The OCC called for banks to remain vigilant against the operational risks that arise from efforts to adapt business models, transform technology and operating processes, and respond to increasing cybersecurity threats.  The OCC stated that:

  • “The speed and sophistication of cybersecurity threats are increasing. Banks continually face threats seeking to exploit bank personnel, processes, and technology. These threats target large quantities of personally identifiable information and proprietary intellectual property and facilitate fraud and misappropriation of funds at the retail and wholesale levels.”
  • “Phishing is a primary method for breaching data systems and often leads to other malicious activity, such as installing ransomware, compromising internal systems to effect payments, or conducting espionage. Effective user awareness campaigns and training help prevent phishing attacks. Timely and thorough software patch and system update management, strong risk-based authentication, employee training, and effective network segmentation can prevent further damage if intrusions succeed.”
  • “The number, nature, and complexity of third-party relationships continue to expand, increasing risk management challenges for banks. Financial technology companies providing innovative financial products and services introduce opportunities, as well as potential risk, for banks.”
  • “Consolidation among larger service providers has increased third-party concentration risk, in which a limited number of providers service large segments of the banking industry for certain products and services. Operational events at these larger service providers can potentially affect wide segments of the financial industry.”
  • “The volume of products and services and the complexity of end-to-end processes for delivery in larger, complex banks are key drivers influencing the current level of operational risk. Insufficient monitoring and limited internal testing have failed to detect product and service delivery disruptions, resulting in slowed responses by banks and prolonged impact to customers. This condition is especially true of banks with legacy or disparate management information systems and risk management programs that may be ineffective.

The OCC also called for banks to address the compliance risks related to managing money laundering risks in an increasingly complex risk environment. The OCC stated that:

  • “The challenge for banks to comply with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements persists due to dynamism of money laundering and terrorism-financing methods. Also, bank offerings using new or evolving delivery channels may increase customer convenience and access to financial products and services, but banks need to maintain a focus on refining or updating BSA compliance programs to address any vulnerabilities created by these new offerings, which criminals can exploit.”
  • “In addition, BSA and anti-money laundering AML compliance risk management systems may not keep pace with evolving risks, constraints on resources, changes in business models, and an increasingly complex risk environment.”
  • “New and amended regulations strain bank change management processes and compliance management systems, which increases operational, compliance, and reputation risks. These changes include the integrated mortgage disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), as well as the new requirements under the amended regulations implementing the HMDA and the MLA.”
  • “Many banks face difficulties validating processes and systems that rely on software, automated tools, disclosure forms, and third-party relationships to process loan applications, create and distribute disclosures, and underwrite and close loans. Sound risk management practices should include maintaining processes and systems that are sufficient to identify covered borrowers and loan products, producing accurate calculations and required disclosures, and incorporating other required protections.”
  • “Some banks have difficulty fully and accurately implementing the significant system and operational changes necessary for the integrated mortgage disclosure forms—Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure—required for most mortgage loans secured by real property… Banks need consumer compliance risk management and audit functions sufficient to promote ongoing compliance with the regulation.”

The Supreme Court is considering a cert petition requesting that it hear the Lucia case, which we have blogged about extensively due to its potential impact on the outcome of the PHH case. Significantly, the DOJ recently filed a brief in the case siding against the SEC and with Lucia, who is challenging the constitutionality of how the SEC’s Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) are appointed.

Under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, an “inferior officer” must be appointed by the President, a court, or the head of a “department.” Lucia argues that  because the SEC’s ALJs are hired by the SEC’s Office of Administrative Law Judges and not appointed by an SEC commissioner, their appointments would be unconstitutional if they are “inferior officers. ”

In its brief, the DOJ acknowledged the course change on this issue, stating that, “In prior stages of this case, the government argued that the Commission’s ALJs are mere employees rather than ‘Officers’ within the meaning of the Appointments Clause. Upon further consideration, and in light of the implications for the exercise of executive power under Article II, the government is now of the view that such ALJs are officers because they exercise ‘significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.'”

