On June 28, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB, or the Bureau) issued its Final Rule amending RESPA Regulation X to provide significant foreclosure protections to borrowers.
Continue reading
Continue Reading Update: CFPB Finalizes Pandemic Mortgage Servicing Rules
Welcome to the Spring 2021 issue of Greenberg Traurig’s Financial Services Insights Newsletter. This newsletter reviews certain significant cases and legal developments affecting the financial services industry.
On May 4, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau) released two new reports that double down on its message in early April 2021 that the Bureau
Continue Reading CFPB Reiterates Focus on Mortgage Industry COVID-19 Response, Highlights Fair Servicing Concerns
Over the last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) has sharpened its focus on the mortgage servicing industry. Knowing that millions of mortgage borrowers will exit
Continue Reading CFPB Intensifies Focus on Pandemic Mortgage Servicing
On Sept. 25, 2020, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL), which was passed by the California Legislature Aug. 31, 2020. The
Continue Reading California’s Adoption of ‘Mini-CFPB’ Will Transform Consumer Financial Services Regulation in the State
On Jan. 31, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its long-awaited ruling in the PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, finding that
Continue Reading D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that CFPB Structure is Constitutional, but Rejects the CFPB’s Interpretations of RESPA
With the announcement of Richard Cordray’s resignation as Director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by the end of November 2017, the latest D.C. guessing game is who
Continue Reading Richard Cordray Resigns — Who’s going to mind the CFPB store?
Gil Rudolph, co-chair of the Financial Regulatory and Compliance Practice, and Lori S. Nugent, shareholder, will participate in the Conference on Consumer Finance Law Annual Consumer Financial
Continue Reading Greenberg Traurig’s Gil Rudolph and Lori S. Nugent Participate at CCFL’s Annual Consumer Financial Services Conference
On Feb. 16, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the request for en banc review by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the PHH
Continue Reading U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit Vacates Panel Decision in PHH v. CFPB, Grants Rehearing En Banc
In a 110-page decision issued on Oct. 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director structure unconstitutional and vacated a $103 million fine against PHH. The Court found that the current structure allows the Commissioner to wield too much power that is unchecked by any other part of government. To remedy this concern, the Court severed the “for cause” provision from the statute, placing the agency under the direct supervision of the president. The Court also vacated the Order against PHH, finding that the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA violated PHH’s due process rights in several respects. First, the Commissioner erred in disregarding long-standing guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognizing that Section 8 of RESPA allows captive reinsurance arrangements so long as the amount paid by the mortgage insurer for the reinsurance does not exceed the reasonable market value of the reinsurance. The Court declared that Section 8 shall continue to have the meaning ascribed to it by HUD. Secondly, in calculating the penalty against PHH, the Commissioner had improperly included loans that had closed more than three years prior to the action. The Court rejected the CFPB argument that it was not subject to any statute of limitations, and ruled that the agency was subject to the three-year limitations period that has traditionally applied to agency actions to enforce RESPA.
As we wrote about previously, this case stems back to a June 2015 CFPB order in which CFPB Director Richard Cordray singlehandedly increased a $6 million fine levied by an administrative law judge against PHH for allegedly referring consumers to mortgage insurers in exchange for kickbacks in violation of the Real Estate Procedures Act (RESPA). The ALJ’s fine was based upon loans closed on or after July 21, 2008.. PHH appealed that ruling to the Director. Cordray issued a final order that required PHH to disgorge $109 million – all the reinsurance premiums it received on or after July 21, 2008.On appeal, PHH challenged Cordray’s authority to levy the additional fine and challenged the constitutionality of the CFPB itself.