In light of our post earlier today, I'm reminding our readers that Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loan is scheduled for oral argument in the Supreme Court next Tuesday, November 4. Here's the question presented: Does a borrower exercise his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of Section 1635 by “notifying the […]

The Truth in Lending Act gives consumers the right to rescind many (but not all) consumer-credit transactions under specified circumstances. The courts have disagreed over how a consumer must notify the lender that she is exercising her recission right. That's the topic of Avoiding the Nuclear Option: Balancing Borrower and Lender Rights Under the Truth […]

Here. An excerpt: There's been a concerted move to the right by the banking industry since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010. The industry already tilted slightly Republican for years, but there's been a more distinctive shift over the past two election cycles. Employees and PACs representing the financial sector have given 62% […]

The NYT reports: Over the last two years, lawmakers in at least eight states have voted to increase the fees or the interest rates that lenders can charge on certain personal loans used by millions of borrowers with subpar credit. The overhaul of the state lending laws comes after a lobbying push by the consumer […]

Following up on our recent post about whether state law permits brand-name drug manufacturers to be held liable for injuries caused by mislabeled generic drugs, take a look at Who (If Anyone) Should Be Liable for Injuries from Generic Drugs? by law professors Ezra Friedman and Abraham Wickelgren. Here is the abstract: Two recent Supreme […]

Back in January 2013, we told you about the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Weeks. Weeks held that, under Alabama state law, a patient harmed by a generic drug may recover from the brand-name drug manufacturer (on whose branded drug the generic drug is based) for failing to warn about the […]