Category: CFPB

Last Friday, Judge Richard Story (USDC, N.D. Ga.) entered an order in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Universal Debt Solutions, LLC, et al., granting a defendant’s motion for Rule 37 discovery sanctions and striking Counts 8, 9, 10, and 11 from the CFPB’s complaint. This order is another example of judicial decisions resolving a significant issue for the CFPB in recent years: how to handle Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.

Burgeoning federal enforcement efforts relating to the consumer data and credit reporting industry have led to another key legal development: a federal court in Dallas ruled in favor of the CFPB by upholding the agency’s investigative authority.

A District Court in Kentucky recently rejected the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s claim against a law firm brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, granting the law firm summary judgment in connection with its activities with nine real estate joint ventures surrounding the sale of title insurance policies because the Court found that the law firm’s activities fell within RESPA’s safe harbor provision.

Which is the better policy? Having banking agency heads be removed for only malfeasance and wrongdoing, or be removed for any reason? This question is the critical issue that the judge asked in yesterday’s oral argument in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that no one is talking about.

On February 3, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System.” This is what the Order might mean for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

In recent posts, this blog discussed how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has tightened control over financial institutions, including an overhaul of the regulatory landscape for debt collection and banks. The CFPB has once against exerted its authority—this time in the context of student loans.

On June 30, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released the twelfth edition of its Supervisory Highlights report, which focused on supervision work completed between January and April 2016.

On the fifth birthday of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), Dorsey attorneys discuss the CFPB’s investigatory powers and explain – through an analysis of three important cases – how the events of early 2016 reveal a changing tide. Click here to read the article published in Corporate Counsel.

What began as a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) $109 million enforcement ruling against the mortgage company PHH Corp. (“PHH”) for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), has evolved into a broader discussion about the constitutionality of the agency itself. As demonstrated in the closely watched federal appeal brought by PHH, critical developments occurred earlier this month that have implications for the agency’s future enforcement approach.