On-Bill Financing

The National Consumer Law Center monitors and comments on the potential benefits and risks to consumers regarding various ways to finance home energy efficiency improvements, including on- bill financing, where the repayments are included on the utility bill.

If you have additional materials or questions on this topic, please contact Charlie Harak (charak [at] nclc.org or at 617-542-8010) in our Boston office or Olivia Wein (owein [at] nclc.org) in our DC office (202-452-6252).

Policy Analysis

Letter regarding Conference of Senate 2400 and House 4385, An Act to Promote Energy Diversity, July 18, 2016 NCLC Comments and Reply Comments to the California Public Utilities Commission Regarding On-Bill Financing and Repayment of Energy Efficiency Measures, Feb. 2012

NY PSC Working Group on On-Bill Financing (Case 07-M-0548)

Final Report Summary Interim Report Interim Report

NCLC Presentations

On-Bill Financing Presentation at NCAF Conference

MA Energy Efficiency Advisory Council

MA On-Bill Financing Working Group Powerpoint

Miscellaneous Reports

Efficiency Vermont, Enabling Investments in Energy Efficiency

PACE in the News

6/4/17 Los Angeles Times “These loans were created to help homeowners but for some they did the opposite” by Andrew Khouri with quotes by John Rao. Part 1 of 2.

6/4/17 Los Angeles Times “With some borrowers struggling with a new kind of home-improvement loan, reforms are on the table” by Andrew Khouri with quote by John Rao. Part 2 of 2.

April 30, 2016 CBS Los Angeles “Goldstein Investigation: How Going Green Might Have You Seeing Red In The End”

Summary: “Dan and Kerry Mason (Bellflower, CA) are nearing retirement and hired All American Design after hearing their sales pitch. ‘They came in and he said your utilities are going to be cut in half. And basically the installation and all would be covered with government programs. Rebate Programs.’ Mason said.” “But it turns out the government program they thought they signed up for was really a private company called Ygrene… And the $37,000 cost of the solar wasn’t covered by a government program at all but is paid through an assessment on their property taxes. At 6 ½ percent interest, it works out to nearly $5,000 a year for 10 years.” Quotes: “There was no mention that the cost was going on to their property taxes, Mason said.” “Nyssa Wilson of the state contractors license board says the Mason are typical targets of salespeople pushing green energy.’I would say a good number of our complaints come from the elderly,’ Wilson said.” “He (the sales representative from All American Design) told the client that their home would be part of a HERO program- that stands for Home Energy Renovation Opportunity. It’s a private company like Ygrene, approved by local governments to set up repayment of loans through the homeowner’s property taxes… it’s not a government entity. But you’d never know it from his pitch.” “What Sanchez didn’t say was that state licensing board has recommended that All American Design’s license be suspended or revoked because of numerous unrelated violations.” “The Masons say their effort to go green has now derailed their retirement plans if it means they can’t sell their home.”

Oct 10, 2016 MarketWatch “These government-approved high-interest green loans are turning mortgage lending upside down”

“When Lucia Chavez saw her mortgage bill, she thought there had to be a mistake. For years, the 70-year-old Vista, California homeowner had paid about $990 every month. But in early 2015, after solar panels were installed on her roof, Chavez, a retiree, discovered a total of $1,500, a sum she couldn’t afford, had been paid from her account. Chavez said the company that pitched her on the panels, Fidelity Home Energy, did not explain how expensive they would be, nor suggest that she consider a different means of financing other than the loan they offered, which has a 10.32% interest rate and gets paid as part of her mortgage bill. They did tell her she’d get a $10,000 tax break – but not that such an incentive is useless to people at her income level.” “‘I feel bad and I didn’t sleep some nights because I was so upset,’ Chavez said in an interview. “I feel bad that at my age they did that to me.’”

June 2, 2016 San Gabriel Valley Tribune “Watch out for these green-energy improvement loans that put homeowners at financial risk“

“A loan program that helps California homeowners pay for energy-efficient upgrades is also putting them at financial risk, experts say.” “‘PACE loans look and act like loans, but they are really a tax lien on your property tax bill,’ said Kevin Pendergraft, CEO of Pacific Community Union, which has branches in La Habra and Irvine. ‘If a consumer runs into financial problems, they will never be able to avail themselves of bankruptcy protection from this obligation. This is not stated upfront by the people who are selling these loans.’” “‘We’re starting to see problems with our credit members,’ said Courtney Jensen, a legislative advocate with the California Credit Union League. ‘Super lien status isn’t explained correctly to them, or else they simply don’t understand the consequences involved.’” “While California’s PACE program was drafted with the best intentions, like any new program, implementation has not been perfect,” Dababneh said in a statement. ‘Currently, there is no requirement for basic disclosures and homeowners are often misled to believe that the PACE program is a subsidized government program that carries no risk if they need to sell or refinance their home.’” “The prospect of going green, coupled with a misleading sales pitch by contractors, is leading homeowners — many of them seniors — to getting scammed and becoming victims of because they have no idea what financial product they are really buying,” he said.

November 14, 2016 The San Diego Reader “Solar-power financing could spell trouble: “I hate to see people lose their homes over something I was involved with”

“The owner of a North County solar-power company says he sees the next housing bubble bursting on the horizon. While it’s the hand that feeds much of his business now, he says it’s the same trick that financial institutions used almost a decade ago, which caused our recent recession and housing-market crisis.” “I know people that have received a whole kitchen and bathroom remodel in the name of water conservation,” said the business owner.” “Homeowners with a little equity can get 100 percent financing with no money down, quick approvals, and no credit check. (I received a direct-mail piece offering me up to $49,500 in home improvements.) The program provides HERO-approved contractors to perform the services.” “Now, once again, people will find themselves with payments they can’t afford, this time with property taxes rather than last decade’s [home equity line of credit] stated income/signature second mortgages. When they can’t pay, they’ll start losing their homes.”

