Archive: 25 June 2015

1
New York DFS Provides Further Clarifications on New Debt Collection Regs
2
Webinar: Is Your Institution Ready for Federal Scrutiny of Diversity Practices?
3
STATEMENT OF PAUL F. HANCOCK, K&L GATES LLP, ON DECISION OF U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING ‘DISPARATE-IMPACT LIABILITY’ UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

New York DFS Provides Further Clarifications on New Debt Collection Regs

By: Steven M. Kaplan, Gregory N. Blase, Christopher E. Shelton

The New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) has updated its FAQ on the debt collection regulations that took effect on March 3, 2015. We analyzed the regulations in a client alert and covered an earlier version of the FAQ in a previous blog post.

Read More

Webinar: Is Your Institution Ready for Federal Scrutiny of Diversity Practices?

Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act – which established additional federal oversight over the diversity policies and practices at financial services institutions – has become a reality for regulated institutions with the release on June 9th of an interagency policy statement establishing the final standards. The standards impact a broad swathe of business activity and focus on self-assessment and voluntary disclosure of diversity practices. What do legal, compliance and risk management leaders at regulated financial services institutions need to do to comply?

Read More

STATEMENT OF PAUL F. HANCOCK, K&L GATES LLP, ON DECISION OF U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING ‘DISPARATE-IMPACT LIABILITY’ UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT

By: Paul F. Hancock

The Court’s decision today resolves an important legal issue about which there has been principled disagreement among White House administrations, as well as among advocacy and industry groups, for decades. While the Court, by a razor thin margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act, the Court also imposed important limitations on the application of the legal theory. For example, the Court held that a racial imbalance, without more, does not establish a case of discrimination, and directed lower courts to “examine with care” the claims presented at the pleading stage. The Court further directed that remedial orders in disparate impact cases must “concentrate on the elimination of the offending practice” and employ “race-neutral [remedial] means.” The limitations that were announced were believed necessary by the Court to “avoid serious constitutional questions that might arise” and “to protect potential defendants against abusive disparate-impact claims.”

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