Photo of Mary C. Zinsner

Mary Zinsner is a partner in Troutman Pepper’s Washington, D.C. office who handles high stakes matters for banks nationwide. Mary focuses her practice on litigation and strategy in lender liability, check and bank operation, class action, consumer finance, fiduciary matters, and creditor’s rights disputes. She has also been accepted into the American Arbitration Association’s (AAA) Roster of Arbitrators. Viewed as leaders in the practice of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), AAA arbitrators are required to receive ongoing education in the art and science of arbitration and demonstrate knowledge, prowess, mastery, and proficiency in a particular field.

Last year, a professional plaintiff obtained a judgment of over $828k in a case alleging 104 calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The district court in the Northern District of West Virginia found that the individual and corporate defendants failed to respond “fulsomely and accurately” to discovery requests and to comply with court orders pertaining to those requests. As a sanction, the district court entered a default judgment against them.

In Valentine v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Fylnn LLP the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found that the plaintiff had not suffered an injury in fact and therefore lacked standing to assert a claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).

In a matter involving the bona fide error defense to claims asserted under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), an Indiana court of appeals reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant debt collector holding that the defense did not apply because the mistake at issue was not of

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, holding that a district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is pending. The decision resolves a circuit split on the question of whether such a stay is mandatory or discretionary. Justice Kavanaugh

If a financial institution unilaterally reopens a closed deposit account to process a transaction, does that constitute an unfair act or practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA)? According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in its Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2023-02 issued on May 10, the answer is yes: “This practice may

On May 1, 2023, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed a rule to establish consumer protections for residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans.

A PACE loan is a way for consumers to borrow money for home improvements by increasing their property tax payments. Homeowners repay PACE loans through an additional assessment that is

On April 26, both the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued separate advisories warning against the risks associated with overdraft fees, particularly those associated with “Authorize Positive, Settle Negative” (APSN) transactions.

In issuing its supervisory guidance, the FDIC emphasized:

  • Some banks assess overdraft fees

Financial services industry groups are staunchly opposing a proposal by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) to require supervised nonbank entities to provide information about their use of certain terms and conditions in standard-form contracts. The CFPB would then compile this information into a registry available to the public. In individual letters dated

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion declining to follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finding no “support for the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion” that the CFPB’s funding structure is unconstitutional in Supreme

In an agency order issued on February 27, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) permanently banned RMK Financial Corporation from the mortgage lending industry. In addition to imposing a penalty of $1,000,000, the order prohibits the lender from engaging in any mortgage lending activities or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending.

The CFPB based its decision