Morrison & Foerster’s Initial Take on the CFPB’s Debt Collection Outline

On July 28, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”) issued its outline of proposals under consideration for the regulation of debt collection. This 117-page release, entitled “Small Business Review Panel for Debt Collector and Debt Buyer Rulemaking: Outline of Proposals Under Consideration and Alternatives Considered” (“Outline”), was announced in connection with the CFPB’s field hearing on debt collection in Sacramento, California (“Field Hearing”). The Outline is in preparation for the convening of a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act Panel (“SBREFA Panel”), a process mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act for CFPB rules anticipated to have a significant … Read more

Morrison & Foerster discusses FDIC’s Release of Proposed Third-Party Lending Guidance

On July 29, 2016, the board of directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released a proposal regarding third-party lending guidance (“Proposed Guidance”) as part of a package of materials designed to “improve the transparency and clarity of the FDIC’s supervisory policies and practices.” The Proposed Guidance elaborates on previously issued agency guidance on managing third-party risks[1] and, if finalized, could apply to all FDIC-supervised institutions that engage in third-party lending programs.

The Proposed Guidance affirms that an institution’s board of directors and senior management are responsible for managing, identifying and controlling the risks associated with lending activities … Read more

Morrison & Foerster discusses Supreme Court Decision Allowing Agencies to Reinterpret the Law at Their Discretion

In a decision published on March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ended the D.C. Circuit Court’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which required administrative agencies to utilize the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment process in order to substantially alter an interpretation. See Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc., 575 U.S. ___, No. 13-1041, slip op. (March 9, 2015). According to the Court, this doctrine improperly imposed procedural requirements on agencies that are not required by the APA.

Pursuant to the APA, legislative rulemaking requires a period for notice and comment by industry stakeholders because, unlike interpretive rules, a legislative rule has … Read more