"Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act" Is Now Law
President Obama today signed the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act," which will bring comprehensive changes to consumer financial services, and to consumer finance litigation, including mortgages, credit cards, retail credit, debt collection, arbitration, preemption, and auto finance. See details about the changes coming, as seen by the White House, and the President's signing remarks.
Financial Regulatory Reform is (Almost) a Done Deal
The U.S. Senate voted 60-39 yesterday to pass the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which the White House says President Obama will sign into law next week. While consumer finance attorneys digest the massive changes coming with this comprehensive bill (in mortgages, credit cards, retail credit, debt collection, arbitration, preemption, and auto finance), the scope of the changes will likely depend on the implementing regulations, and how these regulations are interpreted by Courts.
A few things are clear now. First, the OTS is fading away. Second, consumer arbitration may be too. Third, federal preemption is likely to be more difficult to obtain in consumer finance litigation.
Tracking the Conference on Financial Regulatory Reform
The House-Senate Conference to reconcile financial regulatory reform legislation begins today. Track the conference with the House Financial Services Committee or the Senate Banking Committee. The hearing also will be broadcast live on C-SPAN and webcast live at the House Financial Services Committee site.
9th Circuit Reviews Attorney's Fees Under FDCPA
In Comacho, plaintiff sued defendant Bridgeport in a putative class action alleging violation of the FDCPA. The parties settled the case shortly after the district court certified a statewide class with more than 7,000 members. As part of the settlement, Bridgeport agreed to pay "reasonable and necessary" attorney's fees to be determined by the district court if the parties could not agree (and they could not). The district court awarded plaintiff $77,069.36 of the $167,434.36 in attorney's fees she sought, and plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding: (1) the district court failed to identify the relevant community in awarding fees; (2) the district court failed to address or determine the prevailing market rate in awarding attorney's fees; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by awarding a flat $500 award without calculating the lodestar. Continue Reading...
