Law360 writes that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed a revised complaint, arguing against a second (and final) dismissal by the federal judge overseeing the case. The original dismissal was based on the unconstitutionality of the structure of the CFPB at the time the enforcement action was brought. The amended complaint from the CFPB argues that because the actions were effectively reaffirmed by current Acting Director David Uejio—who does not have the same statutory tenure protections that were deemed unconstitutional—the revised complaint does not suffer from the same lack of authority due to the structure of the CFPB.
However, the judge overseeing the case concluded that previous actions to ratify or reauthorize these enforcement actions ultimately fail because they were not filed in a timely manner. Aside from the procedural questions of CFPB’s authority, the defendant trusts and intervenors—including SFA, which filed an amicus brief—have also put forth substantive arguments that the CFPB’s enforcement authority does not reach the trusts because they are passive special purpose vehicles that cannot be held responsible as financial service providers.