February 23, 2016 Comstock’s Business Insight for the Capital Region “A Growing Green Debt? As PACE takes off, realtors warn that unwary homeowners are complicating their finances”

“But not everyone with a PACE loan knows how it works. Last September, Erin Stumpf of Dunnigan Realtors met with a homeowner in Sacramento’s Tallac Village neighborhood. The owner wanted to sell, and she’d replaced her yard with artificial turf, taking out a $7,000 PACE loan to do it. ‘Oh, but don’t worry,’ the homeowner told Stumpf. ‘The PACE loan will be transferred to the new owner.’ Stumpf had to explain that wasn’t true. The prospective buyer likely wouldn’t be able to get a mortgage because of the PACE loan — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee 90 percent of the country’s home loans, won’t do so for properties with a PACE lien.” “‘The way this was sold to my client and the way that it’s sold to the public in general is really misleading,’ Stumpf says.” “Some programs, however, may be covering up the potential risks in their descriptions of PACE. A video on the website of Ygrene Energy Fund, one of two private companies that offer PACE financing in Sacramento, gives this explanation: ‘If you sell your property, the payments transfer to the new owners just like your property tax, so you only pay for what you use.’ But that’s only true if the new buyer agrees to take on the PACE payments and doesn’t need a home loan.” “Ygrene does require PACE borrowers to sign a disclosure agreement later in the process. That document warns owners that they might have to pay off their PACE loan when they sell or refinance, according to an October 2014 report by the California Center for Sustainable Energy. Ygrene itself did not respond to requests for comment on how that disclosure document is discussed with customers.” September 27, 2016 The Sacramento Bee “Is rooftop solar worth it? Californians consider the questions as use, complaints rise”

Summary: “Rooftop solar panels, as the men who came knocking described them, seemed to Faye Moore like a good deal. The solicitors who visited 75-year-old Moore’s Pomona home told her they could help finance solar panels that would slash her energy bill. So she signed on. Her energy bills have indeed plummeted from the hundreds she was paying a month. But the thousands of additional dollars she’ll owe annually in property taxes to pay off her new $33,000 system far outstrips those savings. ‘I think I’ve been had,’ Moore said.”

Quotes: “But as clean energy programs have grown, so too have the consumer complaints. Some have reported their energy bills going up despite being led to believe the opposite would happen.” “Some customers faulted shady operators who took their money and then didn’t finish projects. ‘This is likely the result of the industry growing at such a rapid rate that some contractors now in the marketplace are unscrupulous,’ said licensing board enforcement chief David Fogt. ‘The vast majority of solar contractors are doing a good job, but there’s a small percentage taking advantage of consumers.’” “Other complaints lodged with the state . . . came from customers, often vexed by vague or complex contracts, who were upset that projects didn’t yield the savings they said they’d been promised. Elderly consumers are especially vulnerable to exploitation, Fogt said. ‘These consumers are complaining that the savings they were told they would receive by installing solar was not realized,’ Fogt said.” “Detractors warn sales pitches can echo the type of irresponsible behavior that fueled the 2007 housing crash. ‘You have contractors and sales representatives who are selling this product very, very aggressively,’ said Irvine Realtor Lacy Robertson. ‘It’s predatory lending.’” “And people who sign up for PACE are not always expecting higher tax obligations.‘The county has received a few complaints from people who are surprised when their tax bill has increased,’ said Robert Davison, chief of Sacramento County’s engineering division.”

May 3, 2016 The Sacramento Bee “Solar panel loans have spun out of control”

“During the past several years, there has been a significant increase in the number of California homeowners using a new kind of financing to install solar panels, put in landscaping to save water, and make seismic strengthening improvements. However, a light needs to shine on this financing – known as property assessed clean energy financing, or PACE – because it ignores longstanding lending principles and fails to make important disclosures to borrowers.” “An increasing number of companies, acting as agents of the city or county, are aggressively and falsely marketing these loan repayments as assessments that stay with the property.” “Of equal concern is the insufficient review by public agencies or their agents before making a PACE loan. Potential borrowers are not evaluated for their ability to repay, and they are not adequately told of the impact the loan may have on their ability to resell or refinance their home. Also unclear is how many PACE loans can be made on one parcel. It’s entirely possible that one home may have one for an energy efficiency improvement, a second for water efficiency and a third for seismic strengthening improvements. The potential stacking of these PACE loans complicates title and the rights of lenders.”

BiggerPockets.com “Southern California Hero Program – Renovate America – Scam”

“The story begins with me locating a very beat up home while in the area with friends, looked like a perfect flip so I reached out to the owner. The contract was negotiated at the mortgage balance due to the comps and need for repairs in the area. We’d got our EMD in and were ready to close when title discovered a tax lien on the property. This lien originated in 2012 to the tune of $2131 until 2033.The seller was oblivious to this lien and stated the windows were done for free through an energy upgrade program sponsored by the WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments). They had stated they would increase the value of the house which would raise its taxes and that would pay for the upgrade. Total cost for the windows was $14,000 but once financed over 30 years it would come out to just under $40,000 at 9.51% APR.” “I’m amazed a program like this can be sponsored by local governments, council members and mayors sit on the board for the WRCOG and seem to be blind to the deceptive methods used to get these projects sold by local contractors and Renovate America. So you’ve got a local program in Southern California that sells highly marked up energy efficient repairs without ensuring contractors complete the work or performing an appraisal to ensure they aren’t putting the owner underwater. They don’t have to as there is zero risk due to the first position of the lien. Talk about a brilliant but predatory business model….”

July 19, 2016 California Association of Realtors “C.A.R. Statement on HUD Insuring FHA Mortgages with PACE Loans”

“LOS ANGELES (July 19, 2016) – The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s new policy that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will begin insuring mortgages on certain properties with Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans.” “Although C.A.R. supports voluntary consumer-friendly energy improvement programs for homeowners, C.A.R. believes that HUD was ill advised to approve placing PACE loans in a senior position to FHA first mortgages,” said C.A.R. President Pat “Ziggy” Zicarelli. ‘Doing so places FHA homebuyers and taxpayers at risk and does homeowners a disservice by approving a loan product without consumer protections and which is aggressively sold to homeowners who rely on FHA financing for safe and affordable mortgages.’” “C.A.R. feels that the FHA has failed to justify why it supports a program whose interest rates border on predatory and do not follow even basic lending guidelines for consumers.” “‘This loan product has no minimum disclosures, no underwriting of the borrower, no proof that the borrower has the ability to repay, no three-day right to rescind, no marketing limitations, no interest rate or fee caps, no kickback prohibitions; nothing,’ added Zicarelli. ‘If the housing market of the last decade has taught us anything, it’s that first-time homeowners, and low- and moderate-income homeowners are the most vulnerable and will be taken advantage of. Sadly, it is they who the FHA is inviting unregulated PACE lenders to target.”

March 28, 2015 Pedersen Real Estate “Some Big Problems with HERO PACE program – Homeowners Beware!”

“My wife and I took a listing a few months ago where the seller was selling his mother’s home. She had passed away recently. He told us during the listing appointment that she may have had some home improvement work done to the home involving the HERO program.” “Part of the problem was that we could not document any demonstrative improvements that would justify a value increase to the home for the appraiser. According to the son, his mother had the house texture-coated a few years ago through the HERO program. The seller had to pay off the lien out of the proceeds of the sale in order for the sale to go through. But the purchase price did NOT reflect any improvements to the home that justified the HERO lien. This seller was lucky because he had enough equity to pay off the HERO lien but many sellers are finding that they do not have enough equity to pay off the lien and they believe that the buyer can assume the debt.” “In the past couple of months, the California Association of Realtors and local Realtor associations have been trying to educate Realtors about the program and its risks. What risk? For one, some Realtors and sellers have been sued for not disclosing the HERO liens. For one, some Realtors and sellers have been sued for not disclosing the HERO liens. This issue is also shutting down sales and refinances as most , in particular conventional loans, will not finance purchase loan or a refinance loan on houses that have HERO liens on them.” “Homeowners with HERO financing assume that these loans are assumable, but they’re NOT. For the most part, banks won’t lend on a property unless the HERO debt is settled prior to closing.”

