Archive: 12 November 2014

1
A Hard Rain Has Started to Fall A Product-by-Product Review of the CFPB’S First 60 Enforcement Actions
2
FinCEN Acknowledges the Problem, But a Solution Will Require More
3
The First Circuit Clarifies That A Defendant’s Deadline to Remove is Principally Influenced by the Actions of the Plaintiff

A Hard Rain Has Started to Fall A Product-by-Product Review of the CFPB’S First 60 Enforcement Actions

By: Jon Eisenberg

Between July 17, 2012 and October 9, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought 60 enforcement actions. According to our unofficial tally, they resulted in settlements requiring the payment of $2.2 billion in restitution, $174 million in CFPB civil money penalties, and, in a few cases, other forms of consumer relief. In this alert, we discuss the products and alleged practices that led to those recoveries. Our purpose is simple—what’s past is likely prologue when it comes to CFPB enforcement actions. Understanding the conduct that produced the first 60 enforcement actions will help companies avoid becoming one of the next 60 enforcement actions.

To read the full alert, click here.

 

FinCEN Acknowledges the Problem, But a Solution Will Require More

By: David L. Beam

Money services businesses (“MSBs”) have been losing access to banking services. Increased scrutiny by bank regulators of MSB relationships have led banks to conclude that providing services to MSBs carries increased compliance and reputational risk. Even if these risks can be managed in theory through appropriate due diligence and controls, many banks have decided that costs and risks of offering banking services to MSBs outweigh the revenue that they generate. Read More

The First Circuit Clarifies That A Defendant’s Deadline to Remove is Principally Influenced by the Actions of the Plaintiff

By: Robert W. Sparkes, III, Brian M. Forbes

The first questions any defendant served with a complaint filed in state court should consider are whether removal of the action to federal court is preferable and, assuming the action is removable, when must a notice of removal be filed. The “when” question continues to be a source of debate as federal courts across the country grapple with issues pertaining to (1) the triggering of the removal clocks under federal law and (2) the duty of a defendant to investigate the removability of an action. Joining other federal circuit courts of appeal to have addressed these issues, on October 24, 2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals provided its answers in Romulus v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. And, it may come as a surprise to some, the answers are largely dependent on the actions taken by the plaintiff.

To read the full alert, click here.

 

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.