CFPB Suspends 1 Investigation as Mulvaney, at Helm, Reviews Pending Cases
Mick Mulvaney said he remains in the early stages of his review but said he was “triaging” to prioritize cases that have time-sensitive deadlines or hearings.
December 04, 2017 at 06:32 PM
10 minute read
Mick Mulvaney. Credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lawyers on Monday agreed to temporarily suspend an investigation into a bail bond company that caters to undocumented immigrants as a judge in Washington weighs whether the agency has authority to conduct the probe.
The move comes as White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, in his role as the Trump-appointed acting director of the CFPB, reviews the agency's pending court cases. In remarks Monday, Mulvaney said he remains in the early stages of that review but said he was “triaging” to prioritize cases that have time-sensitive deadlines or hearings.
Mulvaney noted that a hearing was scheduled for Monday afternoon in the CFPB's pending case against the bail bond company Libre by Nexus. CFPB attorney David Wall said at the hearing, in front of U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia, that the agency would “suspend” its investigation pending the judge's review.
Jackson used the hearing to sort out scheduling in two pending cases that involve Libre by Nexus. The CFPB is a defendant in one. In the other, the agency is seeking to enforce a civil investigative demand.
Libre by Nexus, represented by the firms Gentry Locke and Gorby Peters & Associates, sued in late October to challenge a subpoena the CFPB issued as part of the probe. The company argued that the agency was straying outside its jurisdiction and seeking a “breathtakingly large number of documents and information” concerning the company's operations. The CFPB's subpoena was premised on the “mistaken belief” the Libre by Nexus extends credit to consumers, the company's defense lawyers argued.
Libre by Nexus noted in its initial court filings that the CFPB had yet to take the company to court to enforce its investigative demand. Instead, the company argued, the agency was “boldly circumventing judicial scrutiny” by going to third parties, including Libre by Nexus customers and a bondsman, and issuing a separate subpoena to lawyers in a pending class action against the company.
“The CFPB has used a number of inappropriate, nefarious tactics to obtain the information it sought in the Nexus [civil investigative demand] by any means,” the company's lawyers argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The CFPB's petition to enforce the subpoena was filed on Oct. 30, five days after Libre by Nexus filed suit. CFPB enforcement attorney Benjamin Konop urged a federal judge to order the company to comply with the subpoena.
“The CID seeks information to determine whether persons who provide products or services related to bonds posted on behalf of detainees have been extending credit or offering to extend credit and whether they engaged in acts or practices that violate the [Consumer Financial Protection Act's] proscription against unfair, deceptive and abusive acts or practices,” Konop argued. “Nexus provides such products or services, making it a person that may have information relevant to a violation of the CFPA, and Nexus therefore falls squarely within the scope of the bureau's investigative authority.”
Under the tenure of former CFPB Director Richard Cordray, defense lawyers often declined to challenge subpoenas through the agency's in-house process. Cordray routinely denied such appeals, and any challenge to a CFPB subpoena came with the possibility that a company would disclose a pending investigation sooner rather than later.
Mulvaney on Monday said he was “just learning about the civil investigative demand process” but appeared to welcome the prospect of bringing a new perspective to those administrative appeals.
“I'm really looking forward to those,” Mulvaney said. “This place will be different under my leadership and under whoever follows me, the permanent appointment of President Trump.”
Mulvaney said CFPB investigative demands can often be “fairly broad” and “fairly burdensome.” “If you don't like that, if your company got a letter from the CFPB saying, 'Hi, we hereby demand all this information under penalty of law and perjury,' and you don't like that, you can appeal. You know who you appeal to? The director—the guy who approved sending it to you in the first place.”
“It sounds to me like maybe there's a lack of checks and balances in that process,” Mulvaney added. “Yes, I will look upon the appeals process, my guess is, differently than Mr. Cordray would.”
Read more:
Mick Mulvaney. Credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau lawyers on Monday agreed to temporarily suspend an investigation into a bail bond company that caters to undocumented immigrants as a judge in Washington weighs whether the agency has authority to conduct the probe.
The move comes as White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, in his role as the Trump-appointed acting director of the CFPB, reviews the agency's pending court cases. In remarks Monday, Mulvaney said he remains in the early stages of that review but said he was “triaging” to prioritize cases that have time-sensitive deadlines or hearings.
Mulvaney noted that a hearing was scheduled for Monday afternoon in the CFPB's pending case against the bail bond company Libre by Nexus. CFPB attorney David Wall said at the hearing, in front of U.S. District Judge
Jackson used the hearing to sort out scheduling in two pending cases that involve Libre by Nexus. The CFPB is a defendant in one. In the other, the agency is seeking to enforce a civil investigative demand.
Libre by Nexus, represented by the firms
Libre by Nexus noted in its initial court filings that the CFPB had yet to take the company to court to enforce its investigative demand. Instead, the company argued, the agency was “boldly circumventing judicial scrutiny” by going to third parties, including Libre by Nexus customers and a bondsman, and issuing a separate subpoena to lawyers in a pending class action against the company.
“The CFPB has used a number of inappropriate, nefarious tactics to obtain the information it sought in the Nexus [civil investigative demand] by any means,” the company's lawyers argued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The CFPB's petition to enforce the subpoena was filed on Oct. 30, five days after Libre by Nexus filed suit. CFPB enforcement attorney Benjamin Konop urged a federal judge to order the company to comply with the subpoena.
“The CID seeks information to determine whether persons who provide products or services related to bonds posted on behalf of detainees have been extending credit or offering to extend credit and whether they engaged in acts or practices that violate the [Consumer Financial Protection Act's] proscription against unfair, deceptive and abusive acts or practices,” Konop argued. “Nexus provides such products or services, making it a person that may have information relevant to a violation of the CFPA, and Nexus therefore falls squarely within the scope of the bureau's investigative authority.”
Under the tenure of former CFPB Director Richard Cordray, defense lawyers often declined to challenge subpoenas through the agency's in-house process. Cordray routinely denied such appeals, and any challenge to a CFPB subpoena came with the possibility that a company would disclose a pending investigation sooner rather than later.
Mulvaney on Monday said he was “just learning about the civil investigative demand process” but appeared to welcome the prospect of bringing a new perspective to those administrative appeals.
“I'm really looking forward to those,” Mulvaney said. “This place will be different under my leadership and under whoever follows me, the permanent appointment of President Trump.”
Mulvaney said CFPB investigative demands can often be “fairly broad” and “fairly burdensome.” “If you don't like that, if your company got a letter from the CFPB saying, 'Hi, we hereby demand all this information under penalty of law and perjury,' and you don't like that, you can appeal. You know who you appeal to? The director—the guy who approved sending it to you in the first place.”
“It sounds to me like maybe there's a lack of checks and balances in that process,” Mulvaney added. “Yes, I will look upon the appeals process, my guess is, differently than Mr. Cordray would.”
Read more:
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
© 2024 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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
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