June 12, 2015 The Press Enterprise “MORENO VALLEY: Homebuyer files lawsuit over HERO-financed transaction”

“When Esther Kemmerer agreed to pay $345,000 for a clear title on a house in Moreno Valley in April 2013, she claims she got more than a property with energy-efficient amenities. Kemmerer got embroiled in a civil lawsuit accusing the seller and others who handled the all-cash sale of failing to disclose and pay off a $28,675 property tax assessment for HERO-financed windows and doors that could grow to $59,431 over 20 years.” “Barbara Spoonhour, the WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments) administrator of the HERO program, said the HERO assessment is supposed to show up when a title search is done. However, Herrera (government affairs director for Inland Valleys, California Desert and Inland Gateway associations of Realtors) said it showed up in a place no one expected, so underlying documents had to be requested to get a true picture of what was going on. ‘It got missed by veterans, agents, brokers, lenders – folks in escrow,’ he said. ‘It’s also appearing on a tax bill, and not everyone was generating every portion of the tax bill for these reports.’”

Oct. 5, 2015 The National Real Estate Post “Run From PACE Loans… Run”

“Based on what’s going on with these PACE loans all we can say is ‘run forrest… run.’” Transcript of relevant sections of the video: Brian: “Disguised this as making your house green, which everybody likes. We get the States on board with PACE, because, well, everyone likes green. We call it a tax bill, we charge an over eight percent rate over twenty years, we make it assumable, we supercede the existing first, and sell a bunch of stuff that probably won’t last or won’t be up to par for the twenty years of the loan, and then we make a bunch of money?” Frank: “That’s right Brian, and don’t forget, unregulated, the more we charge the more we make, and the more I sell, the better the profits.”

July 17, 2015 The Sacramento Bee “Energy Improvement program can hobble home sales“

“Some homeowners have had to pay off their PACE loans before they can refinance. When Patti Smith sought a refinance last year for her senior community home in San Diego County, she had to pay off a $14,774 HERO loan she previously took out for an air-conditioning unit, tankless water heater and replacement ductwork. “I was flabbergasted when our mortgage company told us we had a lien,” said Smith, 62. “The contractor who pushed the HERO program never mentioned the word ‘lien.’ If he would have we would have never done it.” Smith said she also had to pay a penalty of $1,734.14 to HERO for paying off the loan early. The HERO program has since waived the penalty fee for homeowners.” “One selling point of PACE loans has been that a home seller can transfer responsibility for paying off green improvements to the buyer when they move, since the assessment is collected through county property tax payments. But real estate agents warn that such transfers aren’t as smooth as once envisioned.” April 9, 2016 Ventura County Star “Opinion: Mark Chacon: Energy-efficiency loans could cause homeowner headaches“

“A new government-sponsored program enables homeowners to reduce utility bills and help save the environment. It sounds great, but there are several things you should consider before signing up. Fortunately, alternative programs are available that pose less risk to homeowners.” “Steve Lista found that out the hard way. He put his five-bedroom home in Riverside County on the market in June but couldn’t find a buyer willing to take on the $3,000-a-year assessment for his $27,000 solar panel system.”

Foreclosure Relief Scams

Comments in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Mortgage Assistance Relief Services, March 2010 We commend the FTC for proposing a strong rule to protect homeowners from unfair and deceptive mortgage assistance relief services. This rule is urgently needed. Standard & Poor’s recently estimated that five to seven million more homes may go into over the next three years. Meanwhile, until this rule becomes law, scammers will continue to target desperate homeowners with deceptive advertisements and false promises of relief—all for large, up-front payments.

Desperate Homeowners: Loan Mod Scammers Step in When Servicers Refuse to Provide Relief Report, July 2009 As the number of continues to grow, a new “industry” has emerged seeking to profit from desperate homeowners who are trying to save their homes. For-profit loan modification services make extravagant and unverifiable claims regarding their ability to help but too often the homeowner gets nothing after paying thousands in fees they can ill afford to spare.

Comments in response to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Mortgage Assistance Relief Services, July 2009 The FTC requested comment with regard to prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices by mortgage assistance relief services (MARS).

DREAMS FORECLOSED: The Rampant Theft of Americans’ Homes Through Equity- stripping Foreclosure “Rescue” Scams Report In this report you’ll read about those who target many thousands of good people, people often under serious stress, and shake all or most of the value out of what’s often their only major asset. The wrecked lives the predators leave behind are not their concern.

Webinars

Mortgage Assistance Relief Scams: What Advocates Should Know & Updates on Regulation by Andrew Pizor, March 10, 2010 Presentation and Recording Preemption Archive

Policy Analysis

Policy Briefs, Reports & Press Releases

Press release: Supreme Court Decision (Michigan v Bay Mills Indian Community) Strikes Blow against Tribal Online Payday Lenders, May 29, 2014 Banking Regulator Favors Banks Over Consumers, July 20, 2011 Issue Brief: OCC Ignores Dodd-Frank Act’s Repeal of 2004 Preemption Regulations, May 2011 Press Release Criticizing Proposed OCC Preemption Rules, May 26, 2011 Issue Brief: The Role of the States under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Dec. 2010 Restore the States’ Traditional Role as “First Responder”, White Paper and Press Release, 2009 Statement: State on Cuomo v. Clearing House Supreme Court Fair Lending Preemption Decision, 2009 Response to MBA Policy Paper on Suitability, February 2007

Letters

Consumer Groups’ Letter to Senate Opposing S. 1208 (Tester) — bill not protecting consumers in rent-to-own transactions, May 26, 2014 Consumer Groups’ Letter to Senate Opposing S. 881 (Landrieu) ‐‐ Unfair To Rent‐to‐Own Consumers, August 2011 Consumer Groups’ Letter to the House Opposing HR 1588 (Canseco) ‐‐ Unfair To Rent‐to‐Own Consumers, August 2011 Letter to Obama Requesting Amendment of Preemption Executive Order, 2008 Letter to Senate Banking Committee Regarding Bernanke Nomination, October 2005

