Tag: Inc.

1
A First in the Second (Circuit): On Remand, District Court Breaks New Ground by Vacating Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award
2
K&L Gates Legal Insight: The CFPB Weighs in on Marketing Services Agreements

A First in the Second (Circuit): On Remand, District Court Breaks New Ground by Vacating Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award

By Andrew C. GlassRobert W. Sparkes, IIIRoger L. Smerage, and  Elma Delic

In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind ruling, the District Court for the Southern District of New York recently concluded that a federal district court has the authority to vacate an arbitrator’s class certification award based on the due process rights of absent class members. That this potentially ground-breaking decision arose from the long-standing litigation in Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. is no surprise. Over the course of a decade in Jock, the district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have rendered multiple decisions addressing the proper role of a court in reviewing an arbitrator’s authority to determine whether parties have agreed to class arbitration. In the latest decision, the district court became the first court to apply Justice Alito’s concurrence in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter to strike down an arbitrator’s ruling. The Jock court determined that, absent an express class arbitration provision in each putative class member’s arbitration agreement, an arbitrator does not have the authority to bind absent class members to a class judgment—even if they signed the same form of arbitration agreement as the named plaintiffs. As discussed below, this novel decision could have significant implications.

To read the full alert, click here.

K&L Gates Legal Insight: The CFPB Weighs in on Marketing Services Agreements

By: Phillip L. Schulman, Holly Spencer Bunting

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has, for the first time, publicly expressed views on marketing services agreements (“MSAs”) under Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. After months of rumors regarding the CFPB’s investigation, it issued a consent order against Lighthouse Title, Inc., a Michigan title insurance agency that had entered into a series of MSAs with various settlement service providers (“Consent Order”). Although the Consent Order fails to describe the nature of the services performed under the agreements, it clarifies the CFPB’s concerns regarding methods used in determining the payments under such agreements. The Consent Order also raises troubling questions about how the CFPB interprets Section 8 of the Act, since many of those interpretations seem to be at odds with guidance previously offered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. This alert provides a brief background regarding MSAs, highlights issues raised by the CFPB Consent Order and discusses lessons learned for structuring new and existing MSAs.

To read the full alert, click here.

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.