4 Burst results for "cordray administration"
"cordray administration" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"Okay. Well now we're going to get into the question. And i want to talk about Ah what i perceive to be a widely perpetuated mantra that you hear throng Senators and congress. Pete persons on the hill Usually on the democrat side And what you hear from consumer advocacy groups all the time. Then during the caffeine manager era Not a hell of allow when on that. She was a. She was captive to the consumer finance industry. The big banks and and she did virtually nothing particularly in the area of enforcement and that out Our clients have been able to take maximum advantage of that Add to the detriment of consumer. So that's what you hear all the time. Chris what do you say to that. Yeah what i say is just not true. You know i mean we of course experienced the workings of this agency on a daily basis. Both in enforcement matters that may eventually become public and in supervisory matters that stay confidential because of confidential supervisory information and the demand which those are handled but the statement this cfp be is sort of in the lap of industry and is doing nothing to protect consumers is completely inconsistent with the reality of what the bureau has been doing over the last several years on the enforcement side. There's been a significant uptick in enforcement activity over the last two years and not just in terms of number of cases but the cfpb has brought some very innovative cases. That are pushing the envelope. I think so. For example you saw the cfpb come out with a brand new theory extending the concept of mortgage redlining to a non bank mortgage lender that was an affiliate of real estate brokerage. That had never been done. The cordray cfpb never did that. The civil rights division of the doj under obama never did that. That was something this cfp did. We also saw the very first instance of a litigated enforcement. Action being filed against a large bank. Which was a fair credit billing. Act matter f- Filed against a large bank earlier in two thousand and twenty so to say that this is a bureau that is not doing any enforcement is just not so but then there's a lot of activity also going on and supervision where it's not that readily visible to the public is it's visible to us. Because of our work with clients the industry but examinations have proceeded with zero change from the way that they existed under the cordray administration. And the examiners find just as many violations require remediation required changes in policies documents and communications..
"cordray administration" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"Our entire Consumer Financial Services Group, and he devotes a very large part of his practice. To handling. Consumer finance enforcement matters particularly at the CFP both during the cordray administration and. All the way through. To the Kathy Cranach or leadership probably is handled Morrissey PB investigations, lease, anybody else that I know also focused a lot on consulting with clients on our wide range of consumer finance matters so. The way we're going to proceed today is I'm GONNA pose a bunch of questions to prentice prentiss house to say and then give Chris the opportunity to respond, and hopefully we'll get a little dialogue going between China's in Chris who I think may have a different point of view on some of the subjects we're gonNA cover. So first of all Prentiss a given the the seal of walk case and the decision of the Supreme Court which will enable the president of the United States, whoever he or she might be to remove the director of at will you know for good causes back there are no cause at all. Do you see that the baby is going to be moving back and forth between various physicians in the future? As administrations change. And is that desirable or undesirable and should anything be done to fix that? If you think it's a problem. I don't and thanks for inviting me Allen for starters and Chris. I don't see this is that big a deal I mean, of course, in the short run, it has the ironic effect of meaning that Biden can quickly replace the trump appointment so. So the net effect of the of the industry lawsuit was to hasten a democratic appointment But that's how that's how it goes. When you make decisions three years in advance through a law said I you know, I, I, don't think it has a big impact. The idea behind the staggering of the term was to was much done including the financing through the Fed to reduce political pressure because of the extraordinary a power of the financial institution industries in Congress, and so the idea was by staggering the term by. you know that you would be one of the tactics used to reduce political pressure on the agency bottom line though is there was always going to the agency was GONNA turn every five years. Now it's going to turn every four years synchronous with the election and I it's the problem you highlight. Moving from one pole to the other regulatory approach was going to exist. Anyway, it was just a matter of timing the alternative to that. Of course, was the commission and That has it's an and I I was fairly agnostic about it. There's pluses and minuses to both the commission as you see with the FTC, which is the closest Santa Log smooths things out means the agency you know the the likely result is the agency stays within a narrow band of enforcement The downside of that of course is the agency stays within a narrow band of enforcement. So from the point of view of consumer advocates you know doesn't become a very I it doesn't doesn't serve as that government counterbalance to the control of the market So you know I I don't see a big deal is the bottom line I really don't I think the biggest deals a short term effect in cutting short. Term if Biden prevails in the election and takes office, right? Well what do you think Chris?.
