The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) sent letters to the top retail credit card companies at the beginning of June, encouraging the companies to use more transparent promotions, citing a major retailer’s decision to end deferred-interest programs associated with its credit card. In the letter, the Bureau outlined its concerns that temporary promotions – such
Pending Changes to Federal Bankruptcy Rules Could Negatively Impact Residential Mortgage Lenders
The U.S. Supreme Court has approved changes to the Federal Bankruptcy Rules that, if they become effective, will result in important alterations to the filing of proofs of claim by residential mortgage lenders in Chapter 7, 12 and 13 cases. A proposed change to Bankruptcy Rule 3002 will shorten the time within which a creditor
Join Us for a Complimentary Webinar: A Review of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Henson v. Santander
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017, from 4:00 – 4:30 p.m. ET, Troutman Sanders attorneys David N. Anthony and Ethan G. Ostroff will explore the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017 and how it may affect companies in the collection industry. This decision resolves a Circuit split on the narrow issue of whether
Join Us for a Complimentary Webinar: “The CHOICE Act Passed the House: Now What? An Update on Financial Industry Regulation Under the Trump Administration”
On Thursday, June 29, from 3-4 p.m. ET, Troutman Sanders attorneys Ashley Taylor, Alan Wingfield and Mary Zinsner will present a webinar examining the current status and prospects for the Financial CHOICE Act 2.0, deregulation and the rollback of Dodd Frank, and the ongoing courtroom attacks on the CFPB. The webinar will also cover recent
WV Appellate Court Finds High Volume of Unanswered Calls Alone Does Not Violate § 46A-2-125(d)
On June 12, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed a Circuit Court ruling and stated that a high volume of telephone calls from a debt collector to a consumer, absent any evidence the debt collector placed the calls with an intent to annoy, abuse, oppress, or threaten the consumer, is not sufficient
J. Crew Beats FACTA Class Action on Spokeo Grounds
On June 6, a federal judge in New Jersey for the second time dismissed a putative class action against clothier J. Crew Group, Inc. on the grounds that the plaintiff, Ahmed Kamal, had not pled a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Kamal alleged that J. Crew violated
Five Guys Faces Background Check Lawsuit Over Allegedly Improper Disclosures
Five Guys Enterprises LLC—franchisor of the popular Five Guys Burger Co.—and a California franchisee are facing a lawsuit from a former employee alleging numerous violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and California state law. The plaintiff, Jeremy Lusk, alleges he began working for Five Guys in August 2016. He alleges that in the
CFPB Updates Its Planned Overhaul of Acceptable Debt Collection Practices
In July of 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released an outline of new rules targeting third-party debt-collection operations. The new rules targeted various areas including: Debt validation, Limits on Contact, Consumer Disputes, and Deceased Consumers. At the time, the CFPB stated it planned to release rules relevant to first-party creditors at a later
CFPB Prioritizes Redlining, Loan Servicing, and Small Business Lending
In its fifth annual fair lending report, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau highlighted redlining, mortgage and student loan servicing, and small business lending as areas of focus for 2017. CFPB Director Richard Cordray specifically noted these areas for enhanced enforcement actions, describing them as “significant or emerging fair lending risk to consumers.”
“In 2017
Federal and State Regulators Obtain Record Judgment Enforcing TCPA Violations Predicated Upon Insufficient Vendor Oversight
On June 5, 2017, an Illinois federal judge awarded $280 million to the federal government and the states of California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio against Dish Network LLC over violations of numerous federal and state do-not-call laws. The district court’s $280 million penalty constitutes the largest ever for violations of telemarketing laws. In addition,