Tag Archives: Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Trump Wins Another Round in CFPB Fight

Posted on by

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney

Judge Gardephe (SDNY) ruled against the Lower East Side People’s Federal Credit Union in their suit against President Trump and Mick Mulvaney over the control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (Case 1:17-cv-09536-PGG, filed February 1, 2018) Trump has sought to install Mulvaney, his OMB Director, as the Acting Director of the CFPB. I submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the Credit Union along with a number of other academics who write about the consumer financial services sector but the judge did not reach the merits of the case. Rather, the judge found that the Credit Union did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. Standing, for you non-lawyers out there, refers to a showing by the plaintiff that it has enough of a connection to, as well as harm from, an action that the plaintiff is challenging to be the basis for the lawsuit.

The dispute over the leadership of the CFPB is still ongoing as Leandra English, the Deputy Director appointed by former Director Cordray, is still pressing the suit that she filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia. In that suit, English claims that she is the rightful Acting Director of the CFPB. While she lost in the District Court, she has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That case turns on the complex interaction between the Dodd-Frank Act and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, so it is hard to predict what the Court of Appeals will end up doing in that case.

In the short term, it means that the CFPB is somewhat rudderless as two people claim to lead the agency. This condition will likely prevail until President Trump gets a permanent Director confirmed by the Senate.

Fannie and Freddie Visit the Supreme Court

Posted on by

Justice Gorsuch

Fannie and Fredddie investors have filed their petition for a writ of certiorari in Perry Capital v. Mnuchin. The question presented is

Whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f), which prohibits courts from issuing injunctions that “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of” the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) “as a conservator,” bars judicial review of an action by FHFA and the Department of Treasury to seize for Treasury the net worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in perpetuity. (i)

What I find interesting about the brief is that relies so heavily on the narrative contained in Judge Brown’s dissent in the Court of Appeals decision. As I had noted previously, I do not find that narrative compelling, but I believe that some members of the court would, particularly Justice Gorsuch. The petition’s statement reads in part,

In August 2012—nearly four years after the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac1 in conservatorship during the 2008 financial crisis—FHFA, acting as conservator to the Companies, agreed to surrender each Company’s net worth to the Treasury Department every quarter. This arrangement, referred to as the “Net Worth Sweep,” replaced a fixed-rate dividend to Treasury that was tied to Treasury’s purchase of senior preferred stock in the Companies during the financial crisis. FHFA and Treasury have provided justifications for the Net Worth Sweep that, as the Petition filed by Fairholme Funds, Inc. demonstrates, were pretextual. The Net Worth Sweep has enabled a massive confiscation by the government, allowing Treasury thus far to seize $130 billion more than it was entitled to receive under the pre-2012 financial arrangement—a fact that neither Treasury nor FHFA denies. As was intended, these massive capital outflows have brought the Companies to the edge of insolvency, and all but guaranteed that they will never exit FHFA’s conservatorship.

Petitioners here, investors that own preferred stock in the Companies, challenged the Net Worth Sweep as exceeding both FHFA’s and Treasury’s respective statutory powers. But the court of appeals held that the Net Worth Sweep was within FHFA’s statutory authority, and that keeping Treasury within the boundaries of its statutory mandate would impermissibly intrude on FHFA’s authority as conservator.

The decision of the court of appeals adopts an erroneous view of conservatorship unknown to our legal system. Conservators operate as fiduciaries to care for the interests of the entities or individuals under their supervision. Yet in the decision below, the D.C. Circuit held that FHFA acts within its conservatorship authority so long as it is not actually liquidating the Companies. In dissent, Judge Brown aptly described that holding as “dangerously far-reaching,” Pet.App. 88a, empowering a conservator even “to loot the Companies,” Pet.App. 104a.

The D.C. Circuit’s test for policing the bounds of FHFA’s statutory authority as conservator—if one can call it a test at all—breaks sharply from those of the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits, which have held that FHFA cannot evade judicial review merely by disguising its actions in the cloak of a conservator. And it likewise patently violates centuries of common-law understandings of the meaning of a conservatorship, including views held by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), whose conservatorship authority under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), served as the template for FHFA’s own conservatorship authority. Judge Brown correctly noted that the decision below thus “establish[es] a dangerous precedent” for FDIC-regulated financial institutions with trillions of dollars in assets. Pet.App. 109a. If the decision below is correct, then the FDIC as conservator could seize depositor funds from one bank and give them away—to another institution as equity, or to Treasury, or even to itself—as long as it is not actually liquidating the bank. The notion that the law permits a regulator appointed as conservator to act in a way so manifestly contrary to the interests of its conservatee is deeply destabilizing to our financial regulatory system. (1-2)

We shall see if this narrative of government overreach finds a sympathetic ear at the Court.

Is the CFPB Unconstitutional?

Posted on by

txbisp14_5_rev1_iwd1

DepositAccounts.com quoted me in Old Court Case Puts Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Hot Seat. It reads, in part,

here is such a thing as a second act. Even court cases can be resurrected from the dead. Two years after State National Bank of Texas called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the carpet, challenging its constitutionality in a case that was dismissed by a federal court, the D.C. Circuit court breathed new life into the debate when it reopened the case and concluded that State National Bank has legal legs to stand on and can sue, despite the fact that it is not directly supervised by the agency.

Although the D.C. Circuit court didn’t buy all of the bank’s claims, the court didn’t dismiss the bank’s claims that the CFPB should be run by a commission, instead of a single director, nor did it shoot down the bank’s contention that CFPB’s Director, Richard Cordray was improperly appointed during a Congressional recess.

“The proper ruling is that a recess appointment requires the Senate to be in recess. The Senate should determine whether it is in recess by its own rules. So a unilateral decision by the executive branch that the Senate is in recess should be disregarded,” says lawyer David Rubenstein who owns CreditShout.com and CreditForums.com.

“The solicitor general’s office will argue that this is a political question and should not be decided by the courts. If the recess appointment is struck down, then any rules and regulations passed by the CFPB also need to be struck down. Courts generally try to avoid this kind of mess. So you may see some sort of compromise,” he adds.

*     *     *

Why the case matters

As for this case, scoffs [U.S. PIRG consumer program director] Mierzwinski, “Its proponents climbed a very low bar (standing to sue) to get the case reopened. Most experts on both sides think the odds of them actually winning are very low – achieving their sketchy Constitutional claims on the merits is an extremely high bar.”

The case is significant, says Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss, “It is opening up a new can of worms for the CFPB and the consumer finance industry. But the court defers on the meat of the matter as it remands the case ‘to the District Court for it to consider the merits of the claim.’”

Reiss contends that cases such as this increase uncertainty for regulated companies, and for their customers. “Until the case is decided and the new regulatory environment becomes clear, we should expect more caution in the development of new consumer finance products and services,” says Reiss.