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On June 17, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its December 2020 advisory opinion on special purpose credit programs (SPCPs) under Regulation B, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).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.
On June 4, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit’s en banc rehearing of National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, supporting industry plaintiffs and arguing that the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) § 525’s phrase “loans made in such State” refers to the state where the bank is located and performs key lending functions, not where the borrower resides. The filing confirms the FDIC’s historical position on the DIDMCA opt out and directly bears on the limited applicability of Colorado’s opt out and UCCC rate caps.
In a recent decision from the Eastern District of Virginia, the court dismissed Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims brought by a consumer who never received the vehicle he attempted to purchase with an auto loan. Despite acknowledging the underlying fraud in the transaction, the court held that the dispute over whether the consumer still
On May 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized two closely linked rules on mortgage escrow accounts that respond directly to the issues we discussed in our recent post, Second Circuit on Remand in Cantero: New York Escrow-Interest Law Is Preempted, Over a Vigorous Dissent. In that decision, the Second Circuit held that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute is preempted as applied to national banks under the Barnett Bank standard, deepening a circuit split with the First and Ninth Circuits. The OCC’s new rules both adopt the Second Circuit’s view of the underlying bank powers and attempt to bring regulatory clarity to the interest‑on‑escrow preemption question for OCC‑regulated institutions nationwide.
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.