Aubrey Mandus – Consumer Financial Services Watch

“No Concrete Harm, No Standing:” U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Solidifies Standing Requirements for Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims

Jul 01 2021

By: Andrew C. Glass, Brian M. Forbes, Gregory N. Blase, and R. Nicholas Perkins

On 25 June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, clarifying the nature of the harm sufficient to establish Article III standing to maintain a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claim.[1] After Ramirez, plaintiffs seeking to pursue FCRA class litigation must establish concrete harm that is more than just speculative, and they must do so for all class members with the requisite type of evidence called for at each particular stage of litigation. The impact of the holding in Ramirez will likely extend to class standing issues beyond the FCRA context.

Not a Preferred Course: 11th Circuit Decides FDCPA Question in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services

May 14 2021

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, David E. Fialkow, and Keith J. McCarthy

On 21 April 2021, the 11th Circuit held that a debt collector’s transmittal of a customer’s debt-related data to a third-party letter preparation vendor without authorization stated a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(b). The 11th Circuit’s decision may have implications for the debt-collection businesses that outsource customer-related tasks to vendors.

2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition: Panel 2 – Litigation and Enforcement in a Post-Pandemic World

May 07 2021

Thursday
20 May 2021
1:00 – 2:15 p.m. ET

Moderator: Jeffrey S. Patterson; Panelists: Ryan M. Tosi, Phoebe S. Winder, David E. Fialkow, Edward Mikolinski

Please join K&L Gates for our 2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition. This symposium will consist of a series of webinars over the course of several weeks. Below is a description of our second webinar that will focus on litigation and enforcement in a post-pandemic world and we invite you to register. Separate blog posts and invitations for the other webinars in this series will be forthcoming.

COVID-19: CFPB’s Proposed Mortgage Servicing Amendments Add Loss Mitigation Protections for Borrowers and Signal Heightened Expectations for Mortgage Servicers’ Operational Loss Mitigation Efforts

Apr 24 2021

By: Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, and Stacey L. Gorman

On 5 April 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) solicited comments on proposed amendments to Regulation X,[1] which amendments are intended to assist mortgage borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.[2] Though the proposal to extend the current foreclosure moratorium to January 2022 is gaining the headlines, it is important to note that the proposed amendments, if adopted, once again require modification to servicers’ existing loss mitigation programs in order to “maximize the likelihood that borrowers exiting forbearances have sufficient time to complete a loss mitigation application.”[3]

2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition: Panel 1 – FinTech Trends, Developments, and New Directions

Apr 12 2021

Wednesday
21 April 2021
1:00 – 2:00 p.m. ET
Virtual – Login information will be sent after you complete your registration.
1 hour of CLE/CPD credit available in: Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Australia, and the UK
REGISTER HERE by 20 April 2021.

Moderator: Andrew C. Glass, Panelists: Gregory N. Blase, Jeremy M. McLaughlin, Judith Rinearson, Melissa Koide

Please join K&L Gates for our 2021 Consumer Financial Services Symposium – Virtual Edition. This symposium will consist of a series of webinars over the course of several weeks. Below is a description of our first webinar that will focus on FinTech, and we invite you to register. Separate blog posts and invitations for the other webinars in this series will be forthcoming.

Our first webinar will address recent developments in FinTech compliance and litigation, covering issues ranging from machine learning in credit underwriting and attendant fairness questions to the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) with respect to consumer protection law. We will also address developments that the financial services industry is likely to see under the Biden administration, including the use of technology in extending credit and making other credit-related decisions. Attendees will have an opportunity to submit questions during this webinar.

COVID-19: How the CARES Act Will Impact Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 Consumer Bankruptcies

Mar 31 2020

By Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, Stacey Gorman, Emily Mather

On March 27, 2020, the President signed into law the historic Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act” or “Act”), a $2.2 trillion stimulus package designed to mitigate the widespread economic effects of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”). The Act includes several temporary modifications to chapter 7 and chapter 13 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.[1] This alert details these modifications.

Deepening the Divide: D.C. Circuit Continues Circuit Split Regarding Standing in Data Breach Class Action Based on Risk of Future Harm

Jul 09 2019

Authors: Andrew C. Glass, Matthew N. Lowe

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed its position that a plaintiff can establish Article III standing (federal court subject matter jurisdiction) based solely on the risk of potential future harm following a data breach involving his or her personal information. The decision continues the split between the federal circuit courts of appeals regarding the issue.

In re Office of Personnel Management arose out of an alleged 2014 data breach of the eponymous office (the “OPM”).[1] The plaintiffs, current and former federal employees and their unions, sought to represent a putative class of individuals whose personal information, including social security numbers, addresses, and birth dates, was allegedly exposed in the breach.[2] The plaintiffs asserted that certain putative class members had experienced financial fraud or identity theft as a result of the breach and that other members faced the “ongoing risk that they … will become victims of financial fraud and identity theft in the future.”[3] The district court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, holding that the putative class members who had allegedly experienced financial fraud had not pleaded facts demonstrating that the fraud was traceable to the OPM, and that the members who had only pleaded risk of future injury did not plausibly allege that such injury was either substantial or clearly impending.[4]

Ninth Circuit U-Turns And Approves Nationwide Class Settlement In Automobile Class Action Involving Potential Variations In States’ Laws

Jun 12 2019

Authors: Brian M. Forbes, Robert W. Sparkes, III, Matthew N. Lowe

In a recent 8-3 en banc decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval of an estimated $210 million class action settlement in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation. The Hyundai decision is significant because it reversed an earlier, controversial decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which rejected the nationwide settlement because the district court failed to “rigorously analyze potential differences in state consumer protection laws” before certifying the class for settlement. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision offers some clarity for both plaintiffs and defendants attempting to settle class action litigation in the Ninth Circuit, especially those involving proposed nationwide classes.

HMDA Reality Check: What You Can and Cannot Conclude from New Mortgage Loan Data

Apr 03 2019

Authors: Paul F. Hancock, Olivia Kelman

Extensive data about mortgage lending activity collected pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) was just made available to the public for the first time on March 29, 2019. More detail about borrowers, about underwriting, and about loan features is now available than ever before, and that information also is easier for the public to access than it ever has been. The mortgage lending industry should expect that the expanded HMDA data will receive significant attention and scrutiny from private organizations and individuals, and the data is certain to spark controversy about the racial, ethnic and gender fairness of mortgage lending.

Revamped Relief: The CFPB’s Proposed Rule to Improve its No-Action Letter Program and to Establish a Regulatory Sandbox

Jan 15 2019

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Daniel S. Cohen

INTRODUCTION
In December of 2018, the Senate confirmed Kathy Kraninger as the second Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). The path Director Kraninger will chart is uncertain, but the CFPB has already begun initiating changes to which the financial services industry should pay attention. For instance, in mid-December 2018, the CFPB issued a proposed rule to modify its No-Action Letter Program (the “Program”) and to establish a regulatory “sandbox” (a formal process to temporarily exempt companies from certain statues and regulations so they can test new products with consumers). Below, we provide a brief history of the Program as well as a discussion of the key elements of the proposed rule.

Author - Aubrey Mandus