In both chambers of Congress, passing legislation to bring down drug prices is a policy priority—and the savings from such possible legislation is slated to offset other healthcare legislative proposals (such as addressing impending Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) allotment ...
A closely watched bill that would have a significant impact on the financial services industry continues to advance through the California Legislature, although a second measure that would regulate lead generators has stalled.
It has been an unusually busy rule-making stretch for the consumer mortgage markets at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), marked by its issuance of an advanced notice of proposed rule-making (ANPR) relating to its proposal to allow expiration of the temporary qualified ...
Credit reporting companies would be subject to supervision and examination authority by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and would be barred from using Social Security numbers, under new legislation proposed by Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).
The Ninth Circuit refused to allow various defendants to escape liability for a variety of alleged mortgage relief scams, affirming judgments based on violations of the FTC Act and the federal Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule.
Adding prejudgment interest to a consumer’s debt from the date of charge-off—and reporting the account with that interest to multiple credit bureaus—did not violate the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act, a California appellate panel has ruled.
Shining the light on previously undisclosed examination practices, federal banking regulators and other entities issued an important joint statement addressing their risk-focused approach to BSA/AML examinations.
Insider offers critical insights into the consumer finance enforcement agenda. Read on for details.
Halfway through 2019, it’s time to recap the five biggest employment law stories to date based on the top trafficked links to Manatt’s Employment Law newsletter.
Interpreting California Labor Code Section 2802, an appellate panel in the state ruled that an employer was not required to reimburse its employees for the cost of slip-resistant shoes.