InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 45
Posts 7114
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/18/2020

Re: None

Thursday, 08/31/2023 11:28:25 PM

Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:28:25 PM

Post# of 796175
"On July 31, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ordered the CFPB not to implement or enforce the small business lending rule against plaintiffs in Texas Bankers Ass'n, et al. v. CFPB, et al., No. 7:23-cv-00144, and their members. That order, a copy of which is available here , stays all deadlines for compliance with the small business lending rule for plaintiffs in that case and their members."

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/compliance/compliance-resources/small-business-lending-resources/small-business-lending-collection-and-reporting-requirements/

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-s-d-tex-mca-div/114780286.html

"As discussed supra, to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Final Rule is invalid based on the Bureau's unconstitutional funding structure, Plaintiffs must show the Bureau's “unconstitutional · funding inflicted harm.” Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass'n of Am., Ltd., 51 F.4th at 643 (quoting Collins v. Yellen, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1761, 1788–89, 210 L. Ed. 2d 432 (2021)). When “the funding employed by the Bureau to promulgate [a] · Rule [is] wholly drawn through the agency's unconstitutional funding scheme, there is a linear nexus between the infirm provision (the Bureau's funding mechanism)” and an action that challenges the promulgation. Id. This is so because “without its unconstitutional funding, the Bureau lacked any other means to promulgate the rule.” Id. Here, the parties do not dispute Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. See (Dkt. Nos. 13, Exh. 1 at § 1, 16 at § II.C, 17 at § II). This is because Plaintiffs in the present case have asserted the Final Rule is invalid because it was promulgated through the Bureau's unconstitutional funding scheme. See (Dkt. No. 13, Exh. 1 at § 1). Accordingly, this Court finds that a substantial likelihood exists that Plaintiffs would prevail in asserting that the Final Rule is invalid. Therefore, the “substantial likelihood” factor favors Plaintiffs."