Compliance Bulletins

Compliance Bulletin

Federal Appeals Court Issues Favorable Ruling Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
August 21, 2017

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits companies from initiating any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a messages without the prior express consent of the called party. In this case, Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, the court considered the novel question whether a consumer may revoke a consent to receive calls when that consent had been given as consideration under a contract.

Compliance Bulletin

Ninth Circuit Holds Holds Mortgage Underwriters Are Entitled to Overtime Pay
July 18, 2017

The Ninth Circuit has held that mortgage underwriters are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., for hours worked in excess of forty per week. The court’s decision in McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB (July 5, 2017) Case No. 15-16758, is particularly significant because two prior U.S. Courts of Appeals to consider the same issue reached different conclusions.

Compliance Bulletin

An Extraordinary Treatment of a Prepetition Loan Payment as an Avoidable Preference Payment
May 15, 2017

The CBA Legal Affairs Committee Chairman Ted Kitada, SVP, senior company counsel, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., has prepared a Regulatory Compliance Bulletin discussing In re Tenderloin Health, where the Ninth Circuit Court addressed the treatment of a prepetition loan payment by a bank as an avoidable preference in a bankruptcy proceeding initiated by a trustee.

Compliance Bulletin

The California Supreme Court erected another roadblock against the enforceability of arbitration agreements, setting the stage for yet another possible U.S. Supreme Court decision. The California high court held that it was against public policy for parti
April 17, 2017

The California Supreme Court erected another roadblock against the enforceability of arbitration agreements, setting the stage for yet another possible U.S. Supreme Court decision. The California high court held that it was against public policy for parties to agree to waive statutory rights that are intended to benefit the public. The plaintiff in the case, a bank customer, sought to obtain injunctive relief, a form of remedy that the arbitration agreement did not allow. The defendant bank argued that the U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision AT&T Mobility v.

Compliance Bulletin

Federal Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Targets of ADA Shakedown Lawsuits
April 3, 2017

The Federal District Court in the Central District of California issued a ruling dismissing a lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza, LLC for alleged violations of the American With Disabilities Act related to its website and mobile application. The basis of the ruling is that to hold the retailer liable would violate its due process rights because the U.S. Department of Justice, which is responsible for enforcing the ADA, has failed to establish clear accessibility standards for the visually impaired for businesses to follow.

Compliance Bulletin

Court May Hear Challenge to its Assigned CAMELS Rating
March 6, 2017

After the FDIC assigned a composite CAMELS “4” supervisory rating to Builders Bank in Illinois, the $100 million asset bank sued the FDIC in federal court arguing that the agency should have given it a “3” rating instead. The federal district court dismissed the bank’s suit for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the FDIC’s determination of a bank’s minimal capital requirements is not reviewable under federal law. Builders Bank was undeterred and appealed the decision to the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Compliance Bulletin

State Agency to Issue Restrictions on Criminal History Screening
March 6, 2017

Following the lead of a handful of local ordinances around the country, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Council (FEHC) is finalizing a regulation restricting California employers from using a person’s criminal history information in making employment decisions. The regulation will apply to applications for employment as well as decisions affecting existing employees.

Compliance Bulletin

Supreme Court Rules Rest Periods May Not Involve “On-call” Duties
January 3, 2017

The California Supreme Court held that “on-call” rest periods are impermissible under Labor Code Section 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission wage order no. 4-2001. In Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. the Court held that the applicable standard for rest periods is the same for meal periods: employers must relieve the employee of all duty and relinquish any employer control over the employee and how he or she spends the time. Thus an employer may not compel employees to remain on call during rest periods.