Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 FEBRUARY 2020

2019 Year In Review: Securitization Litigation And Regulation

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Contributor
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is a global law firm trusted by clients to deliver on complex, high-stakes...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

There were significant developments in 2019 as courts continued to issue important decisions in this space and significant legislation impacting the residential mortgage-backed...

European UnionFinance and Banking

There were significant developments in 2019 as courts continued to issue important decisions in this space and significant legislation impacting the residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") market came into effect.  A number of cases have called into question firmly rooted practices in the securitization market.  In two actions commenced over the summer in New York federal courts, Petersen v. Chase Card Funding, LLC1 and Cohen v. Capital One Funding, LLC,2 credit card holders claimed that their loans became usurious in violation of state usury laws once they were securitized.  While federal law permits the originating national banks to charge interest at rates above what is permitted under the usury cap of the borrower's residence (here, New York), the plaintiffs assert that the non-bank securitization trusts that purchased and then securitized the receivables (which do not benefit from the exemption for national originating banks from state usury laws) cannot

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from