Archive:2012

1
CFPB Officially Launches Nonbank Supervision Program
2
CFPB’s Guidance to Supervised Banks Says Privilege Waiver Concerns Are No Reason for Withholding Information
3
Supreme Court Brief Filed on Behalf of Mortgage Lenders

CFPB Officially Launches Nonbank Supervision Program

By: Stephanie C. Robinson

Now that the CFPB has a director, it can officially begin to exercise the full authorities granted to it under the Dodd-Frank Act. The agency issued a press release on Thursday announcing the formal launch of its nonbank supervision program. Read More

CFPB’s Guidance to Supervised Banks Says Privilege Waiver Concerns Are No Reason for Withholding Information

By: Stephanie C. Robinson

As supervisor of large depository institutions, credit unions, and their affiliates, the CFPB expects such supervised institutions to share with it all documents that CFPB requests, even if the document is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Banks routinely share privileged documents with their banking regulators without concern about facing a claim of waiver because of two statutory provisions (one for banks and another for credit unions) that say submitting privileged information to a prudential regulator does not result in a waiver as to any other person or entity. But those statutory provisions have not been amended to encompass information provided to the CFPB. Read More

Supreme Court Brief Filed on Behalf of Mortgage Lenders

By: Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, Melanie Hibbs Brody, Melissa S. Malpass, Gregory N. Blase   

On December 29, 2011, K&L Gates filed a brief as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher, a case in which the Court will consider whether the disparate impact theory of discrimination is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act or whether plaintiffs must instead prove intentional discrimination. The brief was filed on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, and the American Financial Services Association, and contends that proof of discriminatory intent is required to establish a violation of the Act.  A copy of the brief is available here.  The Court has scheduled oral argument in the matter for February 29, 2012.

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.