Consumer Finance Law Blog : Consumer Finance Lawyer & Attorney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm : Financial Privacy & Security

Recent posts on this blog have discussed questions as to the continued viability of arbitration clauses that require consumer agreements to contain an arbitration clause and a waiver of the customer’s right to bring a class action. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court is to decide in the upcoming term whether agreements barring class-wide arbitration can be invalidated under State law, and Congress may kill mandatory arbitration in consumer finance transactions. This judicial and legislative trend to limit, and even eliminate, the use of arbitrations has been continued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its decision in Fensterstock v. Affiliated Computer Services, 09 CV 1562 (2d Cir. 7/12/10).

The Second Circuit struck down, under California law, the use of loan agreements that contain arbitration clauses and a waiver of the customer’s right to bring a class action. The Second Circuit held that a lawyer who sued a student loan company over alleged hidden fees in loan agreements cannot be forced into arbitration and can pursue a class action. The Second Circuit ruled that the loan agreement’s class action and class arbitration waiver clauses were unconscionable under California law because they are a “standard contract of adhesion drafted by a party that had superior bargaining power,” and, therefore, are unenforceable. “Such a clause presented to the weaker party on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without the opportunity for meaningful negotiation is, under California law, oppressive, and satisfied the requirement that there be at least a minimal showing of procedural unconscionability.” According to the Court, although the plaintiff was versed in complex financial transactions, there was nothing to suggest that he had any opportunity to negotiate that clause out of the contract. Further, applying the remainder of a three-part test under California law for determining whether a clause in a contract is unconscionable, the Court held that the disputes on the alleged damages “predictably involve small amounts of damages,” and the plaintiff alleged the two companies were “deliberately carrying out a scheme to cheat large numbers of borrowers out of individually small amounts of money.”

While the Second Circuit reiterated the Federal Arbitration Act’s and “Congress’ purpose in enacting the Federal Arbitration Act ‘to reverse the long standing judicial hostility to arbitration agreements . . . and to place arbitration agreements upon the same footing as other contracts[,]’” judicial hostility, at least as applied under California law, appears to remain. The Second Circuit’s interpretation of contract principles under California law, leading to its determination that the contract clauses were procedurally and substantively unconscionable, trumped the Federal Arbitration Act’s purpose and principles, like many courts seemingly do today. 

Whether the Supreme Court or Congress will continue that trend remains to be seen. Thus, companies that have consumer or employment contracts that contain such clauses should continue to seek to enforce them in court; however, remember that their enforceability may be significantly limited. As noted previously in this blog, companies should continue to monitor developments at the federal and state level, and re-examine their consumer or employment agreement’s arbitration and class action clauses to seek the best choice of law and jurisdiction for enforcement of such clauses. Please also remember to check back here for further updates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

President Obama will soon sign the final Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which the Senate passed last week. (Here is a comprehensive summary of the massive legislation.) However, in many ways, the battle over financial reform has just begun. While the law makes broad and comprehensive changes to the nation’s financial system regulatory structure, many more details will be added in the months and years ahead as the reorganized regulatory structure takes shape, the revamped regulatory processes established by the bill unfold, and the numerous studies mandated by the bill are conducted.

Many of the regulatory details expected will emanate from the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau will have independent authority but will be housed within the Federal Reserve system. It will serve as the primary regulator of financial products that reach consumers. Time magazine lists six consumer financial issues the Bureau could address first, including student loans, credit scores, and certain mortgages. However, there will be strong differing opinions on how, when, and in what areas the Bureau should focus its attention.

But before the Bureau can even begin to act, it needs to be created, staffed, and organized. The individual chosen to lead the Bureau out of the gate will have the opportunity to vastly influence the organization, culture, direction, scope and strength of the new regulator. The Washington Post reported today, following similar earlier reports, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as an early leading candidate for the position. Ms. Warren is a professor at Harvard Law School and chairs the oversight panel created by Congress to monitor the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Consumer protection groups already are strongly supporting her nomination. Others fear, however, that Ms. Warren does not have the organizational experience to lead the newly-created office. Among others with greater institutional experience purportedly being considered for the position are current Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr, and Eugene Kimmelman, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division and former lobbyist for Consumers Union.

