October 10, 2019

Consumer Financial Services Practice Digest

2 min

CFPB and the Fifth Circuit Agree that Independent Agency Directors Should be Removable at Will

The CFPB recently decided not to defend the constitutionality of its single directorship in a Supreme Court filing and letters to Congress. The new position of the Bureau is in line with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision that the FHFA is unconstitutional as currently constituted under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (which states that the FHFA Director is only removable by the President "for cause"). The Fifth Circuit's decision and CFPB position increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will need to address this question.

California Sends Consumer Loan Rate Cap Bill to Governor

The California legislature has passed an amendment to the California Financing Law that sets rate caps and other restrictions on consumer loans up to $10,000. California Governor Gavin Newsom has until October 13 to sign or veto the bill.

When Skiptracing + Autodialing = $267 Million

In September, companies engaged in debt collection were not-so-gently reminded that making calls using an automated dialer to any number other than the one provided by the consumer is incredibly risky—and in Rash Curtis & Associates’ case, a $267 million risk.

Virginia Bans Mandatory Arbitration in Investment Adviser Client Agreements, but Is the Ban Enforceable?

Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC) has issued a new regulation, the "SCC Anti-Arbitration Regulation", that prohibits investment advisers operating in Virginia from including "any mandatory arbitration provision in an advisory contract." This new rule, which became effective on September 16, 2019, is the result of investment adviser exams conducted by the SCC, which showed a growing trend of advisers including mandatory arbitration provisions in their client agreements.

Pay-to-Play Laws Remain in the Spotlight: Government Contract Eligibility Hinges on Awareness and Compliance

Companies that do business with state and local governments are subject to a wide array of laws restricting their political contributions, as well as the personal political contributions of their owners, officers, and some employees. These laws are known as pay-to-play laws because they are aimed at severing the relationship — or the appearance of a relationship — between a contribution (the "pay") and the award of a government contract (the "play").