ARTICLE
23 February 2024

CFPB's Enhanced Supervisory Appeals Process: A Potentially Beneficial Shift For Financial Institutions

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
On February 16, the CFPB issued revised rules updating its internal supervisory appeals process for institutions seeking to appeal a compliance rating or an adverse material finding.
United States Finance and Banking
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)

On February 16, the CFPB issued revised rules updating its internal supervisory appeals process for institutions seeking to appeal a compliance rating or an adverse material finding. The updated rules open up new avenues for financial institutions to challenge supervisory evaluations and reflect a significant evolution from its 2015 updates.

Key Aspects of the Revised Rule:

  • What may be appealed. In a significant departure from past practice, financial institutions are permitted to appeal any compliance rating, not just adverse ones (i.e., a rating of 3, 4, and 5). This is in addition to a company's appeal of the adverse supervisory finding.
  • A change in the appeals committee. Under the Bureau's appeals process, a three-person appeals committee is formed for each appeal. Previously, such committees were comprised of one member of the staff of the Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, one representative from CFPB Supervision headquarters (in DC), and one representative from the CFPB Supervision Regional office. Under the revised rule, the Supervision Director will select any three CFPB managers to participate on a given appeals committee, so long as those managers did not participate in the underlying matter and have relevant experience on the issues. (Notably, this could potentially include enforcement personnel.) The appeals committee will then advise the Supervision Director as to the appropriate action.
  • Enhanced participation by a company's board of directors. An institution's board of directors must formally authorize the filing of an appeal. In addition, if an institution requests an oral presentation, a "member of the board or principal" must lead that presentation.
  • More outcomes upon appeal. Under the previous process, a supervisory appeal could only uphold or rescind the underlying supervisory finding. Under the revised rules, the appealed matter can also be remanded to Supervision staff for a modified finding.

The revised rules are effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register and applies to appeals pending as of its publication date.

Putting it into Practice: A majority of the CFPB's work is performed through Supervision which conducts examinations on the nations' depository and non-depository financial institutions that fall under its (ever-expanding) jurisdiction. A CFPB examination is often an arduous experience for a company, the results of which can lead to corrective action, continued oversight, and in some cases, an enforcement action. Typically, the CFPB appeals process has not been fruitful for companies. These new rules suggest that companies perhaps have more options to challenge adverse supervisory findings. Whether the process will lead to better results for institutions remains to be seen. It is still the case, however, that for all institutions subject to a CFPB examination, preventing negative findings through an effective and proactive management of the supervisory process is still the best strategy in preventing adverse outcomes.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More