WLF’s ‘Gordon v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’ Supreme Court Petition Evaluated in Law Firm’s Year-End Assessment of CFPB

gordonvcfpb-certpetition_page_01In a year-end assessment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), attorneys from the law firm K&L Gates LLP evaluated the potential impact of Gordon v. CFPB, a constitutional challenge in which Washington Legal Foundation has filed a certiorari petition with the US Supreme Court on behalf of its client, Chance Gordon.

In the Legal Insight, “Down But Not Out: The CFPB’s Future May Be Uncertain, But Industry Participants Must Remain Vigilant,” the authors discuss judicial challenges facing the Bureau in 2017, including Gordon and PHH Corp. v. CFPB.  In PHH Corp., the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that CFPB’s leadership structure runs afoul of the Constitution’s separation of powers. WLF’s petition in Gordon calls into question the subsequent, retroactive ratification of CFPB’s enforcement action against Mr. Gordon, as well as 15 other actions, that were taken during a time when Bureau Director Richard Cordray had not been lawfully appointed.

The K&L Gates Legal Insight notes:

With PHH concluding (for now) that the CFPB’s directorship structure is unconstitutional and Gordon questioning the validity of certain CFPB actions on other constitutionality grounds, a trend may be developing toward judicial challenges to the validity of the CFPB as an agency and the propriety of its enforcement activities.”

A WLF Legal Pulse post discussing Gordon and the three amicus briefs filed in support of WLF’s cert petition can be found here.

‘Amicus’ Briefs Support WLF’s ‘Gordon v. CFPB’ Cert Petition on Appointments Clause and Standing Issues

supreme courtOn November 17, 2016, Washington Legal Foundation petitioned the US Supreme Court to review a US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision, Gordon v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. CFPB had pursued a substantial fine against WLF’s client, Chance Gordon, in June 2013, a time during which the Bureau lacked a properly appointed Director. Mr. Gordon’s petition argues that the attempted corrective action Richard Cordray took once he lawfully became CFPB Director—a blanket, retroactive ratification of all actions taken during his unconstitutional recess appointment—runs afoul of the US Constitution’s Appointments Clause (contained in Article II). Mr. Gordon also argues that because Mr. Cordray had not been properly appointed, CFPB lacked standing to pursue a claim against him in federal court.

This week, three organizations filed amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of Mr. Gordon’s writ of certiorari. The briefs positively reinforce WLF’s two major justifications for the Court’s review of Gordon v. CFPB. The petition first argues that the Ninth Circuit’s acceptance of Director Cordray’s blanket ratification severely undermines a fundamental check on Executive power: the requirement that Congress must first approve presidential nominees before they can be lawfully appointed. The Gordon decision is also contrary to Supreme Court precedent and furthers a split in the circuit courts over when ratification of ultra vires administrative action is permissible. Continue reading

US Supreme Court’s ‘Salman v. US’ Decision Answers One Insider-Trading Question, Leaves Others Unresolved

bainbridgeFeatured Expert Contributor — Corporate Governance/Securities Law

Stephen M. Bainbridge, William D. Warren Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

In Salman v. United States, the US Supreme Court returned to the problem of insider trading for the first time in almost two decades. The Court reaffirmed a rule from prior insider-trade caselaw that a gift of information between friends and family constitutes the requisite benefit. Justice Alito’s very brief opinion for a unanimous Court, however, left a number of more difficult questions unresolved.

Bassam Salman was convicted of insider trading for using information he had received from a friend and relative by marriage named Michael Kara who, in turn, had received the information his brother Maher Kara, who was a Citigroup investment banker. Salman argued that liability in such cases should arise only when “there is proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” citing the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Newman. Continue reading

Supreme Court Given Opportunity to Clarify Specific Personal Jurisdiction

eric-millerGuest Commentary

By Eric D. Miller, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP*

A pending petition for a writ of certiorari presents the United States Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify whether a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based solely on the defendant’s sale of components to third parties who incorporate those parts into finished products that are then sold in the forum State.

