United States: U.S. Court Of Appeals For The D.C. Circuit Sharply Questions CFPB At Oral Argument In PHH Corp. v. CFPB

The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on April 12 was a tale of two arguments.

The presentation on behalf of PHH was relatively uneventful: its counsel (Ted Olson) was asked a limited number of questions in roughly 25 minutes at the podium, with at least five minutes passing before the first question was posed. In contrast, counsel for the CFPB (Larry Demille-Wagman) was kept at the podium for a solid 40 minutes and subjected to a steady stream of tough questions.

While it is hard to predict based on the oral argument how the Court of Appeals will rule, including whether the Court will reach the constitutional questions it previously raised, today's argument suggests that the CFPB may well be on track for its first major litigation defeat.

The oral argument encompassed four issues presented in PHH's petition for review of the CFPB's administrative decision. The panel of Judges Brett Kavanaugh and A. Raymond Randolph particularly focused on the arguments that the CFPB erred in rejecting a long-standing interpretation of RESPA; and that the structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional. (Judge Karen Henderson also is on the panel but did not participate in the oral argument; she will take part in deciding the case.) In addition, although to a lesser extent, the panel heard argument on the questions whether the CFPB was wrong to conclude that the RESPA statute of limitations does not apply in administrative adjudications; and whether Director Cordray acted unlawfully in imposing $109M in disgorgement (in contrast to the $6M awarded by the administrative law judge).

Here are the highlights:

The CFPB's Interpretation of RESPA

PHH argued that Section 8(c)(2) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(c)(2), specifically authorizes the types of captive mortgage reinsurance agreements targeted in the CFPB's enforcement action, because they are a "payment to any person of a bona fide salary or compensation or other payment for goods or facilities actually furnished or for services actually performed." PHH explained that the CFPB ignored the longstanding interpretation of RESPA to that end that had been issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (in a 1997 letter, among other administrative pronouncements), endorsed by the courts, and relied upon by industry. In PHH's view, Director Cordray's decision wrote Section 8(c)(2) out of the statute.

Moreover, PHH contended that the CFPB's interpretation deprived PHH of due process of law by retroactively imposing the CFPB's new legal interpretation in an administrative enforcement action. PHH argued that an individual is entitled to know the conduct that is permitted or prohibited by law and that the CFPB violated that rule through its "180 [degree]" reversal on the meaning of Section 8(c)(2). (Mayer Brown filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce addressing this due process issue.)

The panel appeared skeptical about the CFPB's reading of Section 8(c)(2), with Judge Kavanaugh emphasizing that its protection of "bona fide" transactions applies notwithstanding any other section of the statute. Whether something is "bona fide" is usually determined by fair market value, Judge Kavanaugh observed. The CFPB contended in response that kickbacks inherently distort a market even if there is no clear evidence of increased prices, leading PHH, in rebuttal, to describe the significant benefits of mortgage reinsurance—particularly as demonstrated in 2008. The CFPB also disputed PHH's contention that the rule of lenity should apply in this context, even though violations of RESPA are subject to criminal sanctions. Here again, however, the panel appeared skeptical of the CFPB's position.

The panel likewise appeared to doubt the fairness of the CFPB's decision to jettison the 1997 HUD Letter and other equivalent administrative and judicial interpretations. The entire industry had relied upon the HUD interpretation, Judge Kavanaugh noted, before observing that the CFPB's decision to "pull the plug" was "very problematic." Meanwhile, the CFPB conceded that the reinsurance structure at issue in PHH was a "widespread practice" and acknowledged that it could not point to any prior official interpretation stating it was unlawful.

Nonetheless, the CFPB contended that its actions did not deprive PHH of due process, in part because the HUD letter was not an authoritative interpretation that justified broad reliance. But Judge Kavanaugh appeared skeptical about that proposition, noting that even informal government action could raise due process problems under governing case law. (He explained that a policeman could not tell an individual that it was okay to cross a street and then immediately give the person a ticket upon reaching the other side.)

