New legislation and accompanying regulations have thrust financial services institutions into a state of flux. With the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, banks and mortgage companies need legal advisors who understand the complex web of existing rules and proposed new ones.
Attorneys at BSCR have extensive knowledge of the regulatory alphabet soup and keep themselves updated about state and federal rules, and the agencies that enforce them. We represent commercial lenders, consumer lenders, credit unions, finance companies and credit card issuers in a wide range of matters. We provide advice to clients on compliance issues and are experienced litigators, having represented clients at the local, regional and national level. We provide counsel in many forums, be it arbitration, mediation, administrative hearings or at trial. Our attorneys defend financial institutions against single claims, mass claims and class actions involving both servicing disputes and origination disputes.
Banking, Mortgage and Consumer Loans
Our attorneys provide compliance advice and handle litigation for commercial and consumer lenders, finance companies, creditor lenders, mortgage lenders, mortgage originators, credit unions and credit card issuers. We have handled a broad range of matters, including serving as local, regional and national counsel in matters involving unauthorized transfers, actions to recover from principals and lender misconduct. We also represent financial institutions and investors in state and federal actions brought by borrowers.
We handle litigation involving the following representative matters:
- Errors and omissions committed by officers and directors including claims of theft and fraud
- Negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation
- Predatory Lending, TILA violations
- Regulation Z
- Truth-in-Savings Act
- Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act
- Electronic Funds and Transfer Act
- E-sign and Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
- UDAP laws
- Missouri Merchandising Practices Act violations
- Conversion and breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code
- Security interest priority actions involving repossession of secured collateral
- SEC violations
- Artisans’ liens, breach of contract actions
- Check honoring issues
For more information about our Financial Services Litigation practice contact James Scott Kreamer or Tom Rice at 816.471.2121.
| The CFPB recently filed its complaint against Navient, the nation’s largest servicer of federal and private student loans for alleged failures in servicing those loans. Filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Complaint contains allegations that Navient violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the FDPCA and seeks millions in restitution.
| In a ruling favorable to home loan mortgage servicers, the Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court’s dismissal of a previous foreclosure action caused the loan to decelerate, thus recommencing the 5-year statute of limitations period for acceleration of the loan.
| While the very concept of an electronic mortgage is not new, the adoption of e-mortgages as the new “normal” remains a hot topic in the mortgage servicing realm. Despite the technology behind electronic document execution, delays in e-notarization laws prevent e-mortgages from fully replacing traditional home loan transactions.
| On October 25, 2016, FinCEN issued an Advisory outlining recommendations and requirements for financial institutions to report suspicious activity in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, clarifying these institutions’ obligation to report cyber-events, even where no financial transaction was completed.
| In a long-awaited opinion, the D.C. Circuit Court held that the structure of the CFPB, as it exists currently, is unconstitutional. The Court also rejected the Director’s argument that the applicable statute of limitations does not apply to a CFPB administrative action.
| The results of the November 8, 2016 election have unmistakably cast doubt on the future of the CFPB, particularly as it exists today. With Donald Trump as President-elect, along with a Republican-held House and Senate, it is likely that some of the preceding years’ regulations and consumer protections will be undone.
| A Missouri plaintiff did not irrevocably waive the protections of the work product doctrine simply by designating an expert witness and then withdrawing the designation without disclosing the expert’s analysis or conclusions.
| In its first 4-4 decision since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that resulted in affirmation of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in favor of a Missouri bank in a dispute concerning the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
| The Kansas Court of Appeals recently held that, even where a debt collector delayed its motion to compel arbitration until 2 years after the litigation was commenced, the trial court did not have the authority to decide that the delay was, in effect, a waiver of arbitration.
| In its current state, the MMPA has allowed consumers to collect substantial verdicts in cases that have strayed from the original intent of lawmakers. SB793 hopes to restore a balance that requires not only that businesses act fairly, but also that consumers act reasonably.
| While a Kansas court may grant relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect, it is an abuse of discretion to grant that relief when the party seeking that relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim.
| An agent may recover attorney’s fees when enforcing a principal’s contract if: the agent is granted the express authority to enforce the contract in the contract itself, the contract contains an attorney’s fees provision, and the agent is the prevailing party.
| In two cases involving consumer loans, the Court reaches opposite conclusions as to whether conduct occurring after the initial loan was issued fell with the coverage of the MMPA.
| Experts are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis if the experts have properly ruled in the alleged cause.
| A Kansas plaintiff may amend their pleadings to assert punitive damages up until the day of the pretrial conference.
| Based on its adoption of a statutory scheme of comparative negligence, Kansas has abolished common law assumption of the risk as a bar to recovery. Simmons v. Porter, 298 Kan. 299, 312 P3d 345, 355 (Kan. 2013).
| The plaintiff has the burden of proving standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised at any time.
| In Kansas, the parties bind themselves to an enforceable settlement, even though the parties contemplate subsequent execution of a formal instrument. However, when the parties specifically condition a contract on it being reduced to writing and signed, there is no enforceable contract until such act is accomplished.