Comments

Comments to OCC opposing new fintech lending charter that would preemption state interest rates and other laws, Nov. 14, 2016 Consumer comments to FDIC opposing rent-a-bank arrangements., Oct. 27, 2016 Consumer comments to OCC on supporting responsible financial innovation (May 31, 2016): Full comments. Comments only. Exhibits only. Comments to OCC in connection with 10 year review of regulations under Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, Sept. 2, 2014. Comments On Electronic Fund Transfers Intent To Make Determination of Effect on State Laws (Maine and Tennessee) (Gift Card Expiration Dates and Escheat Law), October 22, 2012 Comments on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Interim Final Rule on the preemption rules under the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act, September 22, 2011 NCLC Comments on OCC Preemption Proposal, June 27, 2011 Comments on OCC Interim Final Rule on preemption of state laws applied to federal savings associations that act as a fiduciary (including as a trustee, executor, administrator or guardian), Oct. 11, 2011 Comments regarding Interstate Banking; Federal Interest Rate Authority: Proposed Rulemaking Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 2005 Comments regarding the proposed amendments to Reg E on electronic debiting of NSF fees, September 2006 Comments – Request for Information on Electronic Benefits Transfer System for Victims of Disaster, April 2006 Comments regarding the proposed amendments to Reg E on ATM disclosures, October 2005 Comments regarding Petition for Rulemaking to Preempt Certain State Laws Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, May 2005 Comments regarding Proposed Amendment to Regulation J and Regulation CC Regarding Remotely Created Checks, May 2005 Comments on Federal Check 21 Act: Banks No Longer Will Return Original Cancelled Checks, October 2004 Comments regarding Economic Growth and Paperwork Reduction Act “EGRPRA”, April 2004 Comments regarding the Proposed Revisions to Regulations B, E, M, Z, DD and the Official Staff Commentaries, January 2004 Comments regarding the proposed rules on Customer Identification Programs for Banks, Savings Associations and Credit Union, January 2004 Comments to the FRB on Bounce Protection Products, April 2003

Testimony

Testimony of Margot F. Saunders before Subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services: Examining Rental Purchase Agreements and the Potential Role for Federal Regulation, July 26, 2011 Testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding Current Proposals Considered for Regulatory Relief Legislation, June 2005 Testimony to the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit regarding “Helping Consumers Obtain the Credit They Deserve”, May 2005 Testimony to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding All Current Proposals for Legislation on Financial Services Reform, June 2004

Taxes Archive

Regulation of Paid Tax Preparers

Policy Briefs, Reports & Press Releases

Advocates Disappointed Private Debt Collectors Will Begin Collecting Federal Tax Debts, Sept. 29, 2016 Minefield of Risks: Taxpayers Face Perils from Unregulated Preparers, Lack of Fee Disclosure, and Tax-Time Financial Products, March 2016 Press Release: National Survey: Strong Support for Reforming Paid Tax Preparer Industry, Jan. 20, 2016 Report and Press Release: Prepared in Error: Mystery Shoppers in Florida and North Carolina Uncover Serious Tax Preparer Problems, April 9, 2015 Press Release: Tax Prep Services: Buyer Beware, Jan. 20, 2015 Riddled Returns: How Errors and Fraud by Paid Tax Preparers Put Consumers at Risk and What States Can Do, March 2014 Press Release: Tax-Time Problems for Consumers, Jan. 2014 Report and Press Release: Tax Time 2011: Mystery Shopper Testing in New York and North Carolina Finds Continuing Problems With Tax Preparers Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Out of Compliance: Mystery Shopper Testing Exposes Violations of Refund Anticipation Loan Laws Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Take a Bite out of Refunds: Mystery Shopper Test Exposes Refund Anticipation Loan Abuses in Durham and Philadelphia

Comments, Letters & Testimony

Advocates’ letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance urging support to give the U.S. Treasury the authority to regulate paid trax preparers, April 15, 2016 Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance regarding “Protecting Taxpayers from Incompetent and Unethical Return Preparers“, April 8, 2014

Litigation & Model Law

Brief for Amici Curiae in Support of IRS Tax Preparer Regulation, April 5, 2013; Press release, April 8, 2013

Private Debt Collection of Taxes

Group letter urging the IRS to establish strong protections for taxpayers, especially low- income taxpayers, affected by the Private Debt Collection program, Aug. 30, 2016 Group Letter & Press Release Opposing Section 52106 in Senate Highway Trust Fund Bill Mandating IRS to Use Private Debt Collectors, July 24, 2015 Group letter opposing the language included in the “Expiring Provisions Improvement Reform and Efficiency (EXPIRE) Act of 2014,” April 28, 2014 Group letter supporting S. 3887 that would prevent the IRS from using private collection agencies to collect federal taxes, Sept. 2006 Testimony on “Use of Private Collection Agencies to Improve IRS Debt Collection”, May 2003

Taxes reports and press releases archive

Report and Press Release: Prepared in Error: Mystery Shoppers in Florida and North Carolina Uncover Serious Tax Preparer Problems, April 9, 2015 Riddled Returns: How Errors and Fraud by Paid Tax Preparers Put Consumers at Risk and What States Can Do, March 2014 Report and Press Release: Tax Time 2011: Mystery Shopper Testing in New York and North Carolina Finds Continuing Problems With Tax Preparers Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Out of Compliance: Mystery Shopper Testing Exposes Violations of Refund Anticipation Loan Laws Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Take a Bite out of Refunds: Mystery Shopper Test Exposes Refund Anticipation Loan Abuses in Durham and Philadelphia Consumer Advisory: Avoid Tax-Time Refund Products, Jan 17, 2013 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Praise FDIC Settlement to End RALs from Republic Bank & Trust, Dec. 9, 2011 Press Release: Advocates Applaud H&R Block for Stopping RALs and Urge Republic, Jackson Hewitt, and Liberty to Also Stop RALs, Sept. 14, 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates: FDIC Action Shows RALs are Unsafe and Unsound $2 Million Fine Proposed Against Republic Bank, May 9, 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Applaud FDIC Action Against Unsafe and Unsound Refund Anticipation Loans, Feb. 2011 Press Release: Advocates Applaud Treasury Tax Refund Prepaid Card Pilot, Jan. 2011 Press Release: Major Changes for Tax Refund Loans: Fewer Loans Available, but More Pricey, Jan. 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Applaud End of IRS-Provided Service to Refund Anticipation Lenders, August 2010 Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Out of Compliance: Mystery Shopper Testing Exposes Violations of Refund Anticipation Loan Laws, April 2010 Report and Press Release: Tax Preparers Take a Bite out of Refunds: Mystery Shopper Test Exposes Refund Anticipation Loan Abuses in Durham and Philadelphia, April 2009 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Decry Use of Bailout Money to Make Predatory Loans to Working Poor Families, Jan. 2009 Report and Press Release: Pay Stub and Holiday RALs: Faster, Costlier, Riskier in the Race to the Bottom, April 2008 Report and Press Release: Debt Indicator – Corporate Welfare for the RAL Industry, April 2007

