The National Law Journal quoted Jenny Lee, partner at Dorsey & Whitney, in an article entitled, “What Lawyers Are Saying About Richard Cordray’s CFPB Departure Plans.”
On Tuesday, the Senate voted 51-50 (with Vice President Mike Pence casting the tiebreaking vote) to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s July 2017 rule banning firms from including arbitration clauses blocking class-action lawsuits in consumer financial contracts. The Senate’s action follows a 231-190 vote in the House in July 2017 to overturn the Rule. Under the Congressional Review Act, the resolution will now go to President Trump, whose expected signature will invalidate the Rule and prohibit the CFPB from revisiting it for an extended period of time.
The constitutionality of the CFPB continues to be an issue in cases involving that agency. The latest party to raise the “CFPB is unconstitutional” defense is a law firm, Seila Law, LLC, which is attempting to evade a civil investigative demand seeking information relating to the CFPB’s litigation against debt relief firm Morgan Drexel Inc. and its affiliates.
In a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau action against a mortgage services company, its subsidiary, and its founder, a California district judged denied an award of $73.9 million in restitutionary relief, and imposed a civil money penalty for a fraction of that amount.
The CFPB Says Fees and Fee-Related Disclosures For Payments-By-Phone May Constitute an Unfair and Deceptive Practice and Violate Federal Debt Collection Statutes
In a Compliance Bulletin released July 27, 2017, the CFPB cautioned covered persons and service providers that fees for pay-by-phone services may run afoul of “sections 1031 and 1036 of the [Dodd-Frank Act’s] prohibition on engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices . . . when assessing phone pay fees.” The CFPB also provided guidance to debt collectors who receive phone pay fees about the possible consequences under the FDCPA.
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.
Texas Federal Judge Upholds CFPB’s Investigative Authority in Denying Stay Pending Appeal of CFPB CID Dispute
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).
The CFPB’s Action Against the Country’s Largest Student Loan Servicer, Navient: Four Things You Need to Know Right Now
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.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) revealed yesterday its proposal to overhaul debt collection industry practices through tighter regulations, including limits on the frequency of consumer contact and ensuring companies are collecting the correct amounts owed and from the right persons.
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.