Appointment of any of these candidates would send a clear message from the Obama administration that it intends to fully pursue the goal of an active consumer protection regulator. Financial service providers will have an opportunity to voice their concerns and opposition through the Senate confirmation process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 29, a group of 49 individual airline ticket purchasers filed suit to enjoin the proposed merger between Continental Airlines, Inc. and United Air Lines Inc., alleging that the deal would harm competition in the airline industry. The suit claims that the companies’ CEOs held “secret and private meetings” at which they discussed potential increases in prices and fares, charging of fees for previously free services, eliminating or curtailing services, and reducing the frequency of flights and number of available seats. The complaint claims that the merger, which would combine the third and fourth largest domestic carriers, will create a monopoly in ten U.S. airports, leave just two competitors in 120 U.S. airports, and create more concentrated markets in Washington, D.C., San Diego, Seattle, and New Orleans.

The deal is currently under review by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, which in May announced that “it would go over the merger with a fine-tooth comb to make sure it wouldn't hurt competition.” The deal has also drawn scrutiny from Congress. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings regarding the merger’s potential effect on competition. United States Representative James Oberstar (D. Minn.), chairman of the Transportation Committee, opined that the merger would harm competition, and noted that he would “explore legislation to stiffen regulation if the deal is approved.” The Consumer Travel Alliance testified that the merger would create a market with just three dominant airlines, which would be “a consumer nightmare.” In defense of the deal, the airlines’ CEOs expressed the view that the merger would not harm consumers because competition in the airline industry has heated up in recent years due in part to competition from new carriers such as Southwest Airlines, and since it has become easy for consumers to compare prices via online search portals like Expedia and Orbitz.

A case management conference has been set for October 14, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After working through the night, the Congressional conference committee tasked with negotiating a final financial reform bill voted 27-16 to approve the bill and send it back to each chamber for a final vote on the conference report.

Recaps of the long day and night of negotiations and the final bill are available from Poltico, the Wall Street Journal, and American Banker, among many others.

With regard to certain of the issues we have been following closely here, in the end, auto dealers will be exempt from the purview of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but payday lenders and other non-bank financial service providers will be subject to the new regulator. In addition, the Federal Reserve will be permitted to cap interchange fees, except for those on cards issued by governments.

The bill includes myriad other important provisions related to mortgage lending, the activities of banks, insurance regulation, corporate governance, and more. The Wall Street Journal provides an overview of some of the “major” provisions. Over the coming weeks and months we will be taking a closer look at certain aspects of the final bill and their implications, for example, increased litigation risk for financial service providers, including merchants and retailers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A conference committee comprised of members from both chambers of Congress has been meeting for the past two weeks to address differences between the House and Senate versions of financial reform legislation, with the Senate bill serving as the base text. Negotiators are trying to wrap up deliberations today in hopes of passing a final bill before the July 4 recess. This Reuters piece provides a summary of some of certain elements of the bill and how they are being addressed in conference. While some broad components have been resolved, several critical details regarding consumer financial protection remain unsettled.

Earlier this week the conferees reached agreement to accept the Senate bill’s proposal to place a new financial reform regulator within the Federal Reserve Board, as opposed to creating a new stand-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency envisioned by the House bill. Many congressional leaders have been critical of the Fed’s role in consumer protection leading up to the financial crisis. The new regulator, however, would function independent of the Fed management.

While this agreement was a necessary first step in the negotiations, the scope of the consumer protection authority is still being defined. For example, no agreement has yet been reached on whether or not auto dealers should be exempt from the new regulator’s oversight. The bill passed by the House exempted auto dealers but the Senate bill did not. The Senate conferees were asked by their chamber to pursue an exemption in conference negotiations. In doing so, Senate representatives have suggested exempting auto dealers from direct supervision by the new consumer regulator, but allowing the Federal Reserve to oversee such auto dealers with regard to truth-in-lending laws. Auto dealers, like GMAC, that provide their own financing would remain under the supervision of the new consumer regulator.