Needless to say, it is extremely unusual for the DOJ to take up arms against another government agency like this. How it impacts the outcome of the Lucia case is yet to be seen. As we’ve explained in prior posts, the CFPB uses SEC ALJs to hear its administrative cases. So, if the Supreme Court hears the Lucia case and determines that ALJs are inferior officers, it will call into question every SEC and CFPB case that an ALJ decided. It may also impact how the en banc D.C. Circuit decides the PHH case.

We will continue to follow the issues and keep you posted.

The CFPB recently released a revised version of the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule Small Entity Compliance Guide.

The revised version incorporates the recent amendments to the rule that became effective on October 10, 2017.  Compliance with the amendments will be required for applications received on or after October 1, 2018.

The amendments also clarified that the separate escrow cancellation notice and partial payment disclosure requirements under Regulation Z will apply to all covered loans on October 1, 2018, regardless of when the application is received.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently entered into a consent order with Meridian Title Corporation (Meridian) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).

The CFPB found that Meridian is a title insurance agency that issues title insurance policies and provides loan settlement services in connection with residential mortgage transactions that are subject to RESPA. The CFPB also found that three of the eight owners of Meridian are the owners and executives of Arsenal Insurance Corporation (Arsenal), a title insurance underwriter.  As a result, the CFPB asserted that Meridian and Arsenal are in an affiliated business arrangement under RESPA.  The CFPB also asserted that because of the relationship between Meridian and Arsenal, in some cases when Meridian referred title insurance business to Arsenal as a title agent of Arsenal, Meridian was able to retain more than the standard commission provided for in its agency contract with Arsenal.

The CFPB concluded that Meridian violated the referral fee prohibition under RESPA section 8 when it “received things of value—money beyond Arsenal’s contractual commission allowance—pursuant to an agreement or understanding that it would refer business to Arsenal by recommending homebuyers to use its affiliated business Arsenal for title insurance.”

The CFPB also addresses an aspect of the affiliated business arrangement provisions of RESPA section 8 and Regulation X, the regulation under RESPA. Regulation X provides that an affiliated business arrangement does not violate RESPA section 8 when the three conditions of the affiliated business arrangement exemption are satisfied.  One of the conditions is that a written disclosure of the affiliated business arrangement be provided to a person being referred to a settlement service provider by the party making the referral.  The written disclosure commonly is referred to as an “affiliated business arrangement” disclosure or notice.  Generally, when the referral is made by a party other than a lender, the disclosure must be provided at or before the time of the referral.  The CFPB asserts that from 2014 to 2016, Meridian did not provide an affiliated business arrangement disclosure to consumers.  The CFPB did not expressly assert that the disclosure was not provided when Meridian referred consumers to Arsenal for title insurance business, but from the asserted facts that is the only context in which the disclosure would be required.

Meridian agreed to pay $1.25 million for the purpose of providing redress to affected consumers. Meridian also agreed to maintain and support a compliance oversight board committee to ensure that:

  • Meridian’s policies and procedures are reasonably designed to ensure compliance with RESPA, including affiliated business arrangement disclosure requirements;
  • All affiliated business arrangement disclosure forms are sent to consumers at or prior to the acceptance of any title or settlement order, where Arsenal is selected as the title insurance underwriter; and
  • All of Meridian’s executives and staff are trained in RESPA, including affiliated business arrangement disclosure form requirements and Meridian’s related compliance management system.

The consent order also addresses the responsibilities of Meridian’s board in connection with the order, and provides that the board “will have the ultimate responsibility for proper and sound management of [Meridian] and for ensuring [Meridian] complies with” the order.

