- Posts by Brian TuretskyPartner
Brian is a partner at PIB Law and focuses his practice on the representation and counseling of financial services clients in litigation, investigations, compliance and regulatory matters, including banking and consumer ...
On June 16, 2018, the White House announced that President Trump intends to nominate Kathy Kraninger, an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), to be the next director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Kraninger would replace her boss at OMB, Mick Mulvaney, who has served as acting director of the CFPB since November. Mulvaney’s term as acting director ends on June 21, but he is permitted to continue to lead the bureau until a successor is confirmed under federal personnel rules. If a permanent director had not been nominated, Mulvaney would have been required to leave his post this month.
On June 4th, a coalition of fourteen (14) state attorneys general responded to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) request for comments and information regarding its public reporting practices of consumer complaint information, urging the CFPB to maintain the complaint database. The CFPB had issued a Request For Information (“RFI”) in the Federal Register to assist it in assessing potential changes that can be implemented. The 90 day comment period closed on Monday.
On May 30, 2018, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Fed”) announced proposed sweeping revisions to the regulations implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act (the “Volcker Rule”) which would ease rules restricting proprietary trading by insured banks. The proposal was developed in conjunction with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).
On May 22, 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a package of financial industry regulation changes that roll back measures implemented under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The bill, a version of which passed the Senate earlier this year and has been backed by the Trump Administration, passed by a 258-159 vote. Once signed into law, the bill will raise the capital requirement threshold that subjects financial institutions to stricter capital and planning requirements from $50 billion to $250 billion in assets. In doing so, the legislation will leave fewer than ten banks as systematically important – or “Too Big To Fail” -- and subject to stress tests and the “enhanced prudential standards” regarding liquidity, risk management, and capital requirements that were enacted in the wake of the financial crisis. The legislation allows the Federal Reserve to impose additional standards on financial institutions with $100 billion in assets. Financial institutions with $50 billion in assets will remain subject to other rules, including the Fed’s annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR).
On May 15, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential ruling in which it held that the time limit within which to challenge debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is not tolled by the discovery rule. The Court, in Kevin Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, et al., case No. 16-1668, disagreed with United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held that the time begins to run not when the violation occurs, but when it is discovered.
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018, the Senate passed a measure to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB's”) 2013 guidance prohibiting discrimination in auto lending (the “2013 Guidance”). In 2013, the CFPB issued a bulletin regarding compliance with the fair lending requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, for indirect auto lenders that permit dealers to increase consumer interest rates and that compensate dealers with a share of the increased interest revenues. The 2013 Guidance noted that that some indirect auto lenders had policies that permitted auto dealers to mark-up rates and that compensated dealers for those mark-ups. As a result of the policy incentives and the discretion permitted in the mark-ups, the CFPB concluded that there was a significant risk of pricing disparities on the basis of race, national origin, and other prohibited bases, in violation of ECOA.