Weigh In: Should The New York Commercial Financing Disclosure Law Be Preempted by TILA?
December 7, 2022
The CFPB issued a statement on Wednesday to announce that it does not believe that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law is preempted by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
In a simple sense, the question of whether or not commercial finance companies can potentially disregard portions of New York’s commercial finance disclosure law on the basis that a similar federal law (TILA) has the superior claim to the legalities surrounding APR disclosures, has been answered by the CFPB. It says no. The agency believes that the two laws do not conflict with each other on the stated basis that TILA regulates “consumer purpose transactions” hence New York’s law is not preempted by TILA. At this time this is merely the CFPB’s “preliminary determination.” Now it is asking for the public’s thoughts on the matter.
“The CFPB is requesting comment on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination that the New York law – as well as potentially similar laws in California, Utah, and Virginia – are not preempted.”
The formal Request for Comment and instructions to submit comment can be found here.
The timing is a bit curious given that this issue has just been legally raised in another state. The deadline to submit comment to the CFPB is January 20, 2023.
Missouri Reintroduces its Commercial Financing Disclosure Bill
December 7, 2022
In a preview of what’s to come in 2023, Missouri State Senator Justin Brown (R) has reintroduced a commercial financing disclosure bill. SB 187, which is significantly less stringent than the law about to go into effect in California, nonetheless would require brokers to be licensed in the state.
“The act requires registration with the Division of Finance prior to engaging in business as a commercial financial broker,” the bill states. “Specifically, the act requires filing a registration form, submitting a fee of $100, and obtaining a surety bond in the amount of $10,000. A registration renewal is required every year…”
This bill was introduced last year but failed to advance. Other states that are expected to reintroduce similar bills this year include Connecticut and Maryland.
Funding Companies Sue California Regulator Over Looming Disclosure Law
December 6, 2022
The alarm bells sounded over California’s commercial financing disclosure law were more than rhetorical bluster. This past Friday, a trade association representing dozens of small business finance companies filed a lawsuit against the Commissioner of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) on the basis that the regulations scheduled to go into effect on December 9th are unlawful.
The suit, filed by the Small Business Finance Association, makes two claims.
First, that the regulations violate the First Amendment on the premise that they compel the group’s members to make inaccurate disclosures to customers while at the same time prohibiting members from engaging in communications that could be used to clarify or correct the required false or misleading information to customers. This in part refers to the requirement that funders assign misleading and/or false APRs to purchase transactions while being forced to use language and terminology that contradicts the contracts themselves.
Second, that APR disclosures are defined and governed at the federal level by the Truth in Lending Act and that California’s custom formulas and disclosures would only serve to confuse customers. The SBFA argues that the regulations are “preempted” by TILA.
These controversies, which have been the subject of debate for years, are not new information, but enforcement of the law is finally slated to begin in just 3 days. The complaint argues that compliance with the law may expose its members to civil and criminal liability and thus they are left with no choice but to proceed accordingly. Given the circumstances, however, there does not appear to be hard feelings about the situation.
“The SBFA enjoys a great working relationship with the DFPI and share their commitment to providing meaningful disclosures to small business owners,” said SBFA Executive Director Steve Denis when asked what this lawsuit meant.
He continued:
“We recognize the challenges involved in implementing SB 1235 and appreciate the effort and transparency the DFPI provided during the regulatory process. This is a complex issue and our lawsuit reflects the comments we have made during the regulatory process. We believe there are significant issues with the regulation that not only makes it difficult for us to accurately comply, but are inconsistent, create liability, and will provide further confusion for our small business customers. Again, we appreciate the effort by the DFPI and look forward to continuing our work together as the matter is resolved.”
The actual complaint is available for download here.
The law is scheduled to go into effect on December 9th.
Don’t Forget About Utah’s Disclosure Law
November 14, 2022
While a new era of business moves forward in Virginia and the clock ticks down to compliance with the new complicated disclosure law in California on December 9th, it can be easy to miss state #3 in all of this, Utah.
Utah’s commercial financing disclosure law goes into effect on January 1, 2023. It’s more than just a form. Covered parties must apply for a commercial financing license. A checklist for that can be found here. Similar to other states, the commission paid to a broker must be disclosed but there is no APR requirement.
Wondering How to Comment on the Impending NY Disclosure Rules?
September 25, 2022The deadline to comment on New York’s latest iteration of its commercial financing disclosure rules is October 31st. As stated on the Department of Financial Service’s website, the agency’s official contact on the matter is George Bogdan (George.Bogdan@dfs.ny.gov). It’s the same contact as was given for the previous comment period.
Notably, the DFS has said that it has received some comments that have asked the agency to abolish the disclosure rules altogether. That won’t happen, the DFS explained, because it is required by law to enact them.
Even if there are no additional comment periods after this one, it is highly unlikely that the NY rules would go into effect this year.
New York DFS Publishes New Proposal on Commercial Financing Disclosure Law
September 15, 2022
The New York regulator in charge of rolling out the commercial financing disclosure law, published a new draft of the rules in the State Register yesterday.
In it, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) also gave its own assessment of the comments received from potentially covered parties.
“Some commenters are opposed to the basic purpose of the Commercial Finance Disclosure Law (“CFDL”), Financial Services Law (“FSL”) sections 801-811, and accordingly are opposed to the regulation,” DFS said. “Most commenters acknowledge the need for the rule to implement the CFDL and made comments intended to improve the regulation from their perspective.”