"cordray administration" Discussed on Consumer Finance Monitor
"Of great importance to the financial services community and that is the CFP B.'S. Potential rulemaking under section ten seventy one of dodd-frank section seventy one required the PB to create a regulation that requires the collection and reporting of data relating to small business lending. That's roughly similar to what is required under the home mortgage disclosure act. Which of course is collected and used for fair lending monitoring and enforcement and I'm very fortunate today to be joined by John Shaw from democracy forward. He was actually the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that was filed against the CFP which resulted in a recent settlement that a set forth. Now what seems to be a definitive timeline? For the CFPB's rulemaking Nathan. Thanks for joining us and welcome to the PODCAST. Hi Chris thanks so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. Well I want to have the opportunity to get you to tell our listeners about the lawsuit in the settlement. But I can you tell me a little bit about your organization democracy forward and then who your client was in the lawsuit with the CFPB and what that organization is absolutely democracy? Forward is a nonprofit organization founded in two thousand seventeen and what we are basically is a bunch of administrative law nerds who have come together. Because of a view that the trump administration particular has engaged in a number of lawful acts. And what we seek to do is to hold the administration accountable for that in court whenever they've engaged awful activity and where expert real people and that certainly we think the case with regard to the administrations and the bureaux failure to implement section ten seventy one and so as a result of that we brought this lawsuit and we're very happy with the settlement that we've obtained on behalf of our clients. They are the California reinvestment coalition the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders and also to individuals small business owners the to nonprofit organizations or nonprofits based in the is based in San Francisco. Now cab is based in San Antonio Texas. They're both dedicated to facilitating capital access for low and moderate income communities and especially communities of color. So what they do is they work directly with financial institutions including CDFI's and community organizations to try to ensure that these organizations have access to the resources they need to continue to try to eradicate discrimination in lending and to ensure equal capital access now in order to do that what they need data. They need to be able to identify where there are areas of needs and opportunities for lending both to minority owned businesses. Women owned businesses and to small businesses. And that's exactly what section ten seventy one exists to do. It exists to ensure that data exists to facilitate the enforcement of fair lending laws and to identify areas where credit desert's exists whether as a result of redlining and historical discriminatory practices are other market-based failures. And so without that data. It's much harder for them to be able to do their jobs. And ensure that low and moderate income communities have access to capital and. I think it's worth pointing out that even though the issues that you're concerned with here and that we're talking about here relate to business lending the equal credit opportunity act applies to business lending just as much as it does to consumer lending most of our listeners are probably very interested in consumer finance but the Equal Credit Opportunity Act unlike many other consumer protection laws does apply to small business lending. That's exactly right. It sure does and you know the. There's there's historically been an enforcement gap And a real challenge identifying exactly where these credit desert's exists however there has been some additional research that's been undertaken especially by folks at the University of Utah. School of business. Where they've they've found that there is a very substantial amount of lack of access to capital for small businesses throughout the country and those problems are especially exacerbated where the entrepreneurs are operating in low and moderate income communities and as we all know of course. Small businesses are engines of American economic growth. They provide substantial amount of the employment in this country and so it really provides an opportunity for financial institutions to to really Identify where they can be doing. A better job of serving customers and expand their businesses and of course also helps the American economy. Continue to grow as well. So there is a section in Dodd. Frank passed in two thousand ten section ten seventy one that authorized the consumer financial protection bureau to create this data collection rule for that would include presumably race ethnicity and other types of protected class information relating to small business lending and the. Pb has not today at least done much in connection with that rulemaking. The cordray administration didn't do it and it didn't seem like there was much progress. Going on under Kathy cranberries directorship. And so you brought a lawsuit on behalf of your clients related to this. Can you tell our listeners? A little bit about the lawsuit like what what was the claim being asserted in what we're relief was being sought in the lawsuit. Yeah and just as background. This is We believe the last