Refund Anticipation Loans & Checks

Reports

Press Release and Report: Big Changes Burden Taxpayers: New Law Delays Refunds, Drives Demand for Loans; Immigrant Taxpayers Face Challenges, March 2017 2016 Press Release and Report: Minefield of Risks: Taxpayers Face Perils from Unregulated Preparers, Lack of Fee Disclosure, and Tax-Time Financial Products, March 2016 Consumer Advisory: Avoid Tax-Time Refund Products, Jan 17, 2013 2015 Report and Press Release 2014 Report and Press Release 2013 Report and Press Release 2012 Report and Press Release 2011 Report and Press Release

2010 Report and Press Release

2009 Report and Press Release and Appendix (RALs, Tax Fraud, and Fringe Preparers)

2008 Report and Press Release

2008 Report and Press Release One Step Forward, One Step Back: Progress Seen in Efforts Against High-Priced Refund Anticipation Loans, but Even More Abusive Products Introduced, Feb. 2007

Another Year of Losses: High-Priced Refund Anticipation Loans Continue to Take a Chunk Out of Americans’ Tax Refunds, Feb. 2006

Picking Taxpayers’ Pockets, Draining Tax Relief Dollars: Refund Anticipation Loans Still Slicing Into Low-Income Americans’ Hard-Earned Tax Refunds, Jan. 2005

All Drain, No Gain: Refund Anticipation Loans Continue to Sap the Hard-Earned Tax Dollars of Low-Income Americans, Jan. 2004

The High Cost of Quick Tax Money: Tax Preparation, “Instant Refund” Loans, and Check Cashing Fees Target the Working Poor, Jan. 2003

Tax Preparers Peddle High Cost Tax Refund Loans – Millions Skimmed from the Working Poor and the U.S. Treasury, Jan. 2002

Press Releases

Press Release: Tax Prep Services: Buyer Beware, Jan. 20, 2015 Press Release: Tax-Time Problems for Consumers, Jan. 2014

Consumer Advisory: Avoid Tax-Time Refund Products, Jan 17, 2013 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Praise FDIC Settlement to End RALs from Republic Bank & Trust, Dec. 9, 2011 Press Release: Advocates Applaud H&R Block for Stopping RALs and Urge Republic, Jackson Hewitt, and Liberty to Also Stop RALs Sept. 14, 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates: FDIC Action Shows RALs are Unsafe and Unsound $2 Million Fine Proposed Against Republic Bank, May 9, 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Applaud FDIC Action Against Unsafe and Unsound Refund Anticipation Loans, Feb. 2011 Press Release: Advocates Applaud Treasury Tax Refund Prepaid Card Pilot, Jan. 2011 Press Release: Major Changes for Tax Refund Loans: Fewer Loans Available, but More Pricey, Jan. 2011 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Applaud End of IRS-Provided Service to Refund Anticipation Lenders, August 2010 Press Release: Consumer Advocates Decry Use of Bailout Money to Make Predatory Loans to Working Poor Families, Jan. 2009

Testimony, Comments and Letters

Written testimony of National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Federation of America to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services regarding “The FDIC’s Targeting of Refund Anticipation Loans”, March 16, 2016 Letter Urging OCC and FDIC to Address Refund Anticipation Loans, Oct. 2010 Letter to Office of Thrift Supervision re: MetaBank’s Intent to Make RALs, June 2010 Comments and Press Release: Consumer Advocates Urge IRS to Stop Preparers from Using Confidential Tax Returns to Sell Refund Anticipation Loans Letter to Congress Regarding RAL Reform Agenda

Litigation & Model Law

Revised Model Refund Anticipation Loan Act with Commentary, 2013 Objection of Consumer Groups to RAL-Lending Bank Republic Bancorp’s Application to Switch Charter from FDIC to Office of Thrift Supervision, Sept. 12, 2008 Pending Legislation

Pending Bills Involving Foreclosure Mediation and Mandatory Loss Mitigation Review

Arizona

Arizona H.B. 2124 (creating conditional stay of sale to allow time for unsupervised negotiation over loss mitigation)

Arizona H.B. 2383 (defining servicer obligations related to loss mitigation options; defining UDAP violations)

Arizona H.B. 2642 (directing courts to create and enforce mandatory mediation program)

California

California S.B. 729 (mandating recordation prior to sale of certification of compliance with detailed loss mitigation review protocol)

Connecticut

Connecticut HB 6463 (would extend existing foreclosure mediation program to July 1, 2014 and amend various scheduling provisions of existing law)

Delaware

HB 58 (expanding state’s current mediation program implemented by Superior Court and directing all foreclosure cases to mediation)

Illinois

Illinois H.B. 1810 (would authorize assessment of $500 fee from a completed foreclosure to fund various projects that further foreclosure relief, including court-sponsored mediation programs, legal services, and housing counseling)

Michigan

HB 4536 (extending sunset on existing foreclosure conference law to July 5, 2013)

HB 4542 (extending existing conference law to July 2012, altering time frame for conference requests and documentation procedures)

Mississippi

H.B. 322 (creating procedure for borrower facing non judicial foreclosure to request unsupervised conference with servicer to consider loan modification) (voted down in committee) Missouri

H.B. 922 (directing county courts to establish programs for mandatory supervised mediations in foreclosure cases)

Nevada

A.B. 455 (would require amendment to existing foreclosure mediation rules to allow additional continuances and assess costs to beneficiary of deed of trust for causing continuances)

A.B. 300 (establishing requirements for more detailed mediator reports, standards for judicial review, and requiring more data on program performance) (vetoed by Governor)

New York

A.B. 1597 (amending § 3408 conference law to authorize courts to refer borrowers to counseling, extend negotiation period and stay of proceedings for up to one year subject to borrower’s compliance with court-approved payment obligation after initial 90 days)

A.B. 5856 (amending § 3408 conference law to add HAMP review as good faith component (enacting clause stricken 4/20/2011)

A.B. 7277 (creating judicial mediation program for fundamentally unaffordable loans; borrower must make prima facie case of eligibility for program and court may order some form of payment during extended mediation period)

A.B. 7338 (adding to § 3408 conference law a requirement for HAMP eligibility review as an element of good faith)

S.B. 442 (amending judicial rules to provide for presumptive dismissal of foreclosure action after plaintiff fails twice to appear by authorized representative at settlement conference, or appears without required documents)

Oregon

SB 198 (authorizing creation of mandatory mediation program under auspices of Department of Commerce and Business Services)

Puerto Rico

SB 1434 (creating mandatory foreclosure mediation)