A federal district court in Kentucky recently ruled against the CFPB in a long-standing case under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) involving a Louisville, Kentucky law firm Borders & Borders, PLC (Borders).  In the case, CFPB v. Borders & Borders, PLC, the court granted the summary judgment motion of Borders, finding that joint ventures related to Borders satisfied the statutory conditions of the RESPA section 8(c)(4) affiliated business arrangement exemption.  The court referred to the exemption as a “safe harbor”.  The CFPB had alleged that the joint ventures did not qualify for the safe harbor because they were not bona fide providers of settlement services.

Borders is a law firm that performs residential real estate closings, and also is an agent authorized to issue title insurance policies for a number of title insurers.  In 2006, the principals of Borders established nine joint venture title agencies with the principals of real estate and mortgage brokerage companies.  In February 2011, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notified Borders that it was investigating the firm for potential violations of the RESPA referral fee prohibitions based on the joint ventures.  (HUD was the federal agency responsible for interpreting and enforcing RESPA before such authority was transferred to the CFPB.)  Upon receipt of the notice, Borders ceased operating all of the joint ventures.

In October 2013 the CFPB filed a complaint against Borders asserting that the firm violated the RESPA referral fee prohibition through the establishment and operation of the joint ventures.  The CFPB asserted that Borders paid kickbacks to the principals of the real estate and mortgage brokerage companies that were disguised as profit distributions from the joint ventures, and that the kickbacks were for the referral of customers to Borders by the principals.

The CFPB claimed that the joint ventures were not subject to the affiliated business arrangement safe harbor under RESPA section 8(c)(4), which permits referrals and payments of ownership distributions among affiliated parties if the conditions of the safe harbor are met.  The conditions are that (1) when a person is referred to a settlement servicer provider that is a party to an affiliated business arrangement, a disclosure is made to the person being referred of the existence of the affiliated business arrangement, along with a written estimate of the charge or range of charges generally made by the provider to which the person is being referred, (2) the person is not required to use any particular provider of settlement services (subject to certain exceptions), and (3) the only thing of value that is received from the arrangement, other than payments otherwise permitted under RESPA section 8(c), is a return on the ownership interest or franchise relationship.

As noted above, the CFPB argued that the joint ventures did not qualify for the safe harbor because they were not bona fide providers of settlement services within the meaning of RESPA.  The statutory safe harbor for affiliated business arrangements contains no such condition.  The position that a joint venture must be a bona fide provider of settlement services to qualify for the safe harbor previously was asserted by HUD in statement of policy 1996-2 (the “Statement of Policy”).  HUD set forth factors that it would examine in assessing whether or not a particular joint venture is a bona fide provider of settlement services.

Although the CFPB did not expressly reference the Statement of Policy in its complaint against Borders, it addressed many of the same factors that HUD identified in the Statement of Policy.  The CFPB asserted that:

  • In most instances Borders provided the initial capitalization for the joint ventures, and the capital was comprised of only enough funds to cover a joint venture’s errors and omissions insurance.
  • Each joint venture had a single staff member, who was an independent contractor shared by all of the joint ventures and concurrently employed by Borders.
  • Borders’ principals, employees and agents managed the affairs of the joint ventures.
  • The joint ventures did not have their own office spaces, email addresses or phone numbers, and could not operate independent of Borders.
  • The joint ventures did not advertise themselves to the public
  • All of the business of the joint ventures was referred by Borders.
  • The joint ventures did not perform substantive title work—such work was performed by Borders.

With regard to the disclosure condition of the affiliated business arrangement safe harbor, the CFPB asserted that when Borders referred a customer to a joint venture, Borders “sometimes used a disclosure form intended to notify customers of a business affiliation between the owners of the law firm and  [the joint venture].”  The CFPB also asserted that the notice did not contain the ownership interest percentages in the joint venture or include a customer acknowledgment section, which are elements of the form of notice in Appendix D to Regulation X, the regulation under RESPA.

