Week Ahead in Banking: August 2, 2021
- Law firms
- Related documents
The company and law firm names shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this feature as we continue to test and develop in beta. We welcome feedback, which you can provide using the feedback tab on the right of the page.
Here are some upcoming events of interest to the banking law community. Unless otherwise noted, all times are local.
Wednesday, August 4
1:30 p.m. – Noble Capital will urge the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to overturn a ruling compelling the private credit fund to arbitrate its claim against real estate developer US Capital Partners. Noble claims it was fraudulently induced to agree to the arbitration agreement, which US Capital disputes.
The case is Noble Capital Group et al. v. US Capital Partners et al., 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-50721. For Noble: Jason Hopkins of DLA Piper. For US Capital: Dan Woodall of Woodall Batchelor.
Thursday, August 5
2:00 p.m. – U.S. Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern will hold a hearing on a Tennessee landlord’s lawsuit seeking to block a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule requiring notice to delinquent renters of a national eviction ban.
The judge has asked both sides to discuss the effect of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent ruling that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lacked authority for the ban imposed last year to help curb the spread of the coronavirus.
The case is The Property Management Connection LLC v. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, No. 21-cv-00359. For the plaintiffs: John Vecchione and Caleb Kruckenberg of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. For the CFPB: Karen Bloom and Kevin Friedl.
Friday, August 6
9:00 a.m. – U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White in Oakland, California will hear oral argument on motions for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation rule that several states say will lead to the proliferation of predatory “rent-a-bank” schemes.
The rule states that when a national bank transfers a loan, the interest rate is allowed to stay the same, even if the new holder of the loan would normally be required to charge lower rates under state law. The case has drawn amicus briefs from consumer advocates and banking and fintech industry groups.
The case is People of the State of California et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-05860.
Know of an event that could be included in Week Ahead in Banking? Contact Jody Godoy at [email protected]