On March 31, CFPB Director Richard Cordray issued an order directing the Bureau’s Office of Administrative Adjudication to withdraw a February 13 notification informing the parties that the administrative proceeding against an online payday lender and its CEO (Respondents) had been submitted for a final decision by the CFPB. The order noted that while the withdrawal “delay[s] [the] resolution of this appeal,” Director Cordray believed it to be appropriate in that it “help[s] minimize unnecessary or duplicative proceedings and . . . facilitate[s] a more efficient resolution of this matter.”
The March 31 order follows a March 9 order in which parties were directed to file statements indicating whether they objected to the withdrawal of the notification. The parties offered differing opinions in their responses. In their March 24 filing, Respondents agreed generally with the Bureau’s reasons for withdrawal but sought clarification on the timing of the “proposed re-notification in this matter” and, furthermore, stressed that that re-notification should only be made once the cases of PHH Corp v. CFPB, Lucia v. SEC, and Bandimere v. SEC have been resolved by their respective courts. A three-judge panel had previously ruled in PHH that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional and that the Bureau’s interpretations of the kickback prohibitions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and RESPA’s statute of limitations provisions were erroneous. The full court granted the CFPB’s petition in February 2017 and explicitly vacated the panel’s decision (see previously posted Special Alert). Conversely, the Enforcement Counsel’s filing “respectfully” objected to the withdrawal of the notice “because resolution of the PHH matter will not determine the resolution of this proceeding and . . . any delay would be inefficient and would exacerbate the harm to affected consumers.”
Last September, administrative law judge, the Hon. Parlen L. McKenna, recommended civil money penalties against Respondents totaling over $13 million as well as restitution of over $38 million to be paid to affected consumers. It further affirmed the CFPB’s allegations that the Respondents deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans, thereby violating the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices. Following the recommended decision, the Respondents filed a notice of appeal.