South Carolina

H.B. 3108 (directing judiciary to establish program for mandatory mediation of foreclosure actions)

Tennessee

H.B. 1522/S.B. 1610 (requiring mediation before non-judicial foreclosure sale, utilizing existing commercial dispute resolution entities) Texas

H.B. 1967/ S.B. 2030 (requires certification of effort at unsupervised conference on loss mitigation before acceleration or sale of residential mortgages, applies only to institutions that received funds under EESA)

Wisconsin

A.B. 137 (authorizes procedure in which borrower may elect to participate in unsupervised negotiations with a servicer to determine whether a loan modification under standards defined in Bill can be agreed upon)

***

Federal Bills

S. 489 Preserving Homes and Communities Act of 2011 (would require loss mitigation reviews as condition to foreclosure and authorize HUD to make competitive grants to state and local governments to establish foreclosure mediation programs)

H.R. 1131 Preventing Homeowners from Foreclosures Act of 2011 (directs Secretary of HUD to make competitive grants to state and local governments to create foreclosure mediation programs, prescribes elements of programs eligible for funding)

Foreclosure Mediation Programs by State

CALIFORNIA

Opinion in Mabry v. Superior Court, No. 30-2009-003090696 (June 2, 2010) holding, inter alia, that Civil Code § 2923.5 not preempted:

Text of California Civil Code § 2923.5 (90 day delay in foreclosing unless servicer has loan modification program that satisfies standards under statute).

Text of California Civil Code §§ 2923.52-53 (delays filing the first foreclosure notice for 30 days so the lender can confer with the homeowner)

California Department of Corporations information on § 2923.52, includes Servicer Application for Exemption, Borrower FAQ, list of servicers who have been granted exemptions, and implementing regulations

Beneficiary Declaration of Compliance with § 2923.5 CONNECTICUT

H.B. 6351 (amending mediation statute’s procedures regarding concurrent motion practice, documentation, and extending sunset to July 1, 2014)

Conn. House Bill 5270 (Public Act No.10-181, approved June 2010 (current version of Connecticut. foreclosure mediation statute)

Connecticut Foreclosure Mediation Program Judicial Branch statistics (as of June 30, 2010)

Foreclosure Standing Order Federal Loss Mitigation Programs (effective Sept. 1, 2010)

Affidavit: Federal Loss Mitigation Programs

Connecticut Foreclosure Mediation Program Materials, Attorney and Homeowner FAQs

State of Connecticut Notice Regarding Foreclosure Mediation Program (addressing amended provisions)

Connecticut Judiciary Information Brochure

Connecticut Superior Court Uniform Foreclosure Mediation Standing Order

Prior versions of mediation statute:

Public Act No. 08-176: An Act Concerning Responsible Lending and Economic Security

Senate Bill 619, amending 08-176 as to procedures for scheduling mediation

Senate Bill 948, (Act No. 09-209) amending mediation procedures

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

D.C. Saving Homes from Foreclosure Act: B19-57 (Feb. 2011), amending D.C. Code § 42-815

Emergency Amendment to D.C. Saving Homes from Foreclosure Act (8/9/2011) B19-419

D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking

DELAWARE

Administrative order and forms

Text of Superior Court Administrative Directive No. 2009-3 (August 31, 2009)

FLORIDA

Report of Assessment Workgroup for Managed Mediation Program for Residential Foreclosure Cases, Supreme Court of Florida (October 21, 2011) (recommending revamping of existing statewide mandatory mediation system)

Florida Supreme Court: Final Report and Recommendations on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases Admin. Order 09-54, December 28, 2009 Final Report of Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis, August 17, 2009

First, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Judicial Circuits administrative orders for foreclosure mediation (programs managed by Collins Center)

Fourth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 2010-01 (Feb. 25, 2010)

Fifth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 2010-A-13 (May 28, 2010) and Administrative Order No. 2010-17 Uniform Referral to Mediation and Instructions to Plaintiff’s Counsel (June 21, 2010)

Seventh Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 2010 – 022-SC Mandatory Referral of Homestead Foreclosure Cases to Mediation (July 19, 2010)

Ninth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 2010-11 (Orange County, July 2, 1010) and Administrative Order No. 2010-12 (Osceola County, July 2, 2010)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. S- 2010-051 (July 19, 2010)

Sixteenth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 3.005 (June 29, 2010)

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 2010-29 (March 25, 2010)

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Brevard County: Administrative Order No.10-09 B Amended (Oct. 5, 2010)

Brevard County Foreclosure Procedures

Seminole County:Administrative Order No. 09-09-S Amended (Sept. 30, 2009)

Seminole County Mediation Documents

Twentieth Judicial Circuit: Administrative Order No. 1.12 (June 30, 2010)

Circuit Court Foreclosure Mediation Information

Supreme Court of Florida:

Administrative Order establishing a Task Force on Residential Foreclosures, March 9, 2009

Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Residential Foreclosures Interim Report, May 8, 2009

Comments of Housing Umbrella Group and Consumer Umbrella Group of Florida Legal Services, Inc. to Fla. Supreme Court regarding foreclosure procedures, including mediation

HAWAII

S.B. 651 (Act amending Chapter 667 of Hawaii Revised Statutes to create mortgage foreclosure dispute resolution program) (May 2011)

IDAHO

House Bill 331 (approved April 2011) (prior to a non-judicial sale, requires foreclosing entity to record certification of compliance with loss mitigation review protocol; review is unsupervised) ILLINOIS

Cook County Circuit Court Foreclosure Mediation Information

INDIANA

Senate Enrolled Act. No. 582, amending statewide conference statute (approved May 2011)

Revised settlement conference notice and loss mitigation package (Indiana Housing & Community Dev. Auth.)

2009 Senate Enrolled Act No. 492 (Indiana Code § 32-30-10.5-8)

2010 Enrolled Act No. 1122, amending 2009 Senate Enrolled Act No. 492

KENTUCKY

Jefferson County:

Administrative Order

Notice of Foreclosure

MAINE

LD14818 (14 Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. 6321-A)

Text Fact Sheet

Report of (Maine) Judicial Branch on Foreclosure Diversion, June 8, 2009

Maine Supreme Court Foreclosure Diversion Information Page

York County rules for pilot program for foreclosure mediation

MARYLAND

Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation Foreclosure Prevention and Mediation Information links

Maryland House Bill 472

Maryland Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation

Maryland Governor’s Information Handout

Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation: Emergency Regulations and Foreclosure Mediation Forms

MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts Foreclosure Conference law 2010 Bill 258 MICHIGAN

S.B. 398 (Approved July 2011) (extending sunset of conference law to Jan. 5, 2012)

Bill No. 4453: Text and Analysis of Bill as passed by Senate

Bill No. 4454: Text

Bill No. 4455: Text and Analysis as passed by the Senate

NEVADA

A.B. 388 (Approved June 2011) (revisions to notice of mediation election form)

S.B. 307 (approved June 2011) (revisions to notice of mediation election form)

A.B. 209 (approved June 2011) (authorizing use of portion of filing fees to pay for legal services for the indigent)

A.B. 300 (vetoed by Governor June 2011) (would revise procedures and remedies available upon lender’s bad faith participation in mediation, require specific mediator findings, opportunity for borrower to petition for sanctions and judicial review, create presumptions as to when sanctions will be imposed, and require court approval of fees shifting related to mediation)

Opinion: Leyva v. Nat’l Default Servicing Corp., No. 55216, Nevada Supreme Court en banc (July 7, 2011) (enforcing documentation and authorized representative appearance provisions of Nevada Foreclose Mediation statute, directing imposition of appropriate sanctions)

Assembly Bill 149

Foreclosure Mediation Community Legal Education Material (training manual developed by Legal Aid Center for Southern Nevada, Wm S. Boyd School of Law, Nevada Fair Housing Center)

Clark County Court’s homeowner petition for judicial intervention upon servicer’s bad faith in mediation

New Hampshire

Text of SB 70

NEW JERSEY

Amendments to state court rules to accommodate foreclosure mediation program

New Jersey Courts’ notice on mediation and bankruptcy

NEW YORK

State of New York Unified Court System: 2010 Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts on New York Conference Law (November 2010)

New York Real Property Actions and Procedures Law § 1304 Summary of November 2009 amendments affecting foreclosure conferences:

2009 New York Mortgage Fraud Bill

Memo on the 2009 New York Mortgage Fraud Bill

Report: “New York State Unified Court System June 2008 Residential Mortgage Foreclosures: Promoting Early Court Intervention.” by Justice Judith S. Kaye

Summary of 2008 legislation by Kirsten Keefe and Elizabeth Hasper, Empire Justice Center

Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Conference Notice for Suffolk County, New York

South Brooklyn Legal Services Information Sheet and Guide to Foreclosure Settlement Process

“Locked Out” Report on New York Settlement Conferences by Center for New York City Neighborhoods (Oct. 2009)

New York State Unified Court System Residential Foreclosure Settlement Conferences: An Overview for Homeowners

Supreme Court 11th Judicial District (Queens) Foreclosure Conference Rules

NEW MEXICO

First Judicial Circuit (Santa Fe): Administrative Order No. 2009-00001 with forms and related documents

OHIO

Ohio Supreme Court:

Program Model

Foreclosure Mediation Resources

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland):

Required Forms and General Information

Program Summary

Alternative Proposal

Franklin County (Columbus):

General Program Information

Summit County (Akron)

OREGON

Senate Bill 628 as passed by House June 29, 2009 Enrolled House Bill 3610, Updated 2010 (Amending SB 628)

PENNSYLVANIA

Report: Philadelphia Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program: Initial Report and Findings, a Study by the Reinvestment Fund of Philadelphia (June 2011)

Allegheny County (Pittsburgh):

Administrative Order Court Program Description

Bucks County (suburban Philadelphia): Administrative Order

Butler County: Administrative Order of the Court

Fayette County: Administrative Order

Lackawanna County (Scranton):

Notice of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversionary Program pursuant to Lacka. Co. R.C.P. 205.2(b) and 1143(a) – Form 8

Notice of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversionary Program pursuant to 1034(b) and 1035.2 – Form 11

Northampton County (Bethlehem/Easton): Administrative Order

Philadelphia County

Philadelphia Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Pilot Program: 2009 materials, including court regulations, current forms, and administrative orders (November 17, 2008)

NCLC Reports Article July/August 2008 Article: Local Foreclosure Moratoriums: The Philadelphia Story

Philadelphia Court: Information page and Forms

Somerset County: Order

Washington Count: Mortgage Foreclosure Diversion Program

RHODE ISLAND

Providence foreclosure diversion program ordinance

Documents – City of Providence: Foreclosure Conciliation Requirements/Duties of Participants/Applying the Ordinance/Model Certificate

Decision in Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. City of Providence P.C. No. 10-1240 (Providence Superior Court) – Invalidating in part City of Providence Ordinance VERMONT

Text of Vermont H 590

Vermont Attorney General Foreclosure Mediation Information site

Vermont Judiciary Foreclosure Mediation Report Form

Vermont Foreclosure Mediation Request Form

WASHINGTON

H.B. 1362 /S.B. 5275 (approved April 2011) (creating statewide foreclosure mediation program administered by state Department of Commerce)

WISCONSIN

Mandatory Mediation Program for Buffalo and Pepin Counties: Program Description

Foreclosure Mediation Application form Buffalo and Pepin County

Dane County (Madison) Foreclosure Mediation Program and Notice Form

MISCELLANEOUS STATE/LOCAL PROGRAMS

Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Project (voluntary)

GM and Chrysler Bankruptcies

The Status of Product Liability, Warranty and Lemon Law Claims for New GM and Chrysler

This page contains information and court documents related to the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. It focuses on the treatment of warranty, lemon law, recall and product liability claims against the automakers. This information is subject to change based on new developments.

Chrysler

Warranty and Lemon Law Claims

Section 2.08(g) of the Master Transaction Agreement between Chrysler and Fiat provides that New Chrysler assumes liability for “all Liabilities pursuant to product warranties, product returns, and rebates sold by [Chrysler] prior to the Closing.”

Thus, New Chrysler stands behind the warranties of all Chrysler vehicles, regardless of whether they were manufactured by Old or New Chrysler. New Chrysler has also agreed that all Chrysler customers will be covered under state lemon laws, and that it will honor safety recalls of all Chrysler vehicles.

Product Liability Claims

Section 2.08(h) of the Master Transaction Agreement provides that New Chrysler assumes liability for “all Product Liability Claims arising from the sale after the Closing of Products or Inventory manufactured by [Old Chrysler] or their Subsidiaries in whole or in part prior to the Closing.”

New Chrysler initially disclaimed any liability for product liability claims involving vehicles manufactured and sold by Old Chrysler prior to June 10, 2009. In a letter sent to Congress on August 27, 2009, New Chrysler announced it would accept product liability claims on vehicles manufactured by Old Chrysler before June 10, 2009 and involved in accidents on or after that date.

New Chrysler has not, however, agreed to accept liability for product liability claims related to Old Chrysler vehicles involved in accidents prior to June 10, 2009. In addition, all cases that were pending against Old Chrysler at the time of the bankruptcy filing on April 30, 2009 remain the responsibility of Old Chrysler and will be handled in bankruptcy court.

General Motors

Warranty and Lemon Law Claims

Section 2.3(a)(vii) of the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement between Old GM and New GM provides that New GM assumes “all Liabilities arising under express written warranties of [Old GM]” as well as “all Obligations under Lemon Laws.”

This language makes clear that New GM stands behind the warranties of all GM vehicles, whether manufactured by Old or New GM, and will also honor state lemon law claims. While it is unclear whether New GM has explicitly agreed to honor recall notices related to Old GM vehicles, they would be foolish not to honor safety recalls.

Product Liability Claims

Section 2.3(a)(ix) of the Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment thereto, provides that New GM assumes liability for product liability claims arising out of accidents or incidents occurring on or after the company emerges from bankruptcy (July 10, 2009).

In other words, New GM has assumed responsibility for product liability claims related to all GM vehicles, regardless of whether they were manufactured by Old or New GM, provided that the accident occurred on or after July 10, 2009. Plaintiffs with pending claims, or those who were injured prior to July 10, 2009, must seek redress from Old GM in the bankruptcy court proceeding.

Court Decisions

The Second Circuit authorized the § 363 sale to New Chrysler of Old Chrysler’s assets free and clear of any existing tort liability (including asbestos claims), but declined to delineate the scope of the bankruptcy court’s authority to extinguish future claims “until such time as we are presented with an actual claim for injury that is caused by Old Chrysler, that occurs after the Sale, and that is cognizable under state successor liability law.” In re Chrysler, LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2009).

In the case of GM, the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court was bound by the Second Circuit’s decision in the Chrysler appeal, and permitted “GM’s assets to pass to the purchaser free and clear of successor liability claims.” In re General Motors Corp., 407 B.R. 463, 505 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Important Documents for the GM and Chrysler Bankruptcies

Chrysler

Bankruptcy Petition Decision on Debtor’s Motion to Authorize 363 Sale Order authorizing 363 Sale Order Master Transaction Agreement

GM

Bankruptcy Petition Decision on Debtor’s Motion to Authorize 363 Sale Order authorizing 363 Sale Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement First Amendment to Sale and Purchase Agreement

Additional documents are available at

www.gmcourtdocs.com www.chryslerrestructuring.com

Protection of Exempt Public Benefits

Policy Analysis

Policy Briefs, Reports & Press Releases

New Rules Kick In For Social Security And SSI On May 1, Apr. 29, 2011 Consumer Facts: Your Right to Know – DIRECT EXPRESS® PREPAID DEBIT CARD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, SSI AND OTHER FEDERAL PAYMENTS Effective May 1, a new Treasury rule creates automatic, self-enforcing restrictions on garnishment of electronically-deposited Social Security, SSI and other federal benefits! This special NCLC REPORTS issue examines all aspects of this new rule protecting exempt funds from garnishment. Past, Present and Future Threats to Federal Safety Net Benefits in Bank Accounts, Margot F. Saunders, Johnson M. Tyler, University of North Carolina Banking Law Journal, 2012

Archive+

Letters Letter to Social Security Administration re: Opposing Final Rule on Garnishment of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments, Feb. 23, 2012 Letter Supporting Benefit Card Fairness Act, H.R. 4552, May 2, 2010

Comments

Comments and Appendices on promoting TANF cash access without fees, June 8, 2012. Comments regarding the Interim Final Rule on Garnishment of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments, May 25, 2011 Comments by the National Consumer Law Center on behalf of its low income clients as well as Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union regarding the Interim Final Rule allowing federal payments to be deposited on prepaid cards, April 25, 2011

Archive+

Testimony

Testimony of Margot Saunders before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee re: Impact on Recipients of the Mandate for Direct Deposit of Social Security Benefits, September 12, 2012

Archive+

Webinars

New Rules on Protection and Electronic Payment of Social Security, May 11, 2011 (Margot Saunders, Lauren Saunders) Presentation Recording Public Benefits and on Prepaid Cards (Power Point), November 2010

Policy Analysis Archive

Protection of Exempt Public Benefits Archive

Policy Briefs, Reports & Press Releases

Runaway Bandwagon: How the Government’s Push for Direct Deposit of Social Security Exposes Seniors to Predatory Bank Loans Report, July 2010 Direct Deposit of Federal Wages and Benefits to Prepaid and Stored Value Cards, July 13, 2010 7 Essentials for Consumer-Safe Prepaid Cards (presentation to Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), April 2010 Protections Needed for Prepaid Payroll, Unemployment Benefits, Child Support, and Other Prepaid Payment Cards, 2009

Comments Comments on the Treasury Department’s proposal to mandate all electronic deposits by 2013, August 16, 2010 Comments to Treasury Proposed Rule on Garnishment of Federal Benefit Payments, June 18, 2010 Comments to the Social Security Administration Regarding the Use of Master and Sub Accounts and Other Account Arrangements for the Payment of Benefits Docket No. SSA 2008-0023, 2008 Comments to the Federal Regulators on the InterAgency Guidance on Exempt Benefits, 2007 Comments: NCLC, Consumers Union, and eight other groups to USDA on Proposed Changes to Food Stamps EBT Regulations, September 2001 Comments: NCLC and other consumer and community groups on Treasury’ proposal to regulate the delivery of federal benefits through check cashers, April 1999 Comments: NCLC and other national and local consumer and community groups on Treasury’s proposed special new account, called the “ETA” for unbanked recipients of federal benefits to receive their payments electronically, January 1999 Comments: on the Electronics Benefits Transfer Benefit Adjustments, July 1998 Comments: NCLC and other national and local consumer and community groups on Treasury’s proposed regulations for the delivery of federal benefits by electronic means, May 1998 Comments: to Treasury Secretary Rubin about the need to exclude unregulated fringe bankers from the delivery system for federal benefits, November 19, 1997 Comments: on Proposed Rule Making on Electronic Benefits Transfer, 31 CFR 207, July 1997

Testimony

Testimony of Margot Saunders before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee re: Protecting Social Security Benefits from Predatory Lending and Other Harmful Financial Institution Practices, June 24, 2008 Frozen Out: A Review of Bank Treatment of Social Security Benefits, Testimony before the Committee on Finance and Appendices to Testimony, 2007 Testimony: before the Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, regarding the EFT Requirements of the Debt Collection Improvements Act of 1996 and the Use of ETAs, June 2001 Testimony: before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit on the impact of Treasury’s Proposed Regulation under the “EFT 99” Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 On the Poor, the Elderly and the “Unbanked”, 1998 Testimony: before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services on the impact of Treasury’s Proposed Regulation under the “EFT 99” Provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 On the Poor, the Elderly and the “Unbanked”, September 1997 Testimony: before the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on the Impact of “EFT-99” on the Poor, the Elderly and the “Unbanked”, June 1997 Testimony: before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs regarding the Impact of “EFT-99” o n the Poor, the Elderly and the “Unbanked”, May 1997