To this point, PHH added that an agency cannot relieve itself of its obligations to comply with the Due Process Clause by telling regulated entities that they cannot trust previous pronouncements—or, as Judge Kavanaugh put it, an agency cannot say "just kidding." Indeed, PHH highlighted that the CFPB previously had adopted prior regulatory understandings by rule, meaning that the penalty in this case came "out of the blue" for businesses that had worked to comply with the law as it was widely understood.

In all, the panel appeared to sympathize with PHH's explanation of the significance of the case for the industry. The entire financial services sector is listening to this case, PHH noted as it repeatedly expressed its hope that the Court would address the statutory interpretation questions.

Constitutionality of the CFPB

Judge Kavanaugh asked both parties about the constitutionality of the CFPB's structure.

PHH argued that Congress had created the CFPB as a "super-executive agency" that illegally vested unilateral authority in a single Director removable only for cause. PHH also provided context for the "for cause" removal limitation, noting other structural features of the Bureau that enhanced its independence, including its insulation from the congressional appropriations process, its authority to hire and fire staff, and its ability to propose legislation to Congress or issue rules without going through OMB. Looking at this whole picture, PHH argued that the CFPB does not have to pay any attention to the President or Congress. As a result, it requested more than just elimination of the "for cause" provision as a remedy. Because Director Cordray had been appointed to an unconstitutional agency, PHH argued Congress would have to restructure it and a new director appointed.

The CFPB argued in response that the Constitution permits independent agencies to have a variety of different structures and that, if the Court were to find the CFPB unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy would be to sever the "for cause" limitation on removal of Director Cordray. Willing to accept the implications of its position, the CFPB argued that Congress could let the SEC, FTC, and NLRB be led by one person. The President has "sufficient control" as long as the statute preserves "for cause" removal, the CFPB reasoned.

Judge Kavanaugh appeared skeptical of this defense of the CFPB's structure. While he appeared to agree with the CFPB's observation about the multiplicity of different independent agency structures, he appeared to disagree with the CFPB's conclusion that Congress thus could create a regulatory agency with a single director who is removable only for cause. Commissions are different, Judge Kavanaugh noted, as they provide the protection of bipartisanship or non-partisanship. Multi-member bodies thus are the norm among independent agencies, he observed, with only "very rare exceptions." Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh seemed alarmed at the prospect of Congress deciding that a regulatory agency such as the FCC, SEC, FTC, or NLRB could be led by a single director.

RESPA's Statute of Limitations

The CFPB appeared to fare no better in its argument that the REPSA statute of limitations does not apply in its administrative enforcement actions. Judge Randolph asked, for example, why, even if the statute were silent, the Court should not borrow a statute of limitations from another state or federal statute, as it has done in other contexts. And Judge Kavanaugh appeared concerned at the prospect that the CFPB's theory would allow a future director to impose liability for decades-old conduct.

The CFPB suggested that a court might impose a statute of limitations when it would be an "abomination" not to have one, but the panel appeared unconvinced. Thus, Judge Randolph asked why the various reasons for having a statute of limitations – e.g. difficulty obtaining evidence, loss of memory – did not argue equally for the imposition of a statute of limitations in this context. The CFPB conceded that those reasons did apply equally, but contended nonetheless that Congress chose not to impose a statute of limitations in this context. But the CFPB also conceded, under questioning by Judge Kavanaugh, that it knew of no legislative history justifying the omission of a statute of limitations for administrative adjudications.

Director Cordray's Decision to Raise the Disgorgement Remedy to $109M

Director Cordray's decision to raise the disgorgement remedy from $6M to $109M received the least attention of the four topics addressed at oral argument. The parties disputed whether the Director could treat every payment of a premium as a new offense. PHH described the theory as leading to a draconian and unauthorized punishment. The CFPB argued in response that the remedy was "totally appropriate."

* * * * *

Predicting the outcome of a case based on the oral argument is always dangerous, but the CFPB faced unusually tough questioning at this argument. The Court is likely to consider the case for several months, at least, before issuing its ruling.

Originally published on April 13, 2016

Visit us at mayerbrown.com

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2016. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.