Podcasts about phh corp

Justice Scalia put it bluntly in Morrison v. Olson: “There are now no lines.” Morrison, 478 at 726 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This is, perhaps, an unsurprising observation, considering the majority in Humphrey's Executor v. United States recognized that, “between the decision in the Myers v. United States case, which sustains the unrestrictable power of the President to remove purely executive officers, and our present decision that such power does not extend to an office such as that here involved, there shall remain a field of doubt." Humphrey's Ex'r, 295 U.S. at 632. How do courts navigate this field? In Humphrey's Executor, for-cause removal was approved as applied to the five-member FTC, which exercises powers the Court described as "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Id. at 624. In Morrison, the Court approved for-cause removal—by the Attorney General—as applied to an independent counsel. In so doing, it walked back its emphasis on the character of an agency's or officer's functions and expressly noted there was "no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel [were] 'executive.'" Morrison, 487 at 691. But "the real question," the Court reasoned, "is whether . . . removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty" to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Id. Then, in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, the Court invalidated a two-layer system of for-cause removal that over-insulated PCAOB members. Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 495–508. Combining the lessons of Humphrey's Executor and Morrison, the problem was that the act in question "grant[ed] the Board executive power without the Executive's oversight, [thereby] subvert[ing] the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." Id. at 498.While Myers and Free Enterprise teach that limits do exist on Congress's ability to isolate executive functions from executive oversight, a clear articulation of those limits has so far eluded the Court's jurisprudence in this area. And with an active Special Counsel and several recent lawsuits challenging the structural design of various independent agencies, the question remains: how independent is too independent? Is there any unifying principle for lower courts to apply? Does the character of an agency's/officer's functions matter? May an agency's director be removable only for cause if it is a single director? The D.C. Circuit said yes to the latter while sitting en banc in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but what if there were no Financial Stability Oversight Council with veto power over the CFPB's policies? Or, what if there is such a veto-wielding council but the agency is not subject to funding via the normal budgeting process over which the President holds veto power?Different agencies are structured differently, so certainly we are stuck with an ad hoc inquiry. But how is a judge to know when Congress has placed one straw too many on the camel's back?Prof. William W. Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteHon. Henry Kerner, Special Counsel, Office of the Special CounselProf. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Justice Scalia put it bluntly in Morrison v. Olson: “There are now no lines.” Morrison, 478 at 726 (Scalia, J., dissenting). This is, perhaps, an unsurprising observation, considering the majority in Humphrey's Executor v. United States recognized that, “between the decision in the Myers v. United States case, which sustains the unrestrictable power of the President to remove purely executive officers, and our present decision that such power does not extend to an office such as that here involved, there shall remain a field of doubt." Humphrey's Ex'r, 295 U.S. at 632. How do courts navigate this field? In Humphrey's Executor, for-cause removal was approved as applied to the five-member FTC, which exercises powers the Court described as "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Id. at 624. In Morrison, the Court approved for-cause removal—by the Attorney General—as applied to an independent counsel. In so doing, it walked back its emphasis on the character of an agency's or officer's functions and expressly noted there was "no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel [were] 'executive.'" Morrison, 487 at 691. But "the real question," the Court reasoned, "is whether . . . removal restrictions are of such a nature that they impede the President's ability to perform his constitutional duty" to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Id. Then, in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, the Court invalidated a two-layer system of for-cause removal that over-insulated PCAOB members. Free Enter. Fund, 561 U.S. at 495–508. Combining the lessons of Humphrey's Executor and Morrison, the problem was that the act in question "grant[ed] the Board executive power without the Executive's oversight, [thereby] subvert[ing] the President's ability to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." Id. at 498.While Myers and Free Enterprise teach that limits do exist on Congress's ability to isolate executive functions from executive oversight, a clear articulation of those limits has so far eluded the Court's jurisprudence in this area. And with an active Special Counsel and several recent lawsuits challenging the structural design of various independent agencies, the question remains: how independent is too independent? Is there any unifying principle for lower courts to apply? Does the character of an agency's/officer's functions matter? May an agency's director be removable only for cause if it is a single director? The D.C. Circuit said yes to the latter while sitting en banc in PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but what if there were no Financial Stability Oversight Council with veto power over the CFPB's policies? Or, what if there is such a veto-wielding council but the agency is not subject to funding via the normal budgeting process over which the President holds veto power?Different agencies are structured differently, so certainly we are stuck with an ad hoc inquiry. But how is a judge to know when Congress has placed one straw too many on the camel's back?Prof. William W. Buzbee, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service and former Dean, Chapman University's Fowler School of Law; Senior Fellow, Claremont InstituteHon. Henry Kerner, Special Counsel, Office of the Special CounselProf. Jennifer Mascott, Assistant Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityModerator: Hon. Diane Sykes, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Leah Litman joins us to discuss the problematic argument that a law’s novelty is a reason to believe it is unconstitutional. In particular, she focuses on arguments that statutes that affect the separation of powers or the federalism balance are suspect if they are somehow unprecedented. Also, brief updates on: a wasp, Joe’s living situation, Christian’s health, Leah’s bee-related flight delay. This show’s links: Leah Litman’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/litman/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2361860) Leah Litman, Debunking Antinovelty (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2843763) First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm/) United States v. Windsor (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6241888197107641609); Romer v. Evans (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17758055891258118781) Printz v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10894716839911389166); Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12800232869146089406); NFIB v. Sibelius (Obamacare I) (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11973730494168859869) Cass Sunstein, Incompletely Theorized Agreements (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2995488) PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=668509147734540905) Karl Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study (https://books.google.com/books?id=rxqSEU7y6lkC&q=%22orthodox+view%22#v=snippet&q=%22orthodox%20view%22&f=false) Special Guest: Leah Litman.

