Litigation & Enforcement Actions – Page 7 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

HUD’s Approach to Disparate Impact Remains Under Fire—Lending Trade Associations Weigh In

Aug 04 2016

By Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, John L. Longstreth, Olivia Kelman and Joshua Butera

K&L Gates LLP recently presented the views of the major banking and lending trade associations, as amici curiae, in a federal challenge to HUD’s Fair Housing Act disparate-impact rule. The views expressed are those of the American Bankers Association, the American Financial Services Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Independent Community Bankers of America®, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. The HUD rule challenge is likely to have a far-reaching effect on the housing industry and affiliated sectors of the economy. The lending industry argued that the HUD rule fails to comply with binding Supreme Court precedent governing disparate-impact claims. Moreover, HUD—which lacks the power to legislate—impermissibly adopted a legal standard that Congress enacted for a different civil rights law. And compounding its error, HUD cherry-picked only the plaintiff-friendly portions of that standard while ignoring substantial limitations Congress had imposed. Amici filed their brief to assist the trial court in understanding the full potential effect of the HUD disparate-impact rule, urging the court to overturn the rule.

To read the full alert, click here.

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Consider Whether National Bank Act Preemption Extends to Purchasers of Debt Originated by National Banks

Jun 28 2016

By Andrew C. Glass and Roger L. Smerage

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided not to review whether National Bank Act preemption, which provides national banks with a safe harbor from state usury laws, extends to third-parties that purchase and collect debt originated by national banks. The decision to deny certiorari in Midland Funding, LLC v. Madden, No. 15-610 (U.S. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Madden”), leaves intact a May 2015 decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit had ruled that National Bank Act preemption only applies to purchasers of national-bank-originated debt where the purchaser is a subsidiary or agent of, or is otherwise acting on behalf of, a national bank. (The K&L Gates alert regarding the Second Circuit decision can be found here.)

Take Notice of This Change: Supreme Court Adopts Recommended Amendments to Bankruptcy Notice of Payment Change Rule

May 20 2016

By Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi and David A. Mawhinney

Come December, the requirements surrounding notices of payment change (“PCNs”) for certain mortgage loans in bankruptcy will change. The Supreme Court, on April 28, 2016, adopted various proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including amendments to the language of Rule 3002.1 aimed at clarifying when a secured creditor must file a payment change notice (“PCN”) in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Amended Rule 3002.1 will require secured creditors to file PCNs on all claims secured by the Chapter 13 debtor’s primary residence for which the debtor or Chapter 13 Trustee is making post-petition payments during the bankruptcy, without regard to whether the debtor is curing a pre-petition arrearage. The amendments to Rule 3002.1 further clarify that, absent a court order indicating otherwise, the obligation to file PCNs generally ceases once the creditor obtains relief from the automatic stay. The amendments take effect on December 1, 2016.

To read the full alert, click here.

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands Ninth Circuit Decision on Article III Injury-in-Fact in Spokeo

May 16 2016

By Andrew C. Glass, Brian M. Forbes, Gregory N. Blase, Robert W. Sparkes III, and Roger L. Smerage

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, — U.S. — (No. 13-1339). In rendering its decision, the Court reiterated that to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must plead an injury-in-fact that is both particular to the plaintiff and concrete. The Court explained that whether a plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to allege a concrete injury requires more than just examining whether the plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant violated a federal statute. In particular, the Court held that “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm,” does not suffice to “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” Slip op. at 9-10. As such, the Spokeo plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant’s actions had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq., would not, by itself, demonstrate a plausible injury-in-fact. Rather, “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Slip op. at 9.

CFPB’s Proposed Rule Would Put the Brakes on Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Financial Contracts

May 12 2016

By Andrew C. Glass, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Roger L. Smerage, Joshua Butera

Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) in the 1920s to deter hostility toward arbitration. Despite numerous Supreme Court rulings over the decades upholding that goal, arbitration continues to face hostility. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), for example, recently issued a proposed rule that would significantly expand the scope of the Dodd-Frank Act’s restrictions on arbitration agreements. The rule would severely restrict the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses by providers of consumer products and services, primarily by prohibiting the use of class action waivers. And under the proposed rule, the CFPB would exercise close scrutiny over arbitration proceedings by requiring consumer financial services providers to report certain information about arbitrations to the CFPB.

