Categories
Business Growth Compliance Featured

Staying Ahead of the CFPB Arbitration Rule

Mark Rappaport President Simplicity Division EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Mark Rappaport
President
Simplicity Division
EFG Companies

When the CFPB was created, the Dodd-Frank law gave the CFPB authority to study mandatory, predispute arbitration agreements. Before the CFPB could do anything, they needed to conduct this study, report to Congress, and then propose whatever rule they deemed in the consumer’s best interest.

Last summer, the CFPB proposed a rule that would limit finance companies’ ability to use mandatory predispute arbitration agreements. Under the proposed rule, consumers would not be prohibited from participating in a class-action law suit. The CFPB also put a provision in the proposed rule that would require companies to report individual arbitration awards to the CFPB.

On July 10, 2017, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced its final version of the rule on arbitration. The final rule has almost all of the exact same provisions as the proposed version from last summer.  The rule specifically states that while finance companies may use arbitration agreements, they are prohibited from preventing consumers from engaging in a class action law suit.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 231 – 190 to revoke the rule, using authority under the Congressional Review Act. A similar resolution is on tap to be debated in the Senate in the coming weeks.

While the rule is currently under debate, lenders everywhere await very eagerly for the final outcome. In the auto finance industry, the rule could put both dealers and lenders at a greater risk for class-action law suits.

Categories
Uncategorized

CFPB – A Year in Review

Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

A lot has happened with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the past year. From large settlements to court rulings, the CFPB brought itself under the spotlight.

Let’s start at about this time last year. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1737, the “Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act” with a strikingly majority vote of 332-92. The piece of legislation would direct the CFPB to amend how it issues guidance to indirect auto lenders by:

  • providing a public notice and comment period before issuing the guidance in final form;
  • making publicly available all information relied on by the CFPB, while also redacting any information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;
  • consulting with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice; and,
  • study the costs and impacts of the guidance to consumers, as well as women-owned and minority-owned small businesses.

In addition, the bill would nullify the CFPB’s “Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Bulletin”. This bulletin instructed lenders to either eliminate dealer pricing discretion, or constrain dealer pricing discretion by monitoring dealership practices and using “controls” to force dealerships to adjust their practices.

Categories
Compliance

Staying Vigilant on Compliance

Karen Klees, Certified Consumer Credit Compliance Professional

 

Contributing Author: Karen Klees, Certified Consumer Credit Compliance Professional, EFG Companies

The auto industry won a small victory over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in November when the House passed the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act. In its current form, this piece of legislation directs the CFPB to amend how it issues guidance to indirect auto lenders by:

  • Providing a public notice and comment period before issuing the guidance in final form;
  • Making publicly available all information relied on by the CFPB, while also redacting any information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act;
  • Consulting with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Department of Justice; and,
  • Studying the costs and impacts of the guidance to consumers, as well as women-owned and minority-owned small businesses.