Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32For more information, please visit or 31 Spokeo Inc. v. Robins In November 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Spokeo Inc. v. Robins et al., No. 13-1339, in order to decide whether a plaintiff had standing based solely on an injury in law, with no injury in fact. It is unclear how the opinion, when it finally comes, will land. Questions asked during oral argument by Justices typically even as members of the conservative wing of the Court—and even Justices Breyer and Kagan—may indicate that the Court is inclined to rule that more than a bare statutory violation is required to show standing. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argu- ment in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, about how class actions should be tried. Specifically, the questions in Tyson were, in cases involving collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or class actions under Rule 23, whether: (i) individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified where liability and damages will be determined using statistics and an average observed in a sample; and (ii) a class/collective action may be certified or maintained when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages. The questioning at oral argument suggested that the Court might decide Tyson on narrow FLSA grounds, under existing Supreme Court precedent. Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore In Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, No. 14-520, the plaintiff petitioned for U.S. Supreme Court review on the questions of whether an “applicant” under ECOA includes a spousal guarantor and whether the Federal Reserve Board was authorized to include a spousal guar- antor as an “applicant” in Regulation B. By accepting the petition (with both questions), the Court will likely re- solve whether spousal guarantors can sue under ECOA, a decision that may also impact Regulation B’s inclusion of sureties and non-spousal guarantors as applicants who can sue under ECOA. Microsoft Corp. v. Baker On January 15, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 15-457, on the question of whether a federal appellate court has juris- diction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice. This case is in the same vein as other cases on the viability of class actions, e.g., Camp- bell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, and Spokeo, where the defen- dants seek to limit plaintiff’s attorneys from allowing a class action to continue where the named plaintiff either drops out or should otherwise be disqualified. PHH Corp. et al., v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau On April 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia Circuit will hear argument in PHH Corp. et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 15-1177. This case is the first major challenge to the Bureau’s regulatory and adjudicatory powers under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau alleged that a mortgage lender and its affiliated reinsurance entity entered into a “kickback” scheme with mortgage insurers in violation of RESPA. The appeal is from the decision of the CFPB Director, after review of administrative findings. The D.C. Circuit will take up the questions of whether the CFPB may change longstanding interpretations of financial services laws without fair warning to regulated entities, whether the CFPB’s interpretations of RESPA are cor- rect, how to apply RESPA’s statute of limitations, and whether the CFPB’s structure is constitutional. The court will also consider whether the CFPB exceeded the scope of its powers by ordering disgorgement of $109 million and broad injunctive relief.