CFPB Just Withdrew Investigative Subpoena. That Doesn't Happen Often
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau this week retreated from an investigation into J.G. Wentworth, a year after suing the financial services firm in Philadelphia federal district court to force the company to disclose thousands of pages of documents.
June 09, 2017 at 02:37 PM
4 minute read
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau this week retreated from an investigation into J.G. Wentworth, a year after suing the financial services firm in Philadelphia federal district court to force the company to disclose thousands of pages of documents.
The CFPB said on June 8 that it had withdrawn the administrative subpoena—known as a civil investigative demand—that it sent to J.G. Wentworth in September 2015 as part of an investigation into the company's practice of paying consumers for the rights to future income from annuities and legal settlements. The subpoena was formally withdrawn on June 1, according to papers the CFPB filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
“This action is therefore moot, and the court must dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” CFPB enforcement attorneys wrote.
It's possible the CFPB has reissued or will issue a new demand for information from J.G. Wentworth. A CFPB spokesman declined to comment on Friday. J.G. Wentworth's lawyers in Washington at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr didn't immediately return messages seeking comment.
The CFPB has been no slouch in turning to the courts to enforce the agency's subpoenas, but it's rare that the agency would pull back one of its demands.
Last month, a federal judge in California ordered Future Income Payments to comply with a CFPB investigation into pension-advance products, in which consumers receive a lump-sum payment in exchange for a portion or all of their pension income. The company has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The CFPB enjoyed similar success in Detroit, where a federal judge ruled in February that Harbour Portfolio Advisors, one of the nation's largest providers of seller-financed homes, must comply with the agency's investigative demands.
But the bureau has not gone undefeated. In April, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit spiked the bureau's attempt to squeeze information from the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which cleared the now-shuttered Corinthian Colleges chain of for-profit schools to receive federal student aid. The D.C. Circuit's decision upheld a federal judge's ruling that the CFPB lacked the authority to investigate the accrediting organization.
J.G. Wentworth's defense team at Wilmer, including partner Matthew Martens and senior associate Matthew Celestin, had dug in against the CFPB's demands. In an August court filing, J.G. Wentworth, based in Radnor, Pennsylvania, outside of Philadelphia, said it had been under investigation by the CFPB for more than two years and initially cooperated with the probe “in hopes that the bureau would quickly realize that it has no jurisdiction” over the company's business.
“Instead, the investigation has lumbered on for more than two years and at great expense to [J.G. Wentworth], as the company has produced to the bureau more than 40,000 pages of documents and three company representatives for testimony,” Celestin wrote.
Last month, J.G. Wentworth pushed back against the idea that the issuance of any new CFPB subpoena would be futile because J.G. Wentworth would not respond to that modified demand.
The agency's “staff has no basis to prejudge the administrative process. For one, JGW is not a recalcitrant party, having already provided over 40,000 documents and hearing testimony of multiple employees in response to earlier Bureau requests,” Celestin wrote in court papers. “And even if the parties are unable to negotiate the parameters of a response to a new CID—not a foregone conclusion—JGW has a statutory right to petition the director to modify or set aside the CID.”
Copyright The National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
Chicago Federal Court Offers Banks Relief From Illinois' Historic Credit Fee Curbs
4 minute readFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
- 2A Q&A with Sidley Austin's London Leader
- 3New York-Based Harris Beach Combines With Connecticut-Based Murtha Cullina, Forming NE Powerhouse
- 4New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250