In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by partners Erin Edwards, Jason Manning, and Joe DeFazio, along with special guest Matt Brooks, a partner in Troutman Pepper Locke’s Bankruptcy + Restructuring practice, to talk about the resurgence of both residential and commercial foreclosures in 2026 and what it means for financial services companies.

Business email compromise (BEC) and other third-party fraud inducing funds transfers have generated a wave of litigation against banks: not just those where victims hold accounts, but also against the financial institutions where the funds were transferred, even when the victim is not a customer. A threshold question often arises as to whether the beneficiary bank receiving the funds via a wire transfer owes a noncustomer plaintiff any duty of care at all. Most courts uniformly hold that banks owe no duty of care to noncustomers. But in 2024, in Elkin Valley Baptist Church,the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania went against the weight of authority and answered that question in plaintiffs’ favor.

As we reported in December 2025, New Jersey’s Division on Civil Rights (DCR) adopted what its Attorney General described as the “most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country” under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Those rules, effective December 15, 2025, codify a broad burden-shifting framework for disparate impact claims across housing, lending, employment, public accommodations, and contracting, and include specific guidance on liability arising from the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making tools. Now, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) has filed suit to stop them.

On September 2, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) issued a joint statement clarifying the confidentiality requirements related to Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), particularly when banks communicate with customers regarding potentially fraudulent transactions, other suspicious activity, or account closures. The statement applies to all banks, including community banks.

On August 26, New York State Senator Zellnor Myrie introduced Senate Bill S10688, legislation that would enact an express “opt out” from key provisions of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA), purporting to impose New York’s interest rate limitations on a broad range of consumer credit transactions. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules the same day. This proposed legislation marks the latest development in a continuing trend of state efforts to regulate state-chartered banks and fintech partnerships and impose restrictions on bank-model lending.

On August 25, seven federal agencies — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), National Credit Union Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (the agencies) — jointly rescinded the February 2022 “Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B,” effective immediately upon Federal Register publication. The agencies’ stated reason for the rescission was to clarify that creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics, and that creditors should not rely on the Interagency Statement or related guidance going forward concerning special purpose credit programs (SPCPs). Curiously, the Federal Reserve Board, which joined in issuing the original Interagency Statement, was not a party to the notice of rescission, instead electing to separately withdraw its own version rather than join the other agencies in the joint rescission.

After years of pandemic-era forbearance programs, emergency moratoriums, and historically low foreclosure volumes, the mortgage market is undergoing a meaningful correction. Foreclosure activity is rising steadily across the country, and with it comes a familiar set of legal risks for servicers, lenders, and investors. The question is no longer whether foreclosure volumes will normalize — it is whether organizations are prepared for the compliance and litigation exposure that follows.

On June 25, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would significantly update and clarify its regulations governing the disclosure of confidential information, including confidential supervisory information. This is the first substantial revision to these rules in approximately 30 years. The proposal would amend 12 CFR Part 309 and add a new Part 306, with changes designed to reduce administrative burden, expand the ability of insured depository institutions (IDIs) to share confidential supervisory information without prior FDIC approval, and modernize and clarify the FDIC’s information disclosure framework. Comments on the proposed rule are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

On June 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its December 2020 advisory opinion on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) under Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The rescission aligns with the Bureau’s recent views on SPCPs, including those expressed in the Bureau’s April 2026 final rule amending the SPCP provisions of Regulation B (the Final Rule) (discussed here).

On June 15, three major financial services trade associations filed suit in federal court to block Oregon’s HB 4116 from applying its 36% interest rate cap to consumer finance loans made by out-of-state, state-chartered banks. The lawsuit follows a similar challenge to Colorado’s opt-out, which remains pending before the Tenth Circuit on rehearing en banc.