Tag Archives: Reiss

Reiss on Payday Lending Regs

Posted on by

CRM Buyer quoted me in CFPB May Rein In Payday Lending. The story opens,

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering various approaches to reforming the payday loan industry, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

The bureau is concerned about the short-term, high-rate debt consumers take on, sources said.

States typically have been responsible for regulating payday loan company practices. If the CFPB should take action, it would be the first time federal regulations were applied to this niche in the financial sector.

Consumer advocates have long been calling for some restraints to be imposed on providers of these loans. Interest rates tend to be astronomical, and borrowers frequently are unable to repay the loans within the prescribed time period. What happens more often than not is that they roll their loans into the next pay period, committing to a never-ending series of high-interest, short-term contracts.

The CFPB reportedly is considering approval of a “vanilla” type of short-term loan with underwriting criteria that would establish whether the borrower actually would be able to repay it — an approach similar to the mortgage qualification requirements put in place after the financial crash.

That is not the only model reportedly under consideration, however, and the CFPB might waive such underwriting requirements for borrowers who don’t tap payday advance loans very often, the Journal reported.

Pushback can be expected from the industry, which has been under fire for years. The payday lenders’ argument is straightforward: With so many Americans living from paycheck to paycheck, their services are necessary to meet emergencies.

Defanging the Predator

“There is clearly a demand for payday lending by unbanked consumers who have needs for short-term credit but do not have access to credit cards, home equity loans or other loan products,” said David Reiss, professor of law at Brooklyn Law School.

“At the same time, payday lending repayment terms are often seen as onerous and predatory, with annual interest rates that run in the hundreds of percent and with many customers stuck in a cycle where they roll over their high cost debt from one month to the next, accruing more interest and fees along the way,” he told CRM Buyer.

Given the mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Reiss said, it is natural for it to attempt to develop a regulatory structure for the industry that would allow it to function — but not extract predatory profits from its customers.

Reiss on Real Estate Cases To Watch In 2015

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in Real Estate Cases To Watch In 2015 (behind a paywall). It reads, in part,

As the real estate deals market has heated up, so have litigation dockets. And several cases with national or regional importance for developers and lenders on foreclosure practices, land use rights and housing finance reform are primed to see major developments in 2015, experts say.

A number of real estate cases wending their way through the court system – from state appeals courts to the U.S. Supreme Court – could affect how apartment owners, developers and lenders do business. And with the real estate market heating up, experts are also expecting a new wave of litigation to pop up in connection with an increasing pipeline of public-private partnership projects.

The cases are as varied as a high court suit that could throw open an avenue of Fair Housing Act litigation and a New Jersey matter that could give developers leverage to push forward on blocked projects. Here are a few cases and trends to watch in 2015:

*     *    *

Hedge fund Fairholme Capital Management LLC’s challenge to the government’s directing all the profits from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac toward the U.S. Department of the Treasury has been closely watched for more than a year, and it is expected to come to a head in 2015.

The company alleges the government acted unconstitutionally when it altered its bailout deal for the government-sponsored enterprises to keep the companies’ profits for itself.

“If the plaintiffs win, it could have a dramatic impact on how housing finance reform plays out,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “And even if they don’t win, the case can have a negative impact on housing finance reform if it casts a cloud over the whole project.”

Shareholders lost a related case in the D.C. district court, “but if they win the Fairholme case, things will get complicated,” Reiss said.

The case is Fairholme Funds Inc. v. U.S., case number 13-cv-00465, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Reiss on Housing Unaffordability

Posted on by

TheStreet.com quoted me in Homeownership Unaffordable For Most Americans in Major Cities. It reads in part,

Homeownership remains unaffordable for most Americans who are living in major cities.

A median-income household can only afford a median-priced home in 10 of the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, which is actually an improvement from 2013, according to a report by Interest.com, the Chicago-based consumer financial information website.

The most affordable metro areas area Atlanta, Minneapolis and St. Louis while San Francisco is the least affordable since the median income in the city is 46% less than what is required to buy a median-priced home in the area. Median-income households in San Diego, New York and Los Angeles don’t fare much better.

*     *     *

Many potential homeowners should evaluate what kind of mortgage they really need, said David Reiss, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School. Since most homeowners only stay in their house for an average of seven years, getting a traditional 30-year mortgage may not be the solution and an adjustable rate mortgage which resets after a period of years could be more affordable.

“This advice holds particularly true for families that are thinking about having more kids, since they may move sooner than they think if they come to realize that they want more space,” he said.

GSE Shareholder Litigation Issue

Posted on by

The NYU Journal of Law & Business has posted a special issue devoted to the GSE shareholder litigation. Here are the links for the the individual articles:

The Government Takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Upending Capital Markets with Lax Business and Constitutional Standards
Richard A. Epstein
The Fannie and Freddie Bailouts Through the Corporate Lens
Adam B. Badawi & Anthony J. Casey
An Overview of the Fannie and Freddie Conservatorship Litigation
Davis Reiss
Back to the Future: Returning to Private-Sector Residential Mortgage Finance
Lawrence J. White
Reforming the National Housing Finance System: What’s at Risk for the Multifamily Rental Market if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Go Away?
Mark Willis & Andrew Neidhardt

I have blogged about drafts of some of the articles here (Epstein), here (Badawi and Casey) and here (my contribution) and I may very well blog about the rest of them over the next few weeks. Given the nature of legal scholarship, these articles were written well before many of this year’s developments in the GSE shareholder litigations (such as Judge Lamberth’s ruling in the District Court for the District of Columbia case).  Nonetheless, these articles have a lot to offer in terms of understanding the broader issues at stake in the ongoing litigation (the first three articles) and in terms of reform efforts going forward (the last two articles).

Welds on Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages

Posted on by

One of the great joys of being a professor is being able to brag about your students’ accomplishments.  Brooklyn Law School just posted this about Leanne Welds on our website:

Leanne Welds ’14 has been awarded the 2014 Brown Award by The Judge John R. Brown Scholarship Foundation for her paper “Giving Local Municipalities the Power to Affect the National Securities Market.” The Brown Award recognizes excellence in legal writing in American law schools. This is the first time a BLS student has taken first place in the national competition, which awards a $10,000 stipend to the winner.

Welds is currently an associate at Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP in its Real Estate Group. As a student, she served as Executive Articles Editor for the Brooklyn Law Review and was the recipient of the Lorraine Power Tharp Scholarship from the New York State Bar Real Property Section. She was a member of the Community Development Clinic taught by Professor David Reiss, and externed with Enterprise Community Partners, an affordable housing firm. She also served as secretary of the Black Law Students Association.

“It is truly gratifying to have my work recognized in this way,” Welds said. “I picked this topic for my Law Review Note because of my combined interests in both the real estate and social justice aspects of the issue, but I never once thought I could be writing an award-winning paper. I am especially thankful to Professor David Reiss for believing in my work and sponsoring me for this competition, as well as both Professor Brian Lee and Professor Reiss for their detailed and thoughtful comments throughout the drafting process.”

Welds’ winning paper evaluates the constitutionality and wisdom of plans by local governments to condemn underwater mortgages without also condemning the land that is attached to the mortgages. These plans are in response to the foreclosure crisis that has hit certain communities particularly hard. If successful, these plans would result in refinanced and smaller mortgages on homes that have seen their values drop dramatically since the start of the financial crisis. The financial industry opposes these plans because they would reduce the face value of the existing mortgages.

“Leanne is a perfect candidate for this prize,” said Professor David Reiss. “Her passion for the law is complemented by an excellent work ethic, good legal judgment, and serious intellectual firepower. Leanne is a rising star of the bar. I have no doubt she will not only be a valuable member of the bar, but that she will also play a leadership role in the community.”

Reiss on Ocwen Settlement

Posted on by

Law360 quoted me in New York’s Ocwen Deal Sets Tough Precedent For Regulators (behind a paywall). It reads in part,

New York regulators ordered Ocwen Financial Corp. to pay $150 million in hard cash and barred the company from claiming a tax deduction on the restitution payments in a mortgage servicing settlement that could set a new standard for regulators accused of being soft on the companies they penalize.

The New York Department of Financial Services’ penalty against Ocwen, which also saw the company’s executive chairman lose his job, comes amid criticism that major penalties against Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other banks have been too lax. In a move aimed at addressing concerns over companies’ abilities to game the penalties, New York’s settlement specifically says Ocwen will not be able to use some of the techniques banks have used to lessen the blow of earlier settlements.

“They’ve tried to make a very tight settlement that demonstrates that Ocwen is suffering measurable costs for their behavior,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

The New York Department of Financial Services announced Monday that Ocwen, the country’s fourth-largest mortgage servicer, with some $430 billion in unpaid servicing balances, would pay out $150 million in “hard money” to New York homeowners who were victim to the company’s problematic servicing operations. A third of that $150 million would go directly to people who were foreclosed upon, and the remaining $100 million would go to housing-related projects chosen by the state.

But, unlike in previous mortgage-related settlements, Ocwen will not be able to count what are known as “soft dollar” modifications of mortgages they do not own and other techniques toward its settlement total, the DFS said. Banks and other servicers have been able to count such modifications in their total settlement amounts in previous deals, including the $25 billion national mortgage settlement from 2012.

Critics say such soft-dollar remediation has allowed law enforcement agencies, regulators and banks to inflate the amount of money banks and servicers are said to be paying out while limiting the amount of money they actually pay.

“It seems like a transparent settlement,” Reiss said.

*     *     *

“A lot of the problems that people have had with these financial settlements are specifically identified,” Reiss said.

Reiss on Cramming

Posted on by

E-Commerce Times quoted me in Feds Pounce on Sprint for Phone Bill Cramming. It opens,

The United States government is delivering a one-two punch to Sprint over the practice of cramming — allowing third parties to place unauthorized charges on customers’ bills.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau on Thursday filed a civil suit against Sprint over the issue.

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission reportedly is planning to hit Sprint with a US$105 million fine.

Coordination between the government agencies “is not atypical,” said David Reiss, professor of law at the Brooklyn Law School.

“Frequently federal government agencies coordinate their actions for better results,” he told the E-Commerce Times.

It’s possible that the FCC was negotiating with Sprint prior to the CFPB taking action, suggested Robert Jaworsky, a partner at ReedSmith.

“I doubt the FCC will take any action while this lawsuit is pending,” he told the E-Commerce Times.

The CFPB’s Allegations

Sprint charged wireless customers for unauthorized third-party services from 2004 through 2013, costing them millions of dollars each year, by creating a billing and payment system that provided third parties with unfettered access to its customers’ accounts, according to the CFPB complaint.

Sprint automatically enrolled customers in this billing system without their knowledge or consent, and many customers were unaware of the unauthorized charges, the bureau maintains.

Sprint continued to operate its system despite numerous red flags, including high refund rates, along with complaints from customers, law enforcement agencies and consumer groups, the CFPB claims. The carrier retained 40 percent of the gross revenue collected for the third-party charges, totaling “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Sprint took advantage of its customers, treated them unfairly in various ways, mishandled or ignored complaints about the unauthorized charges, and didn’t track them, said CFPB director Robert Cordray.

Sprint refused to provide refunds to some customers, instead telling them how to block future third-party charges, he added — and sometimes it referred victims back to the scammers themselves.