- Mortgage Industry to Face Centralized Repository for State Regulatory Enforcement Actions - Deadline for Comments is September 20, 2011
- September 16, 2011 | Authors: Thomas J. McKee; Gil Rudolph; Michael R. Sklaire
- Law Firms: Greenberg Traurig, LLP - McLean Office ; Greenberg Traurig, LLP - Washington Office
Deadline for Comments is September 20, 2011
On July 22, 2011, the State Regulatory Registry LLC (SRR) issued a Request for Public Comments on a proposal to collect, centralize and publish all state regulatory enforcement information concerning mortgage loan originators. By creating a central source of investigation information, the SRR aims to provide a repository of background information for both consumers and other state and federal regulators. Before implementing, the SRR has asked for public comments to be submitted by September 20, 2011.
In 2008, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System & Registry (NMLS) was created under the federal Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (“SAFE Act”), with the purpose of “provid[ing] consumers with accessible information . . . regarding the employment history of, and publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against loan originators.” 12 U.S.C.A. § 5101(7). As part of implementing this purpose, the NMLS intended to use the SRR as the vehicle through which to include all regulatory actions taken by state regulators against companies and individuals that could be gathered and published. Previously, actions by state regulators could only be found, if at all, through a search of the individual state regulators’ websites.
The proposal to incorporate state regulatory reporting into the NMLS, which would take effect in Spring of 2012, consists of twelve major policies and processes, which include, among others:
- The state agency that took the action will be responsible for inputting such information into the NMLS. The SRR will not verify, validate, or amend any of the enforcement actions, as such information can only be changed by the inputting agency.
- Whether an action will actually be included in the NMLS can vary from state to state, depending on state-specific statutes and regulations. Further, each state will determine which actions will be shared only with other regulators, and those that will be made available to the general public.
- Reported actions will not be limited to those actions that are public. Instead, a regulator will have the ability, at their discretion, to include information that is to be shared only among regulators or among agency employees.
- A recommendation that any postings be made within five (5) days of receipt of a state agency’s final order.
- Provide a standardized set of information to be posted, including, for example, (a) the enforcing agency, (b) a description of the Order, and (c) the amount of any fine or other penalty.
- The SRR recommends that actions taken against companies should be posted on a prospective basis, while actions taken against loan originators should be posted as of the date each state’s SAFE Act became effective.
- All respondents named in an action will be included in any reporting, and the action will be tied to the records of both the named company and/or individuals.
- A company or individual will be notified of any posting in the system and will be able to view any publicly posted actions against it in the NMLS. The SRR proposal does not, however, contain a mechanism for a company or individual to learn of the non-public postings against it.
- State regulators will have the ability to post multi-state actions through NMLS. Each state involved in such an action is responsible for posting the action pursuant to its own reporting policies.
At first glance, the proposed registry presents a number of benefits to companies. For example, by having a central repository for all state regulatory actions, companies will have easy, up-to-date, access to the types of enforcement actions being pursued across the country, including the resulting fines and penalties assessed. Such information can be invaluable when defending an enforcement action and evaluating settlement proposals with state agencies. Companies will be able to see enforcement trends and use such information to modify their practices. The new system will greatly simplify a company’s ability to learn from the conduct of others.
Such benefits, however, do not come without a host of potential drawbacks. Specifically, while the system seeks to compile standard information regarding enforcement actions, it does not set forth a standard for reporting. Instead, its reliance upon individual state standards for reporting could lead to competitive disadvantages where, despite identical conduct, one company is tagged with a report while another is not solely due to a difference in state reporting standards.
The discretion given to regulators under the system could have similar effects. Giving regulators the discretion to input information (including non-adjudicated information) that will only be shared among regulators or agency employees could result in information being shared without verification, accountability, or opportunity to cure. Successfully defending an enforcement action would not necessarily preclude the sharing of negative comments about a company on the system. Companies will not be privy to such secret, albeit formalized, statements that could be prejudicial to how such entities are viewed and/or treated by other regulatory agencies. Nevertheless, the repository could be a potential treasure trove of information for future plaintiffs and will certainly be a frequent target of discovery in lawsuits.
Companies should carefully examine the potential ramifications each of the proposed policies may have on their business.