Martin C. Bryce, Jr.

Subscribe to Martin C. Bryce, Jr.'s Posts
Contact:Read more about Martin C. Bryce, Jr.

Ruling on an important Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) procedural issue that has divided the circuit courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the “look-through” approach often used in determining whether federal jurisdiction exists to decide motions to compel arbitration filed under Section 4 of the FAA does not apply to motions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards filed under Sections 9 and 10 of that statute. … Continue Reading

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143 on May 17, 2021.  The question presented is “[w]hether federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the [Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)] where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.”… Continue Reading

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Gregg v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. at the end of last week.

In 1996, the General Assembly amended the catchall provision of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. 201-2(4)(xi), to prohibit anyone who advertises, sells, or distributes goods or services from “engaging in any deceptive conduct .… Continue Reading

Last year, many observers were disappointed when the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, the case that presented the issue of whether a plaintiff who brings a RESPA claim has Article III standing to recover statutory damages in the absence of any actual damages caused by the alleged RESPA violation. … Continue Reading

The Eighth Circuit has now joined the Tenth Circuit in ruling that notice alone
within the three-year period is insufficient to validly exercise a right to rescind. 

In its decision issued on July 12, 2013 in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., the Eighth Circuit rejected the borrowers’ argument that they had validly rescinded their mortgage loan by sending a notice of rescission to the bank within the three-year period. … Continue Reading

In an opinion issued on May 3, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that a lawsuit seeking rescission is timely where the consumer provided notice of rescission within three years of closing but did not file suit until after the three-year deadline had passed. The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Gilbert v.… Continue Reading

On March 26, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in an appeal involving the Truth in Lending Act before the Tenth Circuit. The question presented in Rosenfield v HSBC Bank, USA is whether a lawsuit seeking rescission is timely where the consumer provided notice of rescission to the lender within three years of closing but did not file suit until after the three-year deadline had passed. … Continue Reading