The D.C. Circuit heard a rare doubleheader of en banc arguments on major structural separation of powers questions on May 24. -- First up was Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, which presented the question whether Administrative Law Judges at the SEC are “Officers of the United States” who must be selected in compliance with the Appointments Clause. The SEC contends that its ALJs are employees, not officers, because the ALJs do not exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,” which the Supreme Court has described as the hallmark of officer status. Last August, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit agreed with the SEC, relying almost exclusively on an earlier (divided) D.C. Circuit precedent, Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000), which held the ALJs at the FDIC are not officers because they do not issue final agency decisions. Three months later, the Tenth Circuit issued a 2-1 decision finding that SEC ALJs are officers who must be selected pursuant to the Appointments Clause. The Tenth Circuit panel expressly disagreed with Lucia and Landry that authority to issue final agency decisions is a prerequisite for officer status. The D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated its panel decision and granted en banc review. The status of ALJs under the Appointments Clause has important implications not only for the SEC’s enforcement of the securities laws but also for the system of administrative agency adjudication as a whole. -- The second case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, presented the question whether an “independent” administrative agency may be led by a single person. In a 100-page opinion by Judge Kavanaugh (joined by Judge Randolph) drawing on historical practice and first principles of separation of powers, the panel concluded that the statutory provision vesting the CFPB’s broad enforcement authority in a single director removable by the President only “for cause” violated Article II of the Constitution. The panel emphasized the absence of any historical precedent for an independent agency with a single director—a structure that created, in the panel’s description, an administrative official with more power than anyone in the federal government other than the President. The panel explained that this concentration of authority in a single person unaccountable to the President except for cause posed a “threat to individual liberty.” The panel remedied the constitutional defect by severing the statute’s “for cause” removal provision, thus making the CFPB director removable by the President at will. Judge Henderson dissented in part, arguing that the panel could have resolved the case on the basis of PHH’s statutory rather than constitutional challenges. The D.C. Circuit granted en banc review on both the constitutional and statutory questions. The Justice Department (under the Trump Administration) filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers, while the CFPB continues to defend the constitutionality of its structure through its independent litigation authority. -- Featuring: Thaya Brook Knight, Associate Director of Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute and Christopher G. Michel, Associate, Bancroft PLLC.

On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don't miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services, and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" join David in the discussion. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don't miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services, and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" join David in the discussion. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken

On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don’t miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services, and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" join David in the discussion. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken

On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don't miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting our industry and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" sharing ideas on how to improve your bottom line. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB's