Litigation and Court Decisions

Subscribe to Litigation and Court Decisions via RSS

Here is an update on the lawsuit filed by three trade associations against the Colorado Attorney General and UCCC Administrator challenging the application of the Colorado opt-out statute to out-of-state, state chartered, FDIC-insured banks.

On June 18, 2024, Judge Domenico from the U.S. District Court for Colorado issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Colorado Attorney General and UCCC Administrator from enforcing the Colorado statute opting out of Section 521 of DIDMCA against members of the plaintiff trade associations who make loans from outside Colorado to Colorado residents.… Continue Reading

On August 6, 2024, we will be holding a 90 minute webinar roundtable featuring 3 administrative law professors who are among the country’s leading experts on the Chevron Deference Doctrine. To register, click here.

We already have published a short blog about the Supreme Court’s opinion issued on Friday, July 28 in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v.… Continue Reading

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the long-standing Chevron Deference Doctrine, saying that judges—not federal agencies—should interpret federal laws.

In a 6-3 decision in two marine fishery cases, the court drastically shifted the balance of power in the federal government, saying that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) gives judges the power, not agencies, to interpret statutes.… Continue Reading

On April 22, 2024 (almost 2 months before Judge Daniel Domenico issued a preliminary injunction against the UCCC Administrator and Colorado Attorney General), Administrator Martha Fulford issued an Interpretive Opinion Letter regarding the Colorado opt-out law (to be codified on its effective date of July 1, 2024 as C.R.S. Section 5-13-106) (the “Colorado Opt-out Law”).… Continue Reading

On June 14, the CFPB announced that its payday lending rule would become effective on  March 30, 2025.  However, the CFPB ignored the possibility of further litigation in CFSA v. CFPB, the case challenging the payday lending rule that has been pending since 2017.  

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in CFSA v.… Continue Reading

On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB’s funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  This two-part episode repurposes a recent webinar. In Part II, we first discuss the CFPB’s launch of Fair Credit Reporting Act rulemaking, proposed rule to supervise larger payment providers, proposed rule on personal financial data rights, and interpretive rule on buy-now-pay-later. … Continue Reading

The Colorado federal district court hearing NAIB, et al v. Weiser, et al., the lawsuit filed by three consumer financial services industry trade groups challenging Colorado’s opt-out legislation, has granted the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.  As interpreted by the defendant State officials, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-13-106 (Opt-out Law), ), which is due to take effect on July 1, purports to apply Colorado’s interest rate and fee limits to interstate loans made by federally insured out-of-state state-chartered banks to Colorado borrowers. … Continue Reading

On June 19, 2024, the Fifth Circuit dissolved the district court’s order transferring the case challenging the CFPB’s credit card late fee rule.  In granting the writ of mandamus filed by the plaintiff trade associations challenging the rule, the three-judge panel rejected Judge Mark Pittman’s second order to transfer the case to D.C.… Continue Reading

On June 10, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari and issued a summary disposition in Flagstar Bank, N.A. v. Kivett. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of the court’s recent decision in Cantero v.… Continue Reading

In a blog post published at the end of last week, the CFPB announced that its payday lending rule (Rule) would go into effect on March 30, 2025.  Because the Rule’s ability to pay requirements were rescinded, the only remaining provisions of the Rule are its “payment provisions.”  Those provisions:

  • Prohibit lenders from attempting to withdraw payment for a covered loan from a borrower’s account after two consecutive attempts have failed due to lack of sufficient funds, unless the borrower specifically provides new authorization to do so; and
  • Require lenders to give consumers certain notices, such as advance notice before attempting to withdraw a payment for the first time and notice of the consumer’s rights when two consecutive payment attempts fail.
… Continue Reading