In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by partner Glen Trudel to discuss a recent appellate court decision affirming that a group of securitization trusts “engaged” in a known “consumer financial product or service”, and therefore are subject as covered persons to the enforcement authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This decision could potentially expose similarly situated securitization trusts to the jurisdiction and enforcement authority of the CFPB. Chris and Glen discuss the court’s rationale for the holding and delve into the implications of this ruling, including the potential for increased regulatory scrutiny and the need for trusts to ensure compliance with consumer laws relating to the loan assets they hold. They also discuss potential changes in the terms of future securitization documentation and the importance of due diligence and monitoring of service providers. The episode concludes with a discussion on the significance of this ruling in the legal landscape for securitization trusts and whole loan owners.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

In this episode of Payments Pros, Carlin McCrory is joined by Nathan Ottinger, president of Georgia Banking Company’s Payments and Technology Banking Group. They delve into the current state of the payments marketplace, characterized by heightened regulatory scrutiny and rapid innovation. Nathan underscores the importance of well-documented risk management strategies for financial institutions and the necessity for businesses to secure proficient legal counsel, particularly in the realm of money transmission.

On June 3, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rule requiring covered nonbanks to register enforcement orders, and it is a doozy. Not only will covered nonbanks be required to register public orders issued by agencies and courts with the CFPB, but they will have to go back to 2017. And not only will the CFPB publish the orders, but a large subgroup will have to certify on a yearly basis their full compliance with the orders or make a self-disclosure to the CFPB of any compliance failures. This rule has obvious major consequences for any covered person caught in its web, making the exact ambit of the rule crucial. Given the final rule clocks in at a whopping 486 pages, this post will attempt to provide a roadmap through the rule, focusing on what is required and who is covered.

Dear Mary,

I work in the IT department of a mid-sized company that recently detected a security incident. Everyone is freaking out – minus me. My manager asked our IT team to investigate the incident. But the incident is already contained, and business is back to normal. Why do we need to investigate further? Like seriously, why? And if we do need to investigate further, should I be doing this? I’ve been in IT for a while, and I have never been in this situation before.

– Forensic Forgoer in Florida

On May 30, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a request for information (Request) regarding alleged “junk fees” in closing costs charged by mortgage lenders and related settlement service providers. The Bureau is accepting public comments until August 2, 2024.

On May 29, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) announced a targeted foreclosure moratorium on VA-guaranteed loans intended to allow servicers sufficient time to implement the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase (VASP) program. Servicers may begin implementing the VASP program beginning May 31, 2024, and the VA expects servicers will fully implement the program no later than October 1, 2024.