The fate of other non-traditional consumer financial service providers also has yet to be decided. The Senate conferees, in rejecting House proposals, have offered language to subject pawnbrokers and employee benefit plans to consumer regulatory oversight, while excluding payday lenders and check cashing agencies.

Finally, negotiations continue regarding the power of the FTC. The House asked to remove existing requirements that the FTC provide notice to Congress and develop evidence in advance of proposing new rules governing unfair and deceptive trade practices. The House proposal would allow the FTC to operate under the standard Administrative Procedures Act processes that employ a notice and comment rulemaking. Senate negotiators rejected that House proposed language, which also would: 1) give the FTC authority to issue civil penalties for unfair and deceptive trade practices without involving the DOJ; and 2) allow the FTC to act against third parties found to be assisting in unfair practices. No final agreement had been reached as of this writing.

The conferees have addressed many other provisions of the bill. A full rundown of the offers and agreements by title is provided by the Senate Banking Committee.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2007, Congress introduced legislation, entitled the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007, to amend the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to render unenforceable predispute arbitration provisions in, among other things, agreements concerning consumer transactions. The legislation permitted parties to consumer transactions to agree to arbitrate disputes but only after the dispute arose and required courts to decide any dispute concerning the validity or enforceability of an arbitration agreement even when the arbitration agreement required submission of issues concerning arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007 died in committee, but in 2009 was re-introduced in both the House as H.R. 1020 and the Senate, S. 931, as the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009. (See a previous post entitled “The End of the Arbitration Clause?” discussing recent court decisions and highlighting this pending legislation). To date, limited action has been taken on the respective bills.

While Congress has yet to act on broad amendments to the FAA, prohibition on mandatory arbitration clauses in connection with the provision of certain consumer financial products or services could be enacted as part of the sweeping Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 4173 (the “Wall Street Reform Act”). (See previous post on the Senate’s version of financial system regulatory reform legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act). Among other things, the Wall Street Reform Act would create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The director of the proposed Agency will have authority to:

Prohibit or impose conditions or limitations on the use of any agreement between a covered person [defined, with limitations, as any person who engages directly or indirectly in a financial activity in connection with the provision of a consumer financial product or service, (H.R. 4173, at § 4111)] and a consumer for a consumer financial product or service providing for arbitration of any future dispute between the parties if the Director finds that such a prohibition or imposition of conditions or limitations are in the public interest and for the protection of consumers. H.R. 4173, at § 4208.  

This legislation has passed both Houses of Congress and has been submitted to a Joint Conference Committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions. Assuming the final legislation includes a new consumer protection entity with authority to promulgate rules regulating arbitration in disputes related to consumer financial products or services, federal oversight of mandatory predispute arbitration provisions in agreements related to consumer financial products or services will likely come to fruition. That said, the creation of a new federal regulator would likely be time consuming and the promulgation of rules prohibiting arbitration would require, among other things, notice and comment. Thus, while it appears that the use of mandatory predispute arbitration provisions in agreements related to consumer financial products or services is at least headed for federal oversight, absent revival of the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, it will likely take several years before that federal oversight is in place.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of AT&T Mobility LLC (“ATTM”) in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893. ATTM’s petition asked the Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts states from conditioning the enforcement of an arbitration agreement on the availability of particular procedures – here, class-wide arbitration – when those procedures are not necessary to ensure that the parties to the arbitration agreement are able to vindicate their claims. 

