Litigation & Enforcement Actions – Page 9 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

A New Cyber Regulator on the Beat: The CFPB Issues its First Cybersecurity Order and Fine

Mar 08 2016

On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) instituted its first data security enforcement action, in the form of a consent order against online payment platform Dwolla, Inc. The CFPB joins several other regulators that have recently issued statements or instituted enforcement actions in this space, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the National Futures Association (“NFA”), the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), state attorneys general, and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), which has been active in this area for several years.

To read the full alert, click here.

Webinar: The Mortgage Lifecycle: Litigation Hotspots From Origination Through Foreclosure

Feb 16 2016

Please join a group of our seasoned Financial Institutions and Services Litigation attorneys for a webinar addressing hot litigation topics concerning residential mortgages. We will begin with loan origination, navigate through loan servicing, and end with foreclosure and loan termination. Along the way, we will touch upon litigation arising from various consumer protection statutes, as well as notable common law claims. The webinar will wrap up with our thoughts on anticipated litigation trends and time for Q&A.

Your Money Is No Good Here: U.S. Supreme Court Holds That an Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer of Complete Relief Does Not Moot an Individual’s Claims, but Questions Remain

Jan 25 2016

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Jennifer J. Nagle, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Matthew N. Lowe

On January 20, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez regarding Rule 68 offers of judgment. The Court held that a defendant cannot moot a case by merely offering complete relief to a plaintiff but left unanswered whether a defendant may do so by actually providing complete relief. Nor did the Court reach the question of whether a plaintiff can continue to seek to represent a putative class when his or her individual claims are mooted before a class is certified.

To read the full alert, click here.

Step by Step: Stricter Requirements for Class Certification Inch Closer to Legislative Enactment

Jan 21 2016

By: Brian M. Forbes, Jennifer J. Nagle

Just over 10 years after the passage of the federal Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), Congress is again considering further legislative reform to class action litigation. Among other reforms, CAFA opened additional avenues for defendants to remove class action litigation to federal court (often viewed by the defense bar as a more favorable venue than state court) and placed additional limitations on class-wide settlements. Now, legislative attention is being paid to class actions that are certified absent a showing of common injury among all class members. On January 8, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2016 (“the Act” or “H.R. 1927”). If enacted into law, H.R. 1927 would represent a significant change to the standard that a class action plaintiff must satisfy for a court to certify his or her proposed class.

To read the full alert, click here.

CashCall Revisited (Again): The CFPB’s Continued Federalization of State Law

Jan 04 2016

Last August, we wrote about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) complaint against NDG Financial Corp. and how it represented a continuing evolution of the CFPB’s theory that certain state law violations might be predicates for federal law claims of unfair, deceptive, and abusive conduct (UDAAP). We refer to this as the “CashCall theory,” because the CFPB first articulated this novel approach to UDAAP enforcement in its complaint against CashCall, Inc. In December, the CFPB took two more steps down this road.

TRID/KBYO Rule: The CFPB Tries to Calm Lender Fears

Dec 30 2015

On December 29, 2015, CFPB Director Richard Cordray responded to MBA President and CEO David Stevens’ desperate plea for clarity to address what the MBA claimed is a significant rejection by large aggregators and investors of correspondent lending channel loans for minor or technical TRID errors. In its December 21, 2015 letter to Director Cordray, Mr. Stevens noted that these minor and technical errors include “issues with the alignment or shading of forms, rounding errors, time stamps with the wrong time zone, or check boxes that are improperly completed on the LE.” The MBA feared that without some clarity from the CFPB disruption and liquidity issues would overwhelm the mortgage markets.

United States Supreme Court Rejects California State Courts’ Attempt to Sidestep Federal Arbitration Act Preemption on Class Action Waivers

Dec 16 2015

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a California state court’s decision striking down a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement was an improper attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 2011 landmark decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. See DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. — (No. 14-462) (Dec. 14, 2015). Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts state law to the extent it purports to bar the inclusion of class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Imburgia reiterates that holding and concludes that because the California court had interpreted the subject arbitration agreement in a manner “restricted to [the] field” of arbitration, as opposed to contracts generally, the interpretation could not withstand scrutiny under the FAA.

CFPB Revises Supervisory Appeals Process

Nov 12 2015

The CFPB recently revised its policy on Appeals of Supervisory Matters. Supervisory appeals are an avenue for supervised entities to obtain a second opinion from CFPB headquarters about examiners’ findings. However, the Bureau’s policy excludes the most significant matters — specifically, all aspects of enforcement — from this process.

In 1994, Congress required the federal prudential regulators to establish “an independent intra-agency appellate process” that is “available to review material supervisory determinations,” with “appropriate safeguards … for protecting the appellant from retaliation by agency examiners.”

Although the Bureau is not expressly subject to this congressional mandate, it established a similar appeals process in 2012. The Bureau’s policy allows entities to appeal less-than-satisfactory compliance ratings (a 3, 4, or 5) and adverse findings in a supervisory letter or examination report, but not the supervisory letter or examination report itself.

None of the regulators allow a supervised entity to use the appeals process to contest the decision to pursue an enforcement action. But in the case of the OCC, “[w]hile banks may not appeal a decision by [examiners] to pursue a formal enforcement-related action, banks may appeal conclusions in” an exam report that underlies a potential enforcement action.

D.C. District Court Decision Supports Principle of Allowing Companies to Challenge CFPB Information Requests without Fear of Public Disclosure of Investigation

Nov 05 2015

By: Ted Kornobis, Stephanie C. Robinson

Companies in receipt of a civil investigative demand (CID) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) are required to take a number of quick and important actions and make decisions that can have significant impact on the course and tenor of what will likely be a months- or years-long investigation. This can be a frustrating and high-pressure process, particularly given the limited practical options available under the CFPB’s rules for a CID recipient to effectively seek relief from what oftentimes can be broad and onerous requests. In particular, because of the CFPB’s policy to publicly identify any person or entity that files a petition to modify or set aside a CID, recipients of a CID generally forgo that route and instead are left to rely upon the reasonableness of the staff attorney and supervisor assigned to the matter. A recent decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, however, may provide some measure of relief for CID recipients.

CFPB and DOJ Continue to Pursue Indirect Auto and Redlining Claims

Oct 08 2015

By: Melanie Brody, Christa Bieker

The Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or the “Bureau”) are increasingly pursuing lenders suspected of discriminatory lending practices. Last week, the DOJ and the CFPB announced two settlements with lenders resolving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act. These announcements come only days after the DOJ and the CFPB announced a consent order with Hudson City Savings Bank resolving allegations of racial redlining.

On September 28, the CFPB and the DOJ announced a consent order with Cincinnati-based Fifth Third Bank (“Fifth Third”) resolving allegations that Fifth Third’s indirect auto-lending pricing policies discriminated against African American and Hispanic borrowers. Although the CFPB does not have oversight over car dealers, the Bureau is able to investigate the auto loans that lenders like Fifth Third make through dealers. Coordinated investigations into Fifth Third’s indirect auto-lending business led the Bureau and the Department to conclude that African American and Hispanic borrowers paid approximately 35 or 36 basis points more, respectively, in dealer markups than similarly situated non-Hispanic white borrowers, which resulted in African American and Hispanic borrowers paying an average of $200 more for their car loans.

Catagory:Litigation & Enforcement Actions