NCUA Listening Sessions; CFPB Files Amicus Brief in TILA Case; Reg Alert on Overdrafts

Written by Steve Van Beek

NCUA recently announced a series of listening sessions that will be conducted throughout the country.  Here is a snapshot of the dates and locations:

The full information on the upcoming listening sessions can be found here.  Registration for the first two sessions (May 2 in Boston and May 9 in Alexandria, VA) are now open. 

***

Yesterday, the CFPB announced it had filed an amicus brief (Wikipedia.org) in an ongoing case regarding the right of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act.  The CFPB's press release can be found here and the actual brief is here.

While the issues in the case are very important, equally important is the additional information about the CFPB's intent as a regulator.  The press release indicates the CFPB will continue to be an active participant in lawsuits in order to protect consumer rights:

"The CFPB is committed to filing amicus briefs in litigation involving the federal consumer financial protection laws that it oversees and in which the CFPB determines its views will assist the courts in correctly resolving the matters. Amicus briefs are an important way for the CFPB to ensure that the statutes it oversees are correctly and consistently interpreted by the courts, even in cases in which the CFPB is not itself a named party."

I hinted at this on Monday - but it does seem the only thing missing from the CFPB's regulatory toolbox is actual guidance or clarity to the entities it regulates.  Wouldn't that be something, huh? 

***

NAFCU Members:  Our Regulatory Alert on the CFPB's Overdraft Inquiry (12-EA-07) is available.  Please consider providing your feedback and comments to help NAFCU draft our comment letter to the CFPB.  Comments are due to NAFCU by April 6th.    

Comments

[Peter]

Hopefully the CFPB is not going where the US Department of Labor is going and CHANGING regulatory interpretation in its amicus briefs. No way legal and compliance departments can follow regulatory revisions in court briefs!

[Steve Van Beek]

Peter,
I'm with you on this one - the CFPB portrayed the H-8(A) form as if it was a regulatory requirement. In fact, it is a PROPOSED model form that hasn't been finalized through the required notice and comment rulemaking process under the APA.

Still not sure what the CFPB was thinking including that reference and model form in their amicus brief and implying it was a requirement.

[Peter]

Creating confusion in favor of consumers despite the safety and soundness concerns to legitimate financial institutions complying with actual regulations. But don't hold me to that!