In this consumer class action, plaintiff alleged that ATTM’s offer of a “free” cellular phone with the purchase of a new service contract was fraudulent to the extent the company charged the new subscriber a substantial sales tax on the retail value of each free phone. ATTM moved to compel the consumers to participate in arbitration, as required by the service agreement. The district court denied ATTM’s motion, finding that the provision of the arbitration agreement barring class actions was unconscionable under California law and therefore was unenforceable. The district court further held that California unconscionability law was not preempted by the FAA, which provides that arbitration agreements are valid except where they can be revoked on grounds that could also apply to invalidate an entire contract. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

In its cert petition, ATTM contended that the case presented an exceptionally important question, the resolution of which could lead to the invalidation of tens of millions of arbitration contracts under California law, if the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was upheld. ATTM argued that, even though its arbitration provision does not permit class arbitration, it gives consumers sufficient incentives to vindicate their claims on an individual basis and is therefore valid and not unconscionable. ATTM also argued that review was warranted because courts were divided on the issue and the decision below conflicted with the FAA and Supreme Court precedent. ATTM noted that the primary purpose of the FAA, as stated by the Supreme Court, is to ensure that private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms. ATTM also pointed to Supreme Court precedent holding that the FAA prohibits courts from imposing prerequisites to enforcement of arbitration agreements where those prerequisites are not applicable to contracts generally. Finally, ATTM argued that there is a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding state policies to the contrary.

How this issue is resolved could have a wide spread effect on companies sued in consumer class actions. For instance, a decision in favor of ATTM could be interpreted broadly to allow companies to limit their exposure to class actions simply by including a class action waiver in their arbitration agreements.  On the other hand, a ruling in favor of plaintiffs could result in many arbitral class action provisions being invalidated.

Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate last night passed its long-awaited version of financial system regulatory reform legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. In the coming weeks, each congressional chamber will select a group of lawmakers to negotiate a final bill. That bill will then need to be voted on again in both chambers before going to the President for his signature or veto. The process is expected to take at least a month.

The following are a handful of the more significant amendments considered by the Senate.

• Federal Preemption – As written, the bill would have allowed states to enact consumer protection laws more strict than their federal counterparts. By amendment, the Senate preserved federal preemption of state consumer financial protection laws, with preemption standards being determined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and reported to Congress. Also per this amendment, state attorneys general would be permitted to file civil lawsuits against state-charted institutions to enforce consumer financial protections.

• Definitions of Non-bank Institutions – The Senate passed an amendment without opposition that revises important definitions of non-bank financial institutions. This amendment seeks to limit the reach of the new consumer protection regulator with regard to non-bank financial companies to those companies that are “predominantly engaged” in providing financial services. In contrast, the underlying bill included broad language that would have allowed for regulation of nearly any company engaged in financial activities. In the Senate version, the new consumer regulator would only have authority over non-bank firms that receive at least 85 percent of their revenue from financial activities.

• ATM Fee Cap – The proposed amendment to limit the fees banks could charge on ATM transactions (discussed in an earlier post) did not receive a vote and therefore is not included in the final Senate bill.

• Interchange Fee Cap – The Senate adopted an amendment to allow the Federal Reserve to set limits on the fees charged to retailers by credit card companies for the processing of credit card transactions. The specific language, if included in a final bill, would allow the Federal Reserve to set “reasonable and proportionate” interchange charges – a threshold sure to provoke additional future battles. Institutions with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from such limits.

• Auto-dealer Exemption – An amendment proposed to exempt auto-dealers from the jurisdiction of the Senate’s proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strongly opposed by the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and the White House did not receive a vote before adoption of the bill.

• FTC Authority Preservation – The Senate passed without opposition the proposed amendment to revise the Consumer Protection Bureau provisions to allow the FTC to retain its existing rulemaking authority, carving it out of the new consumer protection regulator.

• Derivatives – The proposed provisions in the underlying bill that would require banks to spin off their derivative operations, strongly opposed by banks and the FDIC, was not taken up.

