Before a district court in New York, the CFPB argued that its funding source, which falls outside the appropriations process, is constitutional. The case stems from a dispute arising out of a civil investigative demand.
The question now facing lenders is how they should respond to the CFPB’s civil investigative demands pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Seila Law case.
To provide greater clarity to financial institutions in meeting their legal obligations, the CFPB will add a new “compliance aids” category to its guidance.
The CFPB granted a no-action letter to Bank of America regarding its funding arrangement with HUD-certified housing counseling agencies. It marks the second no-action letter under the revised policy.
Important mortgage regulatory changes and robust examinations of financial institutions are on the consumer watchdog’s 2020 agenda, but all decisions are up in the air with the battle over the bureau’s constitutionality looming in court.
Mortgage industry groups have urged the Supreme Court to choose a narrow remedy approach if the CFPB’s leadership structure is found unconstitutional, in order to prevent market disruption.
Most briefs filed in the Seila Law v. CFPB case before the Supreme Court argue that the “for-cause” removal protection is not severable, and the court should invalidate the CFPB in its entirety or send the statute back to Congress.
In opening briefs before the Supreme Court, a California law firm and the CFPB argued the bureau’s structure is unconstitutional, but took opposing positions on how to remedy the situation.
Draft amendments to the CFPB’s remittance transfer rule; former CFPB Director Richard Cordray’s new book; PayPal sues CFPB; concerns raised over compliance with HMDA reporting requirements; CFPB initiated 133 “supervisory events” in fiscal 2019.
RSS