- 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
Last month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an advisory opinion on the attempted enforcement of time-barred alleged debt collection rights as to second mortgage loans. It is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its implementing Regulation F to sue ...
In February, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed amending the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z with respect to the amount of fees that credit card issuers are permitted to charge their customers for late payments. Read to learn more about the details of the proposed ch...
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...