July 5, 2022

Volume XII, Number 186

Advertisement
Advertisement

July 05, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Emerging Fair Lending Risk: Student Lending

In line with policy directives from the Biden administration, federal regulators have made it clear that fair and responsible lending is an enforcement priority—and that the directive extends to lenders making student loans (also referenced as education loans). 

Education loans are extensions of credit made to students or parents to fund undergraduate, graduate, and other forms of postsecondary education. Federally-funded and private student loans may be offered by banks, non-profits, nonbanks, credit unions, state-affiliated organizations, and institutions of higher education, including both for-profit and non-profit schools. Lenders are expressly prohibited from discriminating in connection with student loan transactions under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which prohibits discrimination in any aspect of any type of credit transaction. 

Student lending highlights important national issues as outstanding balances and defaults have risen, and the current administration has shown an openness to considering even a cancellation of some of the debt. Given the new focus on student lending, attention to fair lending for education and student loans is a natural next step. In fact, regulators recently signaled that fair lending in the student loan space could be a focal point for examination. In March 2022, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) revealed in its Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights report that it referred a fair lending matter to the U.S. Department of Justice involving a pattern or practice of discrimination in underwriting student loans. The institution in question had a policy of using the Cohort Default Rate (CDR)—a metric published by the U.S. Department of Education that shows the percentage of a school’s borrowers who default on certain loans—as an eligibility threshold to determine which students could apply for private student loan debt consolidation and refinance loans. The FDIC determined that use of the CDR resulted in the “disproportionate exclusion” of students who attended Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) from applying for credit. Because graduates of HBCUs were disproportionately black, the FDIC concluded that the institution’s policy of using the CDR had a disproportionate impact on the basis of race. 

The FDIC acknowledged that “use of the CDR to determine school-specific eligibility requirements constituted a neutral policy,” meaning that the policy was applied equally to all students regardless of race or ethnicity. The FDIC, however, identified a pattern of discrimination through the lens of a disparate impact theory of liability—a theory that is used to show discrimination when a lender applies a facially neutral policy equally to all credit applicants, but that policy causes a disproportionate adverse effect on certain persons on a prohibited basis. An issue thus arises as to whether there is a sufficient nonracial business justification for use of the CDR in evaluating eligibility for student loans. Race, of course, cannot be used as a qualifying factor in making credit decisions, even in circumstances in which it might be predictive of performance.

Financial institutions involved in student loans should take notice that fair lending is an area of potential new scrutiny and risk. Now is the time for compliance and legal departments to review, and update as needed, written policies and business practices, to perform an appropriate fair lending risk assessment, and to ensure that adequate internal controls are in place to mitigate those risks.

Copyright 2022 K & L GatesNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 108
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Paul Hancock Litigation Attorney Miami
Partner

Mr. Hancock focuses his practice on litigation and defense of federal and state government investigations. A primary focus has been the financial services industry, where he has represented the nation’s largest financial institutions as well as other industry members, large and small, facing governmental or private claims. He has provided the views of the industry, on behalf of trade groups, to the Supreme Court and to government agencies considering rules. He has represented other diverse businesses facing governmental legal risks, such as colleges, medical device companies, internet...

305.539.3378
Olivia Kelman Financial Attorney
Associate

Olivia Kelman focuses her practice on financial institutions and services litigation, compliance, and enforcement matters, with a concentration on fair and responsible lending and servicing. She has successfully litigated on behalf of clients in federal district and circuit courts, as well as in state trial and appellate courts. Ms. Kelman also defends investigations, examinations and enforcement actions by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Trade Commission and various...

305.539.3382
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement