The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed certification of a consumer class alleging that a debt collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reversed the denial of a lender’s motion to compel arbitration in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding for allegedly violating the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), holding that -- despite conflicting clauses in two different relevant agreements -- the parties had entered into a valid arbitration agreement that delegated the threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order reducing the amount of attorneys’ fees requested by class counsel by cutting the number of hours expended by class counsel by 25%.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed judgment in favor of a debt buyer and debt collector against a consumer debtor alleging that the collector’s debt collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a significant enforcement action on Jan. 9 against several companies and individuals marketing student loan debt-relief services for credit reporting violations, charging advance fees and deceptive conduct.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that putative class members were not entitled to tolling under Florida’s statute of limitations because the federal rule of tolling for putative class members did not override the Florida statute.
It has been an extraordinary 365 days for consumer financial services law. I cannot recall a year where so many states introduced legislation or proposed regulations or rules impacting the credit industry. At the federal level, proposed rules for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act were (finally) released and California also proposed regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The year 2020 offers to be an interesting one for bankruptcy litigation. With several issues before the Supreme Court, at least one will have a material effect on financial services. In addition, higher credit costs will spur an increase in the number of bankruptcy filings, both on the consumer and commercial side. With the California Consumer Privacy Act taking effect on Jan. 1, it will not be long before we see issues arising from it percolating into bankruptcy cases.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25, 2018, and introduced privacy concepts that were new to some U.S. businesses. Fortunately, the GDPR was developed over a period of time that allowed for thoughtful deliberation and careful drafting. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), on the other hand, was speedily enacted under the threat of a ballot initiative.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a collection letter offering payment options on a time-barred debt and listing “benefits” of paying the debt was not deceptive or misleading under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Meanwhile, the CFPB is expected to take up the issue of time-barred debt disclosures early next year.
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit BAP) recently reversed a lower bankruptcy court’s ruling that rejected an objection to the confirmation of debtors’ chapter 13 plan asserted by the holder of a claim relating to vehicle financing incurred within 910 days of the bankruptcy petition (a 910 claim).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed judgment against a borrower for quiet title claims brought against the owner and servicer of her mortgage loan, and entered judgment of foreclosure in the loan owner and servicer’s favor on their counterclaims for foreclosure against the borrower.