• Mortgage underwriting – This amendment, which would bar mortgage brokers and loan originators from receiving payments based on the terms of the loans they sell, was added to the bill. Under this amendment, lenders would be required to verify a borrower’s ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home’s value. Assessment of the ability to repay would have to be based on the maximum interest rate allowed in the first five years of the loan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 29, 2010, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed a consumer protection bill which requires gift card issuers to redeem the card, upon request, if the remaining value is $5 or less. In addition, it bans retailers, restaurants and others from selling gift cards that have any type of fee, including a service fee, a dormancy fee, an inactivity fee or a maintenance fee. This new law will apply to gift cards issued on or after August 11, 2010.

Under this law, “gift card” is defined as a prefunded tangible or electronic record of a specific monetary value evidencing an issuer’s agreement to provide goods, services, credit, money, or anything of value. A gift card includes a tangible card, electronic card, stored-value card, or certificate or similar instrument, card, or tangible record, all of which contain a microprocessor chip, magnetic chip, or other means for the storage of information and for which the value is decremented upon each use.

A gift card does not include a prefunded tangible or electronic record issued by, or on behalf of, any government agency, a gift certificate that is issued only on paper, a prepaid telecommunications or technology card, or a card that is donated or sold below face value at a volume discount to an employer or charitable organization for fundraising purposes. Likewise, a card or certificate issued to a consumer pursuant to an awards, loyalty, or promotional program for which no money or other item of monetary value was exchanged is expressly excluded from the definition of a gift card.

In addition, this new law does not apply to gift cards that are usable with multiple sellers of goods or services, but expressly applies to a gift card usable only with affiliated sellers of goods or services.

A violation of this new law will be deemed a violation of Colorado’s deceptive trade practice law.

Once the law is effective, Colorado will join a handful of other states with laws requiring redemption of gift cards with less than a certain cash value. Under California law, as just one example, any gift certificate with a cash value of less than $10 is redeemable in cash for its cash value.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If your company has suffered property damage or lost business as a result of recent catastrophic events – the extended closure of airspace due to volcanic ash from Iceland, the flooding of Nashville, Tennessee and surrounding areas, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico – help may be on the way. While some insurance companies are already taking the position that coverage is not available for these losses, recovery for some companies is in fact likely, under the business interruption coverage often found in a property insurance policy. Whether coverage exists may depend on the business interruption language contained in your policy.

Physical damage to a business, such as water damage to a store in Nashville, may not be the only type of loss your property insurance covers. Insurance often also covers loss of business income. For example, if a business was forced to close or stop production because of physical damage to property, the inability to access property, or in response to an evacuation or curfew order, business interruption insurance may help. Business interruption insurance may also cover losses resulting from the closure of an insured company’s key supplier or customer, if that closure caused the insured company to stop or slow production. And that may be true even if the insured company is hundreds of miles away from the physical damage.

For further information about business interruption coverage for losses suffered as a result of the recent volcanic ash, flooding, or oil spill, and tips on how to maximize the chances of insurance recovery, please see the recent advisory prepared by Kelley Drye's Insurance Recovery attorneys.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate is expected to soon consider placing a fifty-cent per transaction cap on ATM fees, as an amendment to the financial reform bill. The proposed amendment, introduced last week by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), is an effort to regulate ATM fees by “ensur[ing] that fees charged to consumers at ATMs bear a reasonable relation to the cost of processing the transaction.” By Senator Harkin’s calculations, each ATM transaction today costs only about 36 cents, yet on average, consumers pay an average of over $2.50 to use ATMs.

Whether there should be a cap on ATM fees has been a topic of debate for years. For a recent discussion of these opposing views, see the article Senators Push for a Cap of 50 Cents on ATM Fees, printed by AOL Daily Finance. On the one hand, consumer groups have lobbied for the elimination of ATM fees, arguing that it is unfair to charge consumers to access their own money. In addition, proponents of the amendment contend that banks and ATM operators are charging far above the amount of their operating and maintenance costs. 

On the other hand, critics of the amendment question whether banks are being unfairly targeted as a result of the current economic climate and wonder whether the proposed amendment would serve consumers’ bests interests. Capping fees could lead to independent ATM operator companies going out of business, the elimination of ATMs in less-traveled areas, the slowing of technological updates to ATMs, a ban on non-bank customers from using their ATMs, or increased charges for other bank services to offset bank losses.