Thus, with all of the feedback previously received, the new proposal is out. The public now has until October 31st to provide further feedback to it.
Think The New California Disclosure Law is Just About a Disclosure Form? Think Again
September 13, 2022
“We’re one of the good guys so of course we’ll comply and include the form with our contracts.”
Variations of the above phrase have been oft-repeated in the last few months by participants in the commercial finance industry when queried by AltFinanceDaily about California’s new disclosure law. Several companies have shared that they are prepared for what’s to come, but are they? The regulations go into effect on December 9th and begin a new chapter of compliance for the industry.
Though one might be aware that California will require specific disclosures on commercial finance contracts (including purchases of future sales), Katherine C. Fisher, Partner at Hudson Cook, LLP, explained that the breadth of the state’s law will likely require changes to a funding company’s operational processes as well. Fisher told AltFinanceDaily that there’s not just the matter of disclosing but also the matter of what triggers a disclosure having to be made. What might otherwise be considered the normal discourse between a funding provider and a customer prior to a deal being consummated is now an area requiring close examination.
“If a broker sends a text to a merchant with the offers, could it trigger this?” is one scenario she posed about the threshold for disclosure.
The funding provider needs to know the answer because once the disclosure requirement is triggered, the broker needs to relay back the details of the offers made, the specific disclosures provided, and the timestamp of when this took place. All of this data then needs be stored by the funding provider to maintain compliance.
And funding providers will need to be vigilant.
“The funder is responsible for broker compliance,” Fisher said.
The entire process of who-said-what, when, and how will suddenly become a realm requiring tight control it seems. And that all comes back to the form itself, which is not all that simple either.
California will require funding providers to estimate an APR on a purchase transaction using one of two methods: the Historical Method or the Underwriting Method. While the methodology selected is probably best left to qualified counsel to assist with, the likely deviation of a future estimated APR from a backwards-looking APR was a reality considered by state regulators. To bridge this gap, California requires that funding providers disclose reasonably anticipated true-up scenarios. A true-up in this instance refers to the already well-established option for a merchant to perform a monthly reconciliation of payments if the amount collected is above or below the purchased percentage specified in the contract.
Though the very nature of the reconciliation is a consequence of not being able to predict the future exactly, California’s law requires that funding providers disclose the dates and amounts of the true-ups that they reasonably anticipate. Such concepts and mathematics, once perhaps the subjective domain of a funding provider’s in-house underwriters will soon be subject to regulatory scrutiny for total accuracy. And this just scratches the surface.
The scope of this law is so unique and technical that the Hudson Cook law firm spent a considerable amount of time preparing a guide on this very subject. AltFinanceDaily saw some of the pages of this guide during a call.
Fisher, meanwhile, insisted that compliance in California is different than compliance with the law recently enacted in Virginia and that if funding providers wait until December to begin preparing, it will probably be too late to be ready in time.
“This is more than just a form,” Fisher said. “You need to spread the word about it.”
Funders Weigh in on the New Disclosure Law in Virginia
August 10, 2022
“I think there are pros and cons on this law,” said Boris Kalendarev, CEO at Specialty Capital, in regards to the recently enacted sales-based financing disclosure law in Virginia. “I’m on the pro side and I think first and foremost it allows the good funders and the good brokers in the space to operate in the right manner.”
The law technically went into effect on July 1st, shaking things up for funding providers and brokers alike, particularly through a set of uniform disclosures that are required every time a contract is put in front of a Virginia-based business.
“It holds a broker more responsible for the transaction that they’re going to complete,” said Sharmylla Siew, Senior Underwriter at Lending Valley. “It builds a deeper bond between the broker and the merchant. And it also creates a better bond between the broker and the funder.”
Echoing Siew’s perspective, Kalendarev also believes that being clear creates an honest business space for the broker, merchant, and funder.
“I think transparency is really the right way to run this business. Let’s try to make sure there’s even more transparency,” said Kalendarev.
One intent behind the law is to provide the business customer with all of the pertinent information in a digestible format. Notably, this includes the commission that a broker may be receiving from the funder.
“I do believe that it should be fully transparent on both sides to understand the transaction in full,” said Dylan J. Howell, CEO of Liquidibee. “The merchant should understand that the broker is getting compensated. And if he decides that the broker deserves an additional commission on top of what he’s getting paid from the funder, well, that’s an informed decision between the merchant and broker to come to an agreement with.”
Howell Suggested that some of what is required would be expected in other types of deals.
“If you would go out and buy a $500,000 house, you get to the closing table and you look at the bill, it says it’s $545,000, but the purchase price is 500,000, you would want a reconciliation page to show where that 45,000 of additional capital is going,” Howell said. “And it’s no different than in this transaction, in my opinion.”
Banks and credit unions were exempt from the law but some view targeted regulations like this one as a way to raise the bar and credibility of sales-based financing products in general.
“Merchants who wouldn’t have considered an MCA as a practical form of funding in the past may decide to explore this avenue knowing that the industry is being held to a higher standard of practice,” Howell said.
Siew, of Lending Valley, echoed same.
“I am actually very excited about the new regulations, and I feel that it would make a huge impact on the MCA industry,” she said.
