Court cases

Win or lose, Citibank’s battle to recover half a billion dollars from an accidental payment is sure to prompt a review of internal controls in the industry and could have a lasting impact on the more than $1 trillion syndicated loan market.

Many have assumed the high court would rule that presidents can fire the Federal Housing Finance Agency director at will. But during oral arguments in a case challenging the agency’s structure, some justices suggested they could stop short of such a decision.

The agency finalized a rule to determine which party in a loan sale is subject to regulatory requirements. Advocates charged that the move will help predatory lenders.

A recent victory for Navy Federal opens diversity jurisdiction to federally chartered credit unions, allowing them to more easily bring matters before federal courts.

A state judge deciding a dispute between Spencer Savings and an investor said the mutual must get an independent review before switching from a savings association to a savings bank. The ruling may complicate mutuals' efforts to make more business loans.

An appeals court ruled that diversity jurisdiction applies to federally chartered credit unions, allowing them to bring suit in federal courts.

A group of eight Attorneys General filed suit against an FDIC final rule related to ‘rent-a-bank’ partnerships, mirroring a similar suit filed against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last month.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors, banking law scholars and consumer advocacy organizations filed amicus briefs siding with the New York State Department of Financial Services in its court battle with the federal regulator.

Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks said the agency plans to issue new assessment procedures within weeks as a follow-up to recent Community Reinvestment Act reforms. He also touched on the “true lender” issue and why the agency is considering a narrow-purpose payments charter.

The complaint filed by New York, California and Illinois argues that the regulation, issued in response to the 2015 Madden decision, undermines state laws intended to protect consumers.