Welcome to the Spring 2021 issue of Greenberg Traurig’s Financial Services Insights Newsletter. This newsletter reviews certain significant cases and legal developments affecting the financial services industry.
On June 22, 2020, in Liu v. SEC, the Supreme Court affirmed in an 8-1 ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission may continue to pursue disgorgement awards under
Continue Reading SEC Disgorgement Lives to See Another Day After Supreme Court’s Liu v. SEC Ruling
In a previous GT Alert, we summarized and analyzed the Supreme Court’s June 21, 2018, decision in Lucia v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). That
Continue Reading SEC Order Seeks to Clarify Steps Forward Following Lucia
On Feb. 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) protects only employees who complain to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Continue Reading SCOTUS Rules Dodd-Frank Does Not Protect Internal Whistleblowing
On Monday, June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) prohibits retaliation against internal whistleblowers or only covers individuals who report to the
Continue Reading SCOTUS to Resolve Circuit Split Over Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers
At the urging of both an individual petitioner and the SEC, the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve a recent circuit split as to whether the five-year limitations period applicable
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Agrees to Determine Whether SEC Actions Seeking Disgorgement are Subject to the Five-Year Limitations Period Set Forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462
On Nov. 3, 2016, the Florida Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Bartram v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. SC14-1265, 2016 WL 6538647 (Fla. Nov. 3, 2016), bringing much-needed
Continue Reading In Bartram, Florida Supreme Court Holds That Statute Of Limitations Does Not Bar The Filing Of A Second Mortgage Foreclosure Action
In a 110-page decision issued on Oct. 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declared the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) single-director structure unconstitutional and vacated a $103 million fine against PHH. The Court found that the current structure allows the Commissioner to wield too much power that is unchecked by any other part of government. To remedy this concern, the Court severed the “for cause” provision from the statute, placing the agency under the direct supervision of the president. The Court also vacated the Order against PHH, finding that the CFPB’s interpretation of RESPA violated PHH’s due process rights in several respects. First, the Commissioner erred in disregarding long-standing guidance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recognizing that Section 8 of RESPA allows captive reinsurance arrangements so long as the amount paid by the mortgage insurer for the reinsurance does not exceed the reasonable market value of the reinsurance. The Court declared that Section 8 shall continue to have the meaning ascribed to it by HUD. Secondly, in calculating the penalty against PHH, the Commissioner had improperly included loans that had closed more than three years prior to the action. The Court rejected the CFPB argument that it was not subject to any statute of limitations, and ruled that the agency was subject to the three-year limitations period that has traditionally applied to agency actions to enforce RESPA.
As we wrote about previously, this case stems back to a June 2015 CFPB order in which CFPB Director Richard Cordray singlehandedly increased a $6 million fine levied by an administrative law judge against PHH for allegedly referring consumers to mortgage insurers in exchange for kickbacks in violation of the Real Estate Procedures Act (RESPA). The ALJ’s fine was based upon loans closed on or after July 21, 2008.. PHH appealed that ruling to the Director. Cordray issued a final order that required PHH to disgorge $109 million – all the reinsurance premiums it received on or after July 21, 2008.On appeal, PHH challenged Cordray’s authority to levy the additional fine and challenged the constitutionality of the CFPB itself.
This week, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U. S. ___(2016). The key issue addressed is whether class certification was proper in
Continue Reading Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo: Supreme Court Upholds Use of Statistical Evidence in Class Actions