Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking

Subscribe to Mortgage Lending, Servicing + Banking via RSS

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and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (the agencies) — jointly rescinded the February 2022 “Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B,” effective immediately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.

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…