That question has divided the lower courts since Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). In that case, Asahi, a Japanese manufacturer, had delivered tire-valve assemblies to a Taiwanese tire manufacturer that sold tires throughout the world, including in California. After a California resident was injured in an accident caused by a defective valve, he sued Asahi in California state court. The Supreme Court held that Asahi was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, but no rationale commanded a majority of the Court. Justice O’Connor, writing for four justices, concluded that the connection between the defendant and the forum state necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction “must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.” In her view, placing a product “into the stream of commerce, without more,” is not such an act. Justice Brennan, on the other hand, wrote for four justices who believed that placement of goods into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge that they will ultimately be sold in a state, can be sufficient for jurisdiction in that state. Continue reading

The New Era of “Daimler” Yields Confusion in the Lower Courts

bnsfPrior to the US Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, general jurisdiction existed over a business defendant in any state where it was incorporated, had its principal place of business, or its contacts were so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum state.  Under this expansive interpretation, corporations could be subject to lawsuits in unpredictable and often remote jurisdictions.

Daimler significantly narrowed the reach of general jurisdiction by holding that because Daimler and MBUSA were neither incorporated nor had their principal place of business in California, Daimler’s contacts with California were not enough to render it at home in the state. Continue reading

Friday Finger on the Pulse: From Our Blogroll and Beyond

  • Be the boss, go to jail?: Responsible corporate office doctrine threatens C-suite executives with prosecution for unknown acts of employees (Corporate Counsel)
  • Due-process arguments and state-court class actions (Class Action Countermeasures)
  • The Supreme Court and laches: Reading into the SCA Hygiene oral argument (Patently-O)
  • New York Court of Appeals finds unconventional litigation-financing agreement constitutes champerty (D&O Diary)
  • The meaning of “foreign official” in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act remains elusive (FCPA Professor)
  • Federal trial court applies general-jurisdiction principles from Bauman in class-action lawsuit (Drug & Device Law)
  • Has the famed Gateway to the West become a gateway to a pot of gold? : Huge talc litigation verdict furthers St. Louis’s pro-plaintiff reputation (Guideposts Punitive Damages Blog)
  • In State of Washington, communications between in-house counsel and former employees are no longer protected per 5-4 state supreme court ruling (Corporate Counsel)
  • Northern District of California gives Spokeo decision a Lyft in rejecting plaintiffs’ standing to sue the ride-sharing company (Classified)

Friday Finger on the Pulse: From Our Blogroll and Beyond

  • FCC privacy rule frowns upon arbitration, announces forthcoming rule to ban its use in Internet service provider-customer privacy disputes (Truth on the Market)
  • Five takeaways from influential Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies conference on settlement of class actions (Class Action Countermeasures)
  • DOJ’s settlement of two False Claims Act suits indicate impacts of Yates Memo and its call for individual accountability on federal civil enforcement (D&O Diary)
  • Why are certain counties in Pennsylvania (such as Lackawanna) strong magnets for tort litigation? (Scranton Times-Tribune; HT to Overlawyered, article quotes editor Walter Olson)
  • Empty claim on empty packaging space: Federal judge says “it defies logic” that slack fill in ibuprofen bottle (that lists pill count on label) would deceive plaintiff into a purchase (Drug and Device Law)
  • Speaking of slack fill, a plaintiff named Wurtzburger is suing KFC for $20 million because her $20 bucket of chicken wasn’t overflowing (Abnormal Use)
  • Ninth Circuit denied rehearing in case discussed in WLF Legal Pulse guest commentary that equated falling air emissions with deposits of hazardous waste under CERCLA (Corporate Environmental Lawyer)
  • Ruling on a case noted in Sept. 30 WLF Legal Backgrounder, Seventh Circuit follows Supreme Court’s restrictive view of implied-certification theory under False Claims Act (Fried Frank FraudMail)
  • Two overlooked, but critical, aspects of DC Circuit’s decision finding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure unconstitutional (Asset Securitization Report)
  • Expect more activist group petitions seeking threatened or endangered status for species based on future risk of climate change after recent adventurous Ninth Circuit ruling (Law and the Environment)