To read the full alert, click here.

Not Starry-Eyed: Massachusetts Imposes Rigorous Standard on Fair Housing Disparate Impact Claims in Burbank Apartments

May 02 2016

By Andrew C. Glass, Paul F. Hancock, Olivia Kelman and Joshua Butera

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) recently answered the question of whether the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute Chapter 151B recognizes a disparate impact theory of discrimination. In Burbank Apartments Tenant Association v. Kargman, the SJC held that Chapter 151B recognizes such a theory. In doing so, however, the SJC adopted the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., and held that in pleading a disparate impact claim under Chapter 151B, a plaintiff must satisfy a rigorous burden. Because the Burbank Apartments plaintiffs failed to meet the rigorous burden, the SJC affirmed the dismissal of their claims.

To read the full alert, click here.

“A Bridge Too Far:” CFPB’s Authority Grab Rejected by Federal Judge

Apr 22 2016

By Soyong Cho and Ted Kornobis

Judge cautions new agency against “plow[ing] head long” beyond its jurisdiction

On April 21, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s investigatory powers and civil investigative demand (“CID”) authority were soundly checked by federal district court judge Richard J. Leon. The Court denied the CFPB’s petition to enforce a CID issued to the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (“ACICS”) seeking information regarding accreditation of for-profit colleges, because the subject of the CID fell squarely outside of the CFPB’s enforcement authority. [1] Judge Leon’s ruling demonstrates that the right to judicial review can provide a backstop to an overly-aggressive and broad investigation.

Untangling the Webb of Arbitrability: The Fourth Circuit Holds That Courts Determine the Availability of Class-Wide Arbitration

Apr 18 2016

By Andrew C. Glass, Robert W. Sparkes III, Loly G. Tor and Eric W. Lee

Is the availability of class-wide arbitration a “gateway” question for courts, or are arbitrators charged with such a decision once a matter is compelled to them? In Dell Webb Communities, Inc. v. Carlson, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals followed the lead of the Third and Sixth Circuits and held that courts — not arbitrators — should ordinarily make the decision. The Fourth Circuit’s decision should be welcome news to corporate defendants seeking to enforce individual (“bilateral”) arbitration agreements while preserving the ability to obtain meaningful appellate review of a determination allowing class-wide arbitration.

To read the full alert, click here.

Buy One, Get One Free: Appellate Court Strikes Deal to Permit Defendant’s Second Attempt at Removing Class Action Beyond Initial Thirty-Day Removal Window

Apr 18 2016

By Ryan M. Tosi

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Graiser v. Visionworks of America, Inc., recently upheld a defendant’s second attempt at removing a class action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), long after the thirty-day removal deadline applicable to traditional diversity jurisdiction expired. The Grasier decision confirms that the defendant does not have a duty to perform any significant investigation of facts relevant to federal jurisdiction independent of the information received from the plaintiff, and that the thirty-day removal period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) applies only after the plaintiff’s pleadings or documents provide the defendant with a clear statement of the damages sought or with sufficient facts from which damages can be readily calculated. As such, a defendant may remove a case under CAFA even if the initial thirty-day removal window has closed where that defendant later receives a document from the plaintiff from which it could be first ascertained that the case was removable under CAFA, thereby providing the defendant with “a new window for removability.”

To read the full alert, click here.

D.C. Circuit Appears Poised to Overturn First CFPB Enforcement Action to Reach the Court: Five Key Takeaways From Yesterday’s Oral Argument

Apr 13 2016

By Jon Eisenberg and Irene C. Freidel

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the first CFPB enforcement case to reach the court. The court appears poised to reverse the CFPB’s decision and also to rule that the concentration of power in a single CFPB Director not subject to removal at will by the President violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. We discuss five key takeaways from the oral argument that are important not only to the parties in the case but potentially to others facing enforcement actions by the CFPB or other government agencies.

To read the full alert, click here.

Catagory:Litigation & Enforcement Actions