Photo of Mary C. Zinsner

Mary C. Zinsner

Subscribe to Mary C. Zinsner's Posts

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.

Follow:Read more about Mary C. ZinsnerMary's Linkedin Profile

On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.’” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has issued a circular warning covered persons that including unlawful or unenforceable terms and conditions in consumer contracts can violate the prohibition on deceptive acts or practices in the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

On May 23, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski et al., unanimously affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that when parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other sending arbitrability disputes to the courts — a court must decide which contract governs. The decision teaches a cautionary lesson that parties with multiple contracts between them must keep issues of arbitrability consistent between the contracts.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Smith v. Spizzirri holding that § 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires district courts to issue an order staying a federal case pending the outcome of arbitration, rather than dismiss the case when a motion to compel arbitration is granted. This decision resolves a circuit split where previously the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits had held that the plain text of § 3 mandates a stay of the proceedings whereas the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits had held that district courts have the discretion to dismiss the proceedings if the entire dispute was subject to arbitration.

On May 2, JAMS announced its new Mass Arbitration Procedures and Guidelines and Mass Arbitration Procedures Fee Schedule (together, the Procedures), with the express goal to “facilitate the fair, expeditious and efficient resolution of Mass Arbitrations” and implicit intent to reduce the administrative burden and onerous fees of mass arbitrations, as well as the delay and potential unfairness to the parties. While effective immediately, the Procedures only apply if the parties have agreed to their application in a pre- or post-dispute written agreement. This limitation significantly decreases the effectiveness of the Procedures as a tool for hedging risks and limiting the high costs of mass arbitration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s ruling, which had denied a motion to compel arbitration of Opportunity Financial (OppFi) on the basis that the arbitration clause was substantively unconscionable due to the choice of law provision in the loan agreement containing the arbitration clause. The Ninth Circuit vacated the decision and directed the district court to refer the matter to arbitration.

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland recently denied a mortgage servicer’s motion to dismiss a putative class action claim pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) § 2605(g), providing insight as to what is required to state a claim for statutory damages with respect to alleged mishandling of escrow accounts.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) recently announced the approval of an additional $4.9 billion in student loan forgiveness for 73,000 individuals. The relief was provided through several modifications to the income-driven repayment (IDR) forgiveness and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PLSF) programs. To date, the Biden Administration has forgiven $136.6 billion in student loans for more than 3.7 million borrowers.

We are pleased to share our annual review of regulatory and legal developments in the consumer financial services industry. With active federal and state legislatures, consumer financial services providers faced a challenging 2023. Courts across the country issued rulings that will have immediate and lasting impacts on the industry. Our team of more than 140 professionals has prepared this concise, yet thorough analysis of the most important issues and trends throughout our industry. We not only examined what happened in 2023, but also what to expect — and how to prepare — for the months ahead.

On January 15, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) issued amended Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules and new Consumer Mass Arbitration and Mediation Fee Schedules (collectively, the New Rules). The New Rules will apply to all mass arbitration cases filed on or after January 15, but not to any mass arbitrations filed prior to that date. The New Rules aim to reduce friction and enhance process efficiency. However, unless the New Rules are supplemented by a well-constructed pre-dispute arbitration agreement, they will not solve the principal problems posed by mass arbitrations.