Recently shares in a South Carolina lending business plummeted after the company disclosed it might face legal action from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Shares of World Acceptance Corporation (World), a Greenville-based company, dropped by almost $19, or 36 percent per share, to about $33. The company disclosed last year that it received a “civil investigative demand” from the CFPB. At that time, the agency said it was trying to determine whether the lender […]
Category: UDAAP
CFPB – FIRST SERVICING CONSENT ORDER
On September 29. 2014 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against Michigan-based Flagstar Bank for violating the new mortgage servicing rules contained in Section 1024 of Regulation X, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), by illegally blocking borrowers’ attempts to save their homes. The loans were primarily owned by investors and were serviced by Flagstar under contract. The consent order alleges the bank took excessive time to process borrowers’ applications […]
PROPOSED REPEAL OF REGULATION AA
On August 22, 2014 the Federal Reserve Board requested comment on a proposal to repeal its Regulation AA (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices). Also on Friday, the Board, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued guidance clarifying that the repeal of the credit practices rules applicable to banks, savings associations, and federal credit unions is not a determination that the […]
HUGE UDAAP PENALTY
The CFPB announced that Bank of America has agreed to pay $772 million in refunds and penalties for deceptive credit card practices. Please don’t stop reading just because the case involves a big bank and credit card issues. The deceptive practices in this case involved debt cancellation and identity theft monitoring products which may be a concern for banks of any size and for many products other than credit cards. A simple rule for deciding […]
REGULATION E CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES
Case 1 – In late July an Indiana bank was assessed a $70,000 penalty for engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by the imposition of requirements on consumers in the resolution of electronic transfer errors which were more onerous than those set forth in Regulation E, thereby effectively delaying, denying or discouraging error resolution claims. Case 2 – In mid-July a bank located in Kentucky was assessed a $100,000 penalty for engaging in unfair […]