On May 5, Craig Trainor, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), used the American Bankers Association’s Risk and Compliance Conference to send a clear message about how the Trump administration plans to enforce the Fair Housing Act (FHA) going forward, including with respect to how it will treat special purpose credit programs (SPCPs).
On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long‑awaited decision on remand in Cantero, again holding that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute (General Obligations Law § 5‑601) is preempted as applied to national banks. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2024 opinion (discussed here), which vacated the Second Circuit’s earlier decision and instructed the court to apply the Barnett Bank “prevents or significantly interferes” standard through a “nuanced comparative analysis” of prior preemption precedents.
On April 22, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued its final rewrite of Subpart A of Regulation B (Reg B) under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), which eliminates disparate impact from enforcement of ECOA, clarifies the prohibition on discouraging prospective applicants, and establishes new restrictions on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs). The Bureau has largely finalized the rule as proposed, with only clarifying edits rather than substantive revisions. Notably, the Bureau did so after receiving approximately 64,500 comments on the proposal from industry, consumer advocates, state attorneys general, and members of Congress. The rule will become effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On April 17, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the federal agencies) issued revised interagency guidance on model risk management. The guidance updates and consolidates supervisory expectations for how banks manage the growing use of models across their businesses and effectively manage those risks, while rescinding prior guidance issued by each agency. The updated guidance is principles-based and risk-based, rather than prescriptive, and the federal banking agencies emphasize that model risk management should be tailored to a bank’s model risk profile, as well as the size and complexity of its operations. The agencies further state that non-compliance with the guidance itself will not, standing alone, result in supervisory criticism. That said, weak model risk management can still lead to findings of unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law.
Delaware is positioning itself at the center of digital asset and stablecoin innovation with a coordinated package of legislation aimed at modernizing its banking code and creating a comprehensive framework for payment stablecoins. Senate Bill 16, the “Delaware Banking Modernization Act of 2026,” (SB 16) and Senate Bill 19, the “Delaware Payment Stablecoin Act,” (SB 19) were introduced on March 23, 2026, and are currently moving through the General Assembly. If enacted, both measures would take effect immediately, with implementation required by the earlier of one year after enactment or the issuance of final regulations by the State Bank Commissioner.
As reported by Law360, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has decided to move forward with its $68 million settlement with Colony Ridge Development LLC without seeking court approval or ongoing judicial oversight. The settlement at issue (discussed here) resolves DOJ and Texas reverse redlining and predatory lending claims in exchange for extensive operational reforms and $48 million in infrastructure improvements plus $20 million in law enforcement and public-safety spending, but no civil money penalties or direct monetary relief to borrowers.
On April 7, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a final rule to remove “reputation risk” from their supervisory and examination frameworks and sharply limit their ability to influence banks’ customer relationships based on political or ideological grounds. This final rule is a central implementation step for President Trump’s debanking initiative under Executive Order 14331, “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” which aims to address concerns about financial institutions improperly restricting access to banking services based on customers’ political, religious, or ideological beliefs.
The Tenth Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, vacating its November 10, 2025, panel decision that had allowed Colorado to apply its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest-rate caps to loans made by out-of-state, state-chartered banks to Colorado borrowers. The court’s prior judgment is vacated, issuance of the mandate is stayed, and the case is reopened for en banc consideration. As a result, the panel opinion narrowing DIDMCA preemption no longer reflects the current state of the law in the Tenth Circuit, and the scope of Colorado’s opt-out authority is once again unsettled.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken a highly visible step into the national debate over “debanking” by sending warning letters to several large payment networks and financial services providers, reminding them that deplatforming or denying customers access to financial products or services due to political or religious beliefs could violate their existing obligations under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC’s letters signal a sharpened enforcement focus on how financial services firms manage account closures, suspensions, and access to services, particularly when political or religious views are implicated.
In a decision of first impression, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo, defined what “evident partiality” means under the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act (VUAA). The court held that a party seeking to vacate an arbitration award must show that a reasonable person, knowing all relevant facts, would conclude the arbitrator’s conduct signifies obvious bias against that party. Applying this standard, the court affirmed confirmation of a FINRA arbitration award and declined to vacate based on an arbitrator’s undisclosed, attenuated prior connections to one side.