remaining provisions of the Dodd Frank Act from two thousand eleven that imposes a mandatory duty on the bureau to engage in rulemaking. We think this is the last mandatory rulemaking that the bureau has just dragged its feet on for going on nine years now and so. It's pretty remarkable in that respect and you're right a rule do not come out during the cordray administration as well. They did take some substantial steps towards doing so the issued an Roi a few years ago that a request for information that resulted in thousands of comments being submitted and views of industry and other stakeholders being heard they were making progress towards issuing a rule. And unfortunately what appears to have been the case that progress ground to a halt wants director cordray laughed and acting director? Mulvaney took over. It appears if the team simply reassigned to other matters as the bureau admitted in his lawsuit effectively posit rulemaking proceedings which is ultimately the impetus for the lawsuit that we brought a lawsuit that we brought his under a statute. I mentioned that we're a bunch of administrative law nerds so our Bible is the administrative procedure. Act which is the statute through which most agency actions can challenged normally under that statute a prerequisite to filing suit is final agency action in other words. You can't file your lawsuit. Until until the agencies issued its final rule one exception to that is is section seven zero six one of the APA which permits you to file a lawsuit for agency action. That's been unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. And so if you file suit under that you have to show that it's an agency action at the agency's actually required to take by law. It can't just be discretionary action and the relief you can obtain through filing a suit under that provision is a judicial order requiring the agency to do what is required to do in other words the relief we thought here on behalf of our plaintiffs was an order from the judge saying within a certain timeframe you have to issue a final rule implementing section ten seventy one and finally implement this long delayed requirement that Congress put in place in the Dodd Frank Act and so now the litigation had been pending for some months but most recently the news event. That happened in that triggered. This podcast is that your clients entered into a settlement agreement and consent order was entered into With the CFPB's consent by the judge in your case. Can you tell the audience? What were the provisions of the settlement? And what does it require? The CFPB DO in terms of the section. Ten seventy one rulemaking. Yeah I'd be happy to do that. The settlement in effect puts in place a framework and a process for obtaining court ordered deadlines for each step of the rulemaking process now for a complex rule like this where there are effects on small businesses There are three main stages to that process The first stage of that process is proceedings with the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act or so brief that process will take a few months to complete after issuance of the proposed rule and a comment period following issue and so the proposed rule and thereafter. Of course the bureau issues the final so with that sort of framework for how? The rulemaking had proceed in mind. What we've done here is reach an agreement with the bureau as to how we will reach an agreement for a quarter deadline for each phase of that process so at the outset. The first set of deadlines pertained to the brief proceedings. The first step of the Sabrina proceeding is for the bureau to publicly released. An outline of its proposal for this section ten seventy one rule pursuant to the settlement agreement the bureau has committed to doing so no later than September Fifteenth Twenty Twenty thereafter pursuant to the Statute. The bureau has to convene a small business advocacy review panel to review that submission so the bureau will convene that panel. No later than October fifteenth one month later and then under the statute the S. bar panel as it's called has to complete its report within sixty days of convenience and we would expect that to be around the middle of December now once the panel issues its report. The bureau will let us the plaintiffs. No that that's happened. And that will open. The first of a couple of negotiating windows we will meet and confer with the bureau to try to reach a an agreement as June appropriate deadline for issuance of the NPR. Am to the extent were unable to reach an agreement as to that deadline will then go to the court and submit an accelerated series of briefs on our distinct proposals for when that deadline should should be for the NPR M.'s. Issuance and the court will essentially pick a date and so the court will in any case order a deadline whether it's an agreed deadline or or a deadline the court decides on an order that's enforceable but like any other judicial order and the bureau will be required issue it's NPR. And by. Then unless I'm exercises. Some separate extension and modification provisions and essentially the same process will play out for issuance of the final rule after the comment period closes on the NPR m. The proposed rule We will have another meet and confer period negotiation window. Where we in the bureau will try to reach an agreement on the date for issuance of the final rule. In the event again were unable to reach an agreement. We'll go to the court and had the court set it up on forest instead so