Photo of Megan Burns

Megan Burns handles complex litigation for national banks, mortgage investors and loan servicers, especially the defense of class actions. Experienced with numerous federal and state consumer protection statutes, Megan helps clients posture cases for early and favorable resolution whenever possible.

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.

In a July 15 published decision, the Fourth Circuit reversed a West Virginia District Court’s ruling against a mortgage servicer in a purported class action, holding that merely sending a notice of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1635, et seq., does not immediately rescind the loan and relieve the borrower

Finding that the defendant debt collector was entitled to rely on the information provided by its client about the name of the debtor, a district court judge in Washington state granted summary judgment in favor of Puget Sound Collections, Inc. (PSC) in a Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) case. Angela Campbell v. Puget Sound

A federal district court judge in Massachusetts denied a credit repair company’s motion to dismiss a case brought by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the state of Massachusetts alleging that the company made false representations about customers’ ability to improve their credit rating and requested payment in advance of full performance, in violation

The Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has made its arbitration statistics for the year 2021, through May 31, available on its website. Overall, FINRA experienced an intriguing 19% decline in the number of overall arbitrations commenced through May 31, 2021 versus May 31, 2020. In particular, customer/investor claims declined a modest 2%, while intra-industry arbitrations,

While Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) rules do not require member firms and customers to enter into arbitration agreements or otherwise preclude parties from litigating disputes through the state and federal court systems, FINRA issued and published Regulatory Notice 21-16 (the “Notice”) on April 21, 2021 to emphasize the applicable FINRA Rules when member firms

On April 14, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California finding that a FINRA registered investment banker’s statutory employment discrimination and civil rights claims were not subject to arbitration. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the express

On April 16, 2021, a bill was introduced in the Senate and House that would restrict securities industry broker-dealers and other FINRA registered firms from imposing mandatory arbitration for customer disputes or contractually limiting a customer’s ability to bring suit on a class or consolidated basis.

Named the “Investor Choice Act” (the “Bill”), the Bill

Last March we reported that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. (FINRA) administratively postponed in-person arbitration and mediation proceedings, and held such proceedings remotely via telephone or Zoom.

However, given recent developments in the country’s reopening from the pandemic, FINRA announced that it will re-open 62 of its

In Jefferies LLC v Gegenheimer, the Second Circuit reminded prospective FINRA arbitration litigants of the high burden in court to vacate an unsatisfactory arbitration award issued by a panel of arbitrators.

In this matter, the petitioner was a FINRA-member investment bank and respondent was an individually licensed investment banker. The dispute arose out of