Previous attempts by states to eliminate or limit ATM fees have been blocked by federal court rulings that local bans could not be imposed on banks with national charters.

We will keep you posted as the amendment makes its way through the Senate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Recently, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz released the FTC’s 2010 Annual Report, which focused largely on the FTC’s endeavors to defend financially distressed consumers and to spur competition during these tough economic times.

For example, the FTC, among other things, emphasized that while the past year’s economic downturn prompted companies to offer new services targeted towards those most in need, some of these companies failed to deliver on these services. The FTC obtained preliminary or temporary relief in all twenty-two federal lawsuits filed against operators who allegedly falsely asserted they would obtain a loan modification or halt a foreclosure on consumers’ behalf. Typically, the operator allegedly was paid a high initial fee by the consumer, and then did little or nothing to help to modify the loan or halt foreclosure.

In order to maximize its efforts, the FTC indicated that it has renewed its efforts to partner with state and local enforcement agencies. The FTC secured relief through its participation in ten mortgage fraud task forces all over the nation. For example, the FTC entered into an $8.5 million settlement with a foreclosure “rescue” company, which precludes the company from making representations about the likelihood that it could stop a foreclosure. The FTC had alleged that the company collected high fees from consumers often exceeding $1,000, but did not endeavor to help them to avoid foreclosure.

The FTC also announced that in settling five Federal Credit Reporting Act suits (four of which were against users of credit reports and one of which was against a Credit Reporting Agency), the FTC obtained $447,000 in civil penalties and $157,000 in suspended penalties. In two of these actions, the FTC alleged that the users made adverse employment decisions predicated on background checks without notifying them of their rights under the FCRA.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Senate, after spending last week engaged in procedural battles, will enter full scale debate this week on that chamber’s version of a financial reform package. This morning Congress Daily provided a brief preview of the debate. Several amendments affecting consumer protection are expected, including relating to the proposed new bureau to oversee consumer finance issues. As just one example, an effort to preserve federal preemption of state authority is certain to be renewed. To read one take on the consumer protection aspects of the bill, including as it relates to credit card reform and the role of the new consumer finance agency, check out a recent article from Forbes Magazine, which quotes Kelley Drye attorney and co-editor of this blog John McGuinness. As Mr. McGuinness notes, there is still significant ambiguity in the language and purpose of the consumer protection provisions that could lead to significant regulatory and litigation risk for consumer financial service providers.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (“Jerman”) (Docket 08-1200) that resolves a circuit split regarding the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s bona fide error defense and disposes of a key defense to FDCPA liability for debt collector defendants.

The FDCPA’s “bona fide error” defense allows a debt collector defendant to avoid liability for FDCPA violations if it “shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.” 15 U.S.C. §1692k(c). While the majority view has been that this defense is available for clerical and factual errors only, a number of circuits, including the Sixth Circuit, have held that it also applies to mistakes of law so long as the debt collector had reasonable procedures in place to avoid such mistakes, such as ongoing FDCPA training, procuring the most recent case law, and/or having lawyers dedicated to ensuring FDCPA compliance.

In 2006, Jerman brought a class action complaint against the defendant debt collector, a law firm, alleging that the firm’s debt validation notice violated the FDCPA by misinforming debtors that any dispute of a debt must be made in writing. The firm moved to dismiss, arguing that debt disputes do need to be in writing and that the notice was therefore accurate. The district court, while acknowledging some divergence of authority on the issue, held that the FDCPA does not require disputes to be in writing and that the notice was deceptive in violation of the Act. The firm then moved for summary judgment, arguing that its violation was the result of an honest mistake of law and thus a bona fide error. The firm provided evidence of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such mistakes, including a firm lawyer dedicated to ensuring FDCPA compliance, regular attendance of debt collection CLE’s, and subscriptions to relevant legal periodicals. The district court entered summary judgment in the firm’s favor, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that a mistake of law can qualify as a bona fide error under the FDCPA.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jerman reverses the Sixth Circuit, holding that a mistake of law, no matter how genuine, can never qualify as a bona fide error. The Court cited the long recognized legal maxim that that “ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally.”

