Environmental Law & Property Rights and Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Groups Podcast
Last week, a lawsuit was filed in an attempt to halt a plan by the City of Richmond, California, to seize home loans using the power of eminent domain. While most of the loans are "under water," most are also performing -- monthly payments are being made by homeowners in a timely fashion. The claimants assert that the City of Richmond plan is unconstitutional in at least one of several potential respects, making arguments about under-valuation and public use. Is this another Kelo moment for the courts? Are the claims ripe? These and other questions were addressed during our Teleforum, which will be open to the press.
- Professor Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
EPA and U.S. Army Corps Seek to Expand Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act Engage Volume 13, Issue 1, March 2012
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) (jointly, the “Agencies”) are in the process of issuing a guidance that would expand the scope of their jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency that could cause the Agencies’ assertions of CWA jurisdiction to be given greater scrutiny because it allows regulated parties to challenge compliance orders issued under the CWA and may provide support for challenging jurisdictional determinations made by the Agencies outside the context of a compliance order. [Read more!] SCOTUScast 12-08-11 featuring Kevin Walsh
Kevin Walsh December 07, 2011
On November 28, 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards. The question in this case is whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue banks and title companies that pay kickbacks for closing a mortgage loan, when there is no claim that the kickbacks affected the price or quality of services provided.
To discuss the case, we have Kevin Walsh, who is an Assistant Professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. SCOTUScast 05-30-12 featuring Andrew Morriss
On May 24, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. This case involves a section of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act stating that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.” The question was whether this prohibition extends to “unearned, undivided” fees that lenders sometimes charge to borrowers at the closing of mortgage transactions.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held unanimously that, for a plaintiff to establish a violation of the prohibition in question, he or she must demonstrate that the charges for settlement services were divided between two or more persons.
To discuss the case, we have Andrew Morriss, who is the D. Paul Jones, Jr. & Charlene Angelich Jones Chairholder of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law. Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Given the breaking news, George Mason Law School Professor Todd Zywicki, Chapman University School of Law Professor John Eastman, and Mr. Noel Francisco, a Jones Day Partner who argued the case in the D.C. Circuit Court, will discuss today’s D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Noel Canning v. NLRB case, in which a unanimous three judge panel held the recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional. CFPB Director Richard Cordray was appointed at the same time by the President using the same recess appointment authority.
Professor Todd Zywicki will also discuss his recently published article, "Policy-Based Evidence-Making at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau." In the article, he first describes the mortgage rules very recently adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). He goes on to question whether the rationale for the new rules is supported by factual evidence. Finding they are not, he calls for greater oversight of the CFPB.
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
- Mr. Noel J. Francisco, Jones Day
- Prof. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Dean Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society