what this does is it gives us a framework for our clients and the public to had assurance that this rulemaking is moving forward that there will be court ordered deadlines for compliance with the statutory mandate. That's now long overdue but at the same time you know just like a members of industry and other members of the public. We're not interested in a hastily put together rule. We want one. That's thoughtful and considered adequately accounts for the various concerns. That may go into this process. And so we think that by breaking it up into more digestible chunks. It'll sort of allow the bureau to have that thoughtful considered process while also ensuring that this rulemaking will happen. So when I read the agreed order or that you just described the provision of it really surprised me and I'm not that familiar with administrative law and I know it surprised a lot of industry participants that the PB would agree to giving a court and a meet and confer process with private party so much influence over in this instance determinative influence over as respect to court. The timing of a rulemaking we normally think of administrative agencies doing things on their own time and not being subject to outside pressure about when they do things or what they do. So can you give our audience some insight and give me some education about? Why would the bureau have agreed to something that seems so intrusive in terms of its rulemaking process? Yeah that's a fair question. I understand we have that reaction. I think the best way I can answer. That question is is by drawing on my own experience prior to joining this organization. I was a civil litigator in the Justice Department and therefore I was on the other side of the V. in cases like this and and some drawing on that experience. I know that that the thing. You're really worried about as the litigator and as the agency at the outset of a suit like this is getting an order of the court at time zero right now saying agency you have to comply with this statutory requirement by X. Date. And who knows what that date might be. We'll say for purposes of discussion. This is just purely hypothetical. The last December thirty first twenty twenty one and that can really set the agency's hair on fire. Because as you know these rulemakings were very complicated. I've described the three main pieces of the framework for getting it done but there are a whole lot of other intermediate decisions other issues. That can arise you just. You just don't really know all of the things that can come up between now and say the end of twenty twenty one. That could make it easy for you to comply with that deadline or it could make it impossible. There's just no way to know. And part of the problem with litigating a case like this from the government side is if you don't know what could come between now and then that would make it impossible for you to comply with that deadline. It's really hard for you to explain to a court. Why that deadline's not reasonable right. It's I don't quote Donald Rumsfeld very often but I always found his framework very helpful in this respect. He talks about the known unknowns. The things you know you don't know. And he talks about the unknown unknowns. The things you don't even know that you don't know and the rule making process was rife with both types of unknown and so that can make litigating cases like this very challenging and it's especially challenging in a case like this. There's no question indeed. It's undisputed that the agency was under a mandatory duty to issue this rule and there's no dispute that it took it's taken eight or nine years with very little substantially to show for it so that created a substantial amount of litigation risk. I think on the part of what create a substantial amount of litigation risk on the part of an agency in a case like this one and so given that and given all the.
"cordray administration" Discussed on WINT 1330 AM
"Because they would no longer have. Access to the care coverage that they would need. Is what Mike dewine has fought to get rid of the protection? So no matter what he is saying now that is his record. That is what he did. It wasn't just the things he said in the past. It was what he did he hoped action with our taxpayer dollars to try them away from four point eight million a fellow highway. So if you have that at pre existing chances are you're going to have drug pharmaceutical costs, what is your plan with Richard cordray to have combat the increasing drug prices that are so high. We just had a senior panel here. And almost every one of them down the line said, I don't take my medicine as prescribed I may take half, especially toward the end of the month because I don't have the money to refill my prescription, you know, Ellen that makes me very sad. But I know that I have heard that from people as well. And you know, again, this is the place of the things that we are certainly going to go after. The greedy middleman and have transparency and healthcare. So that those who are not really adding value, but driving up costs for people on prescription drug that is going to end under a cordray administration. But beyond that, this is also a point of significant departure between our ticket and Mike dewine because I have been in what I was in congress. I would a fighting to get Medicare to be able to negotiate for right? This four arts senior citizen because they didn't have to make those twenty. They don't get to take all of their medicine or choose between food.