Compliance Tip of the Day: Bank of America, Culture and Internal Controls
Corruption, Crime and Compliance : CFPB and OCC Hit Bank of America with $250 Million Penalty for Consumer Abuse Practices
Bank of America Tries Excuse They Often Scoff at in Fraud Suits Filed by DOJ, SEC
Weekly Brief: BoA Sued; SCOTUS Shortlists; Fund Fights Argentina
As we reported in June, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Cantero v. Bank of America on bank pre-emption matters that remanded cases decided by three different Circuit Courts, finding that the courts did not apply...more
On August 27, we blogged about the Ninth Circuit unpublished panel opinion in Kivett v. Flagstar Bank issued upon remand of the case from the Supreme Court with instructions to follow the guidance of the Supreme Court...more
In a surprising quick turn of events, on remand from SCOTUS, the 9th Circuit, on August 23, 2024, issued its unanimous unpublished panel opinion in Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (Kivett II) in which it essentially re-affirmed...more
On May 30, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s holding that New York General Obligation Law § 5–601, which mandates banks to pay borrowers the interest accumulated on a balance held in an escrow account for...more
On May 30th, an unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Second Circuit needed to take another shot at evaluating whether Bank of America, a national bank, can pre-empt a New York state law requiring the payment of interest on...more
On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings a 2022 decision by the Second Circuit that held that the National Bank Act preempted a New York state law requiring the payment of interest on...more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a more bright-line standard for determining whether the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts a state law. Rather, the Supreme Court explained that the NBA preemption...more
On May 30, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 22-529, holding that courts must conduct a practical assessment of the nature and degree of the interference when determining whether a...more
On February 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., a case involving the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on the scope of preemption under the National Bank Act (NBA). The...more
The scope of national bank preemption is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. A New York statute requires the payment of interest on mortgage escrow accounts and the question before the...more
Bank of America, N.A. has filed its merits brief in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the scope of national bank preemption. The petitioners must file their reply...more
In Cantero vs. Bank of America, N.A., mortgage borrowers are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse a Second Circuit ruling that federally-chartered banks need not comply with state laws that require the...more
The Issue and Background - Debtors David Caulkett and Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona (“Debtors”) each filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief with “underwater” junior mortgages held by Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank”). In other...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a circuit court split regarding how and when a mortgage borrower may exercise the right of rescission under the Truth-in-Lending-Act (“TILA”) and the CFPB’s implementing...more
In a unanimous decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court held that a borrower exercises its right to rescind under Section 1635 of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), simply by notifying its creditor of its intent to...more
The Truth-in-Lending Act (“Act”) was adopted in 1969. It has spawned dozens of lawsuits and hundreds of administrative rules and interpretations. Recently, the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to address the...more
Why it matters - In a victory for consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not require borrowers to file suit to rescind a mortgage loan transaction within the...more
Action Item: In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski, lenders should be aware that written notice provided by the borrower, within three years of the loan consummation, is sufficient to exercise...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. that borrowers exercising their right to rescind mortgages under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) only need to provide written notice to...more
Background of Notice versus Lawsuit Issue - The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), as implemented by Regulation Z, provides borrowers with a powerful tool: the right to rescind certain mortgage loan transactions. This...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, et al. (No. 13-684), the U.S. Supreme Court has eased the process by which a borrower may seek to walk away from his home mortgages, holding that the borrower, in order to avail himself...more
In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., decided January 13, 2015, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and clarified that borrowers need not file a complaint in order to invoke their right to rescind...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that borrowers may reserve and effect their right to rescission by simply notifying creditors of their intent to rescind a loan within three years after receiving...more
The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a borrower relying on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to rescind his mortgage loan need only mail written notice of his intent to his lender within three years of the...more