Litigation

The Supreme Court justices grappled with the question of whether a newly formed company can challenge a regulatory rule after the six-year statute of limitations has expired, a decision that could have broad impact on plaintiffs' ability to challenge agency rules.

The original lawsuit was one of several filed in 2014 in a coordinated effort among federal and state regulators aimed at fraudsters trying to cheat distressed mortgage borrowers.

Banks historically have been averse to challenging their regulators in court, but a suit over the recently finalized Community Reinvestment Act implementation rules is a signal that the times have changed.

The Independent Community Bankers of America, American Bankers Association and other groups filed a lawsuit arguing that recent reforms to implementing regulations for the Community Reinvestment Act exceed statutory authority.

First National Bank of Pennsylvania, a unit of FNB Corp., ran into trouble in connection with North Carolina operations it acquired from Yadkin Financial in 2017.

The megabank failed to adequately protect and reimburse customers who were victims of wire-transfer fraud, according to a lawsuit by the New York Attorney General. Citi said that it follows all relevant laws and regulations.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are targeting various companies in connection with a California law that ensures customers can air grievances publicly without the threat of retribution. BofA and U.S. Bank say the suits against them are meritless.

A federal judge rejected every one of Missouri's arguments for why SIFMA's lawsuit should be dismissed.

By overturning so-called "Chevron deference," the Supreme Court could compel lawmakers to be less ambiguous in their legislative language, limiting agencies' interpretative power.

At least four conservative judges on the Supreme Court, a formidable group at the oral argument stage, appear ready to overturn 'Chevron' deference, which could have massive consequences for bank policy.