The U.S. Supreme Court gets another crack at deciding whether plaintiffs can bring a disparate-impact lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act (and by extension, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act), a question that has divided courts, lenders and consumer advocacy groups for years. The court’s partial grant of the petition in the Texas case would be its third opportunity in two years to rule on the controversial question. Two prior cases raising that issue, Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizen Action, Inc. and Magner v. Gallagher, were both settled before oral argument could be presented before the court. SCOTUS has agreed...

Attorneys for disenfranchised GSE shareholders have already filed a notice to appeal this week’s surprise dismissal by a Washington, DC, federal judge of the lawsuits challenging the Treasury Department’s 2012 “net-worth sweep” of nearly all profits generated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, a legal expert notes that the ruling by Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia makes a tall order even taller for investors taking on the government.

A federal judge in Florida this week dismissed a lawsuit brought by the National Low Income Housing Coalition seeking to force Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s conservator to make good on the GSEs’ statutory obligations to contribute to the National Housing Trust Fund. In the summer of 2013, the National Low Income Housing Coalition filed suit arguing that since the GSEs returned to profitability in 2012, the Federal Housing Finance Agency should have directed Fannie and Freddie to begin to pay up.

In a surprise ruling this week, a federal judge in Washington, DC, dismissed claims by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders challenging the Treasury Department’s 2012 “net-worth sweep” of nearly all the profits generated by the government-sponsored enterprises. Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency are empowered by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to execute the “third amendment” of the preferred stock purchase agreement. The dismissal includes...

Mortgage servicers will likely proceed more carefully with their borrower interactions after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau compelled Flagstar Bank to pay $37.5 million to settle allegations it interfered with borrowers’ attempts to save their homes. In the first enforcement action based on its new mortgage servicing rule, the CFPB ordered Flagstar to pay $27.5 million to the victims, and $10 million in to the bureau’s civil penalty fund. According to the consent order, Flagstar committed...

As Inside the CFPB was going to press, the bureau announced a $35 million enforcement action against Flagstar Bank for allegedly blocking borrowers’ attempts to save their homes, in violation of the CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules. This is the first enforcement action the bureau has initiated based on the new regulation. The regulator alleged that the bank closed borrower applications due to its own excessive delays. “Flagstar took excessive time to review loss mitigation applications, often causing application documents to expire,” said the agency. “To move its backlog, Flagstar would close applications due to expired documents, even though the documents had expired because of Flagstar’s delay.” The CFPB also accused the bank of delaying the approval or denial of borrower ...

Joint supervisory examinations by the CFPB and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have led an enforcement action that will require U.S. Bank to pay $57 million to settle allegations it illegally charged for “add-on” products, harming more than 420,000 consumers. The government agencies accused U.S. Bank, headquartered in Minneapolis, of unfairly charging consumers for certain identity protection and credit monitoring services that they did not receive. These services were sold as “add-on products” for credit cards and other bank products, such as mortgage loans and checking accounts. Part of the problem could have been a breakdown in vendor management, which is an area of increasing importance to the CFPB. According to the findings contained in the consent ...

In a case that highlights the sensitivity of personal financial information and the firms that trade in it, the CFPB convinced a federal judge last week to freeze the assets of the Hydra Group, an online payday lender, and to put a receiver in place to stop an alleged illegal “cash-grab scam” at the business.According to the bureau, the Hydra Group used information purchased from online lead generators to access consumers’ checking accounts to illegally deposit payday loans – usually $200 to $300 – and withdraw fees ranging from $60 to $90 without consent. The organization then allegedly used falsified loan documents to claim that the consumers had agreed to the phony online payday loans. The CFPB’s lawsuit alleges that Richard ...

Corinthian Colleges accused the CFPB earlier this month of wrongly disparaging the career services assistance the for-profit company offers and of mischaracterizing both the purpose and practices of its “Genesis” lending program. The CFPB filed a lawsuit against the company earlier this month. In a statement provided to Inside the CFPB, Corinthian Colleges said the bureau’s complaint ignores “clear, easily obtainable evidence” that thousands of its graduates are hired into permanent positions by large and small employers across the U.S. every year. Instead, the complaint cites isolated incidents at Corinthian’s 97 U.S. campuses that violated company policy regarding job placement policies, the firm added. “The CFPB is aware of these cases because Corinthian identified the issues, took strong action to ...

State-licensed mortgage companies – and the agencies that oversee them – are on the verge of receiving the same kind of protections against waivers of privilege for information provided to the CFPB that was previously extended to depository mortgage lenders supervised by federal agencies. Before adjourning for the November elections, the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 5062, the Examination and Supervisory Privilege Parity Act of 2014. The bill would require the CFPB to coordinate its supervisory activities with state agencies that license, supervise or examine those non-depositories that offer consumer financial products or services. It also would provide that when someone shares information with those same state regulators, or with prudential regulators and state banking regulators, that sharing does not waive attorney-client privileges. ...