About a month after the CFPB filed its complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Carter v. Wells Bowen Realty, Inc., 736 F.3d 722 (6th 2013).  It appears the opinion of the court presented a hurdle that the CFPB could not clear in its case against Borders.  In the Carter case, private plaintiffs asserted that certain joint ventures did not qualify for the affiliated business arrangement safe harbor based on the bona fide settlement service provider requirement that HUD set forth in the Statement of Policy.  The court determined that the defendants satisfied the three statutory conditions of the affiliated business arrangement safe harbor, and based on this determination the court ruled in favor of the defendants.  The court refused to apply what it considered a fourth condition to the safe harbor asserted by HUD—that the entity receiving referrals must be a bona fide provider of settlement services.  The court stated that “a statutory safe harbor is not very safe if a federal agency may add a new requirement to it through a policy statement.”

The court in the Borders case stated that the joint ventures each had an operating agreement, were authorized to conduct business in Kentucky, were approved by a title insurer to issue title insurance policies, were subject to audit, had a separate operating bank account, had a separate escrow bank account, maintained an errors and omission insurance policy, issued lender’s and owner’s title insurance policies, had operating expenses, generated revenue, made profit distributions, filed tax returns, issued IRS K-1 forms and were solvent.  The court also stated that each of the joint ventures were staffed by the same individual, who worked from her home office and was categorized as an independent contractor.

Citing the Carter case, the court set forth the three statutory conditions of the affiliated business arrangement safe harbor.  The court determined that the joint ventures satisfied the three conditions.  With regard to the disclosure condition, the court determined that the provision of the disclosure by Borders to its customers at the closing of a real estate transaction was sufficient, because it was the first contact that Borders had with the customers, and that the customer then decided at the closing whether to accept the referral of title insurance to one of the joint ventures.  (The court had earlier noted in its opinion that customers had 30 days from the date of closing to decide whether to purchase owner’s title insurance from the joint venture.)  With regard to the deviation of the notice from the form notice in Regulation X, the court found the content of the Borders’ notice to be sufficient to meet the statutory notice condition.

The decision of the court that the delivery of the notice at closing was sufficient is raising more than a few eyebrows in the industry.  In any event, based on the determination that the three statutory conditions of the affiliated business arrangement were satisfied, the court granted Borders’ motion for summary judgment.  The court did not impose the fourth condition asserted by the CFPB that the joint ventures had to be bona fide settlement service providers.  It interesting that the court nonetheless decided to note various aspects of the joint ventures in an apparent attempt to demonstrate their legitimacy.

The CFPB can appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit, but if it does so the CFPB will have to face the hurdle of the Carter decision.  So the CFPB would need to assert one or more theories supporting why the Carter decision does not preclude a finding of a RESPA violation in the Borders case.

On June 7, the CFPB submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the D.C. Circuit in the PHH case.  In the letter, the CFPB embraced the fact that the Supreme Court’s recent Kokesh v. SEC decision makes the five-year statute of limitations in 28 USC § 2462 applicable to disgorgement remedies in CFPB administrative proceedings.  The CFPB asserted (incorrectly in our view) that Kokesh somehow obviated the applicability of RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations in the PHH case.

PHH forcefully responded to that argument in its reply letter.  It started with the point that § 2462’s limitation period applies “except as otherwise provided” by Congress. Because RESPA “otherwise provides” a three-year statute of limitations, § 2462 is inapplicable.  Next, it pointed out how unreasonable it is for the CFPB to assume that Congress would set one statute of limitations for judicial actions and another for administrative proceedings.  That “would destroy the certainty that Section 2614 was intended to provide,” it argued.  PHH also reminded the court of the CFPB Director’s holding in an earlier proceeding that no statute of limitations applies to administrative actions.  It chided the CFPB for trying to back away from that position at the “eleventh-hour.”

PHH also pointed out that “at the same time the CFPB argued in this Court that Section 2462 governs disgorgement, the Acting Solicitor General argued in Kokesh that it does not.  The CFPB’s freelancing merely underscores that the Director answers to no one but himself.”