The decision should be a warning to all debt collectors and law firms regularly engaged in debt collection. As Justice Kennedy noted in his dissenting opinion, “[a]fter [yesterday’s] ruling, attorneys can be punished for advocacy reasonably deemed to be in compliance with the law or even required by it.” No matter what procedures such firms have in place to ensure accurate FDCPA compliance, mistakes of law will not be excused. Debt collectors and lawyers for debt collectors should take special care to keep abreast of FDCPA case law and legal developments, and where there are splits of authority, err on the side of caution.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month, two subsidiaries of American International Group (“AIG”) agreed to pay $7.1 million to settle claims by the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) that the companies unlawfully charged African American borrowers higher mortgage fees over a period of three years as compared to white borrowers. In United States of America v. AIG Federal Savings Bank, 99-mc-09999 (D. Del.), DOJ alleged that from 2003 to 2006, AIG Federal Savings Bank (“AIG FSB”) and Wilmington Finance, Inc. (“WFI”) failed to cap the fees which affiliated brokers could charge to borrowers, and failed to monitor the fee amounts charged. DOJ further alleged that during this time, African American borrowers were charged fees on average 20 basis points higher than total broker fees paid by similarly situated white borrowers. In some metropolitan areas, DOJ alleged the discrepancy rose to the level of 75 basis points.

The consent order requires AIG FSB and WFI to pay $6.1 million to compensate roughly 2,500 African American borrowers who were overcharged, and to contribute at least $1 million towards programs designed to provide financial education to consumers. AIG FSB and WFI also represented that they have exited the wholesale-lending business and agreed that if they seek to return, they must notify the government and change their business practices.

 The AIG settlement is the largest monetary settlement ever obtained by DOJ for the compensation of victims of lending discrimination. Thomas Perez, the DOJ assistant attorney general for civil rights, stated that this is the first time DOJ has held a lender accountable for allegedly discriminatory conduct by its affiliated brokers, and warned that if need be, this will not be the last time. He further remarked that the prior administration made no meaningful effort to crack down on racially discriminatory lending, which contributed to the current national housing and economic crisis. Mr. Perez announced that there are 45 pending cases along the same lines, and that "lenders who ignored the discriminatory practices of brokers must be held accountable."

Other federal and state regulators are expected to take similar steps. For example, Robb Adkins, executive director of the Obama Administration's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), stated that the settlement should be seen as a "warning shot" to those who would engage in fraud or discrimination, and that the FFETF, comprised of representatives from a variety of federal and state regulatory and law enforcement bodies, is redoubling its efforts to prosecute similar conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) released a revised financial regulatory reform bill, which would create the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The Bureau would be housed in the Federal Reserve, however, it would have a separate budget and an autonomous governance structure.

Consumer protection has been a major sticking point since the reform debate kicked off last year. While the House passed a bill that would achieve the Obama administration’s original goal of setting up a stand alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the prospects for such an agency in the Senate bill were never quite as good. From the start Republican members of the Banking Committee strongly opposed creating a new agency. Despite agreement on several other key principles, some of which are included in the bill released today, the two sides could not settle on an agreement regarding the structure and scope of the consumer protection agency.

For weeks different stories were reported about how and where the consumer protection organization would be housed. However, the authorities and responsibilities granted to the Bureau received much less attention. With the bill now out, financial service providers can begin to understand how the Senate bill could impact them. For example, with regard to consumer protection, the bill grants the Bureau broad rulemaking and enforcement authority and transfers to it most of the existing consumer protection functions of existing regulators. It also preserves state rights to enact more stringent consumer protection laws.  Finally, the bill proposes a rulemaking process to establish the definition of nondepository institutions covered by the Bureau's authority.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link