Photo of Mary C. Zinsner

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. While Mary litigates extensively in the federal and state trial and appellate courts in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, she represents banking clients in cases of all sizes nationwide.

On March 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in two class-action lawsuits. The decision potentially has far-reaching implications for the enforceability of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, particularly those involving unilateral modification provisions.

On February 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a petition to compel individual arbitration against Starz Entertainment, LLC. The court held that the plaintiff, who objected to JAMS’ decision to consolidate arbitration proceedings, was not aggrieved under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because Starz never failed, neglected, or refused to arbitrate. The consolidation of numerous identical filings by JAMS pursuant to its own rules did not present a gateway question of arbitrability. Furthermore, the FAA did not permit the plaintiff to raise unconscionability as a basis to compel individual arbitration. The decision distinguishes Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc. and provides further guidance to parties seeking to control mass arbitration risk.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Mary Zinsner and Heryka Knoespel, partners in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group, to discuss the latest in deposit account-related litigation. As part of the Year in Review and Look Ahead series, they delve into significant cases from 2024, including Ponzi schemes, check washing, and elder exploitation scams. They also provide insights into what depository institutions can expect in 2025. Tune in to stay informed about the evolving legal landscape affecting banks and credit unions.

Hours before a scheduled hearing yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed an “Emergency Notice” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit with respect to the ongoing litigation challenging the CFPB’s Small Business Lending Data Collection final rule under Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the 1071 Rule), discussed here. The notice announced that, with the removal of CFPB Director Rohit Chopra over the weekend, “Counsel for the CFPB has been instructed not to make any appearances in litigation except to seek a pause in proceedings.” The notice is in line with an email that went to all CFPB staff yesterday, directing staff to halt most all of the CFPB’s activities in connection with the appointment of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to serve as the agency’s Acting Director (as discussed here). The CFPB is also seeking a “pause” in other litigation and, presumably, is halting non-public enforcement proceedings as well.

On January 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant opinion holding that the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) does not prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements in credit card contracts under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Yesterday, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and state financial regulators issued a joint statement to provide covered financial institutions with strategies and examples of effective risk management and other practices to identify, prevent, and respond to elder financial exploitation. The agencies emphasized that the joint statement does not establish new supervisory expectations or impose new regulatory requirements.

On October 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s vacatur of a maritime attachment order, providing a detailed analysis of the requirements for personal and in rem jurisdiction over attached property under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, underscoring the importance of clear and conspicuous notice in online arbitration agreements. Although the decision involves an arbitration provision in an online application for employment, it echoes lessons imparted by courts in cases involving consumer arbitration agreements. Read more here.