Banking

Subscribe to Banking via RSS

The legal and constitutional implications of New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) are back in the spotlight as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit again turns to the New York Court of Appeals for guidance. In Article 13 LLC v. Ponce De Leon Federal Bank, 132 F.4th 586 (2d Cir. 2025), the Second Circuit certified two key questions regarding the scope and retroactive application of FAPA — a statute that has significantly altered the foreclosure litigation landscape in New York.

On May 9, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs announced that President Trump signed into law Chairman Tim Scott’s (R-SC) Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, effectively overturning the Biden-era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule on overdraft fees. Chairman Scott, who spearheaded the effort, emphasized that the rule would have imposed detrimental price controls on overdraft services, potentially leading to more unbanked individuals and fewer consumer options.

Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced President Trump’s intent to nominate Jonathan McKernan as the Undersecretary of Domestic Finance. The press release states that McKernan’s continued service at Treasury “will ensure that his experience and expertise are best put to advancing the President’s America First agenda.”

This article was republished on insideARM on April 22, 2025.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a memo to staff outlining its new supervision and enforcement priorities for 2025.

On April 9, the House of Representatives passed two Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolutions aimed at nullifying certain Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules finalized in the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration. These resolutions, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, target rules related to limiting the overdraft fees that may be charged by large financial institutions, and extending supervisory authority over certain providers of digital payments services, respectively. The CRA resolutions are now before President Trump for signature.

As federal agencies pull back on consumer protection regulations under the Trump administration, California is stepping up to fill the void. This shift was forecasted in January, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections” (discussed here), which provided a roadmap for states looking to bolster their consumer protection laws after the anticipated rollback with the new administration.

Last Friday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the rescission of Financial Institution Letter (FIL-16-2022) and issued new guidance clarifying the process for FDIC-supervised institutions to engage in crypto-related activities. The new Financial Institution Letter (FIL-7-2025) represents a 180 degree turn from the prior Chairman’s position, which required prior notification and relevant information by banks seeking to engage in crypto-related activities.

On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision holding a credit union liable for a wire transfer in a business email compromise scam case where the credit union lacked “actual knowledge” of the mismatch between the account number and beneficiary.

On March 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a significant update regarding the involvement of national banks and federal savings associations in cryptocurrency activities. Interpretive Letter 1183 reaffirms the permissibility of various crypto-asset activities and aims to streamline the regulatory process for banks engaging in these activities.

On January 8, Senate Bill No. 1252 (SB 1252) was introduced to the Virginia General Assembly, aiming to amend and reenact sections of the Code of Virginia related to the application of usury rates. Just two weeks ago, the bill was passed by both the House and Senate. Opponents of the bill contend that the language and effect is very unclear, but that broad language and stringent provisions could stifle innovation and ultimately harm consumers by limiting their access to credit.