- Assessing the status of ‘disparate impact’ in lending litigation and enforcement
- What the Mount Holly case could mean for ‘disparate impact’
- Fair Housing Act as the basis for disparate impact claims
- DI claims in cases where lenders choose only QM safe harbor or QRM loans because of liability and financing imperatives (reputational, PR and monetary risk)
- Assessing recent discrimination cases and actions, and defending against the latest claims alleging fair lending violations
- How state and federal agencies are approaching fair lending issues
- Preparing for enhanced scrutiny of fair lending issues by the CFPB
- Evaluating and assessing recent and emerging CFPB enforcement actions
- Negotiating successful resolutions
- Settlement considerations and strategies
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
At the beginning of his term, President Biden declared that his administration would make it a policy to eliminate “racial bias and other forms of discrimination in all states of home-buying and renting.” Recently, this policy statement has manifested itself in regulatory proposals and enforcement a...
While declining to rule that the Consumer Financial Production Bureau (CFPB) itself is unconstitutional — a position taken by many of the agency’s opponents since it began operating in July 2011 — the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today, June 29, 2020,that the CFPB’s structure violates the Co...
Lawyers or business people who feel they have been hearing about a lot more consumer protection class actions lately have good reason for that feeling. A recent report by Lex Machina, part of LexisNexis, highlights an extraordinary increase in federal consumer protection class actions over the last ...