TopMortgage Compliance Update (1)
 

June 4, 2012

 


CFPB's "Notice of Reasonable Cause"


Subscribe-Blue
Newsletter-Blue
 Website-Blue
 Forums-Blue
Twitter-2
Facebook-1
Linkedin-1
Banging Head Let us help!
Isn't it time to bring in the professionals? 
Contact Us-1-Beveled-160

Our Website Forums

LCG-Square-CC-2 (Blue)  

BCG-CC-1  

CFPB Forum-CC-1  

OCC News Forum-CC-(134x134)  

BSA News Forum-Logo  

Mortgage Compliance Forum-Main  

Dodd-Frank Forum-CC-1  

NMLS Users Forum-CC-1  

FHA Forum-CC-1  

Veterans Mortgage Forum-Main  

516-442-3456  

Home-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Compliance-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Presentations-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
About Us-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Clientele-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Articles-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Newsletters-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Library-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
Contact Us-Website-LCG(160x27)-1
On May 25, 2012, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) issued a Proposed Rule (Rule) which, if adopted, would govern the process by which a "nonbank covered person" may become subject to the supervisory authority of the Bureau.

Under the proposed process, the Bureau would provide a nonbank covered person a notice (Notice or Notice of Reasonable Cause) stating that the Bureau may have reasonable cause to determine that such covered person is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.

The Proposal establishes mechanisms to provide the nonbank covered person a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Notice.

According to the Bureau, the proposed procedures would provide a recipient of a Notice (respondent) with a more robust process than required by Section 1024(a)(1)(C) in Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.

For example, as set forth now by Dodd-Frank, to satisfy the statutory requirement that the Bureau provide a reasonable opportunity to respond, the Bureau does not need to offer respondents an opportunity to participate in a supplemental oral response. The Rule, however, if adopted, would provide such an opportunity to respondents.

Download the Proposed Rule from our Library.
 Back
 In This Newsletter-1 




  
The Rule would require that a Notice include a description of the basis for the assertion that the Bureau may have "reasonable cause" to determine that a respondent is a nonbank covered person that is engaging, or has engaged, in conduct that poses risks to consumers with regard to the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services.

The Notice is intended to afford a respondent the opportunity to evaluate the assertions set forth therein and to formulate an appropriate response.

The Rule would provide a respondent with two opportunities to respond to a Notice: first, in writing, and then, if requested by a respondent, through a supplemental oral response generally to be conducted by telephone.

Under the Rule, a respondent would be required to include with the written response records, documents, or other items supporting the arguments set forth in the response that a respondent wants the Bureau's Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision (Assistant Director) and the Bureau's Director (Director) to consider.

A supplemental oral response, if requested, would provide a respondent with the opportunity to present arguments to the Bureau's Assistant Director or her or his designee.
 BACK 
Under the Rule, a Notice of Reasonable Cause would not constitute a notice of charges for any alleged violation of Federal consumer financial law or other law. The proceedings would be informal and would not constitute an adjudicatory proceeding under section.

In the informal process, no discovery would be permitted, a supplemental oral response would not constitute a hearing on the record, and no witnesses would be permitted to be called as part of a supplemental oral response.
 BACK 
1) The Bureau's Deputy Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision (Deputy) would commence a proceeding by issuing a Notice.

2) The response (both written and oral, if any) would then be considered by the Bureau's Assistant Director, who would provide to the Bureau's Director a recommended determination.

3) The Director would make the final determination in any proceeding by adopting without revision, modifying, or rejecting the Assistant Director's recommended determination.

4) The result would be either an order subjecting a respondent to the Bureau's supervisory authority, or a notice stating that a respondent is not subject, as a result of the proceeding, to the Bureau's supervisory authority.
 BACK 
Under the Proposed Rule there would be two ways in which a respondent could consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority:

Expedited Method: respondent may execute the consent agreement form attached to the Notice that is served on the respondent and file it with the Assistant Director in lieu of a response.

Voluntary Consent
: at any time during a proceeding, a respondent may voluntarily consent to the Bureau's supervisory authority under such terms as the parties may agree.
 BACK 
If a determination by the Director results in an order bringing a respondent within the Bureau's supervisory authority, the respondent would be permitted, after two (2) years (and no more than annually thereafter), to petition the Director for the termination of such an order.

However, under the Rule, where a respondent voluntarily consents to the Bureau's supervisory authority for a specified period of time, the respondent would not be permitted to petition for the termination of supervision during the period specified in the consent agreement.

A petition for termination of an order provides a method for a respondent to inform the Bureau of actions taken and progress made to reduce the risks to consumers after the issuance of the order.

Please take note: nothing in the rule affects the relief the Bureau may seek in any civil action or administrative adjudication.
 BACK 
  Professional AssistanceLCG 
Contact Us-2
 BACK 
LibraryLibrary
Law Library Image
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Procedural Rules To Establish Supervisory Authority
Over Certain Nonbank Covered Persons
Based on Risk Determination

Proposed Rule

Federal Register
Friday, May 25, 2012
 BACK 
Suite of ServicesSuite
LENDERS COMPLIANCE GROUP is the first full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the United States specializing exclusively in outsourced mortgage compliance and offering a full suite of services in residential mortgage banking for banks and non-banks.

Pioneers in outsourcing solutions for mortgage compliance. 
 
 

Professional guidance and support to financial institutions!  

Mortgage Compliance
CFPB Examination Preparation
Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
Legal and Regulatory Compliance
State Banking Examinations
HUD/FHA Examinations
Loan Originator Compensation
Licensing Compliance
HMDA/CRA and Fair Lending
Information Technology & Security
Training and Education
Quality Control
Prefunding Fannie LQI Audits
Platform Development
Retail and Wholesale Compliance
Correspondent Compliance
Servicer Compliance
Affiliates Compliance (RESPA)
Business Development
Advertising Compliance
Loss Mitigation Strategies
Forensic Mortgage Services
Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance (Part 404)
Audit and Due Diligence Reviews
Regulatory and Sales Training
Portfolio Risk Management
Credit Risk Management
Loan Analytics Audits
Compliance Audits
Policies and Procedures
Due Diligence Reviews
Portfolio Purchase Audits
GSE Applications
Ginnie Mae Applications

This communication is sent to our valued clients and colleagues, who regularly receive our Mortgage Compliance Updates, Compliance Alerts, Commentaries, and related publications.

These publications are free to subscribers. Information contained herein is not intended to be and is not a source of legal advice.

� 2006-2012 Lenders Compliance Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.