This week the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committees held oversight hearings with Prudential Regulators. Perhaps the most contentious topic in the hearings was the FDIC’s and OOC’s recent proposed regulation in response to the valid-when-made doctrine and the Madden decisions.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) this week have proposed changes to rules that would reaffirm the power of national banks and federal savings associations, and state-chartered banks, respectively, to securitize, sell, assign or transfer loans without impacting the enforceability of the interest rate on a loan.
As the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau’s (CFPB) “for cause” provision, which requires the President to provide evidence of poor performance before firing a CFPB director, experts debate whether the ruling will have impact on the FHFA.
Earlier this year, an appeals court ruled the government’s “net worth sweep,” or the FHFA’s practice of claiming all GSE profits, to be unconstitutional. Despite this decision, the Department of Justice has asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the Court of Appeals “erred” in its decision.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that challenges the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) based on the ability of the President to only dismiss the CFPB director “for cause”.
On Friday, October 4, SFA, jointly with BPI, served a joint amicus brief on the parties in Cohen v. Capital One, a case that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 12, 2019.
On Tuesday, August 13th, SFA, jointly with BPI, filed a motion in the US District Court in the Western District of New York for leave to file an amicus brief in the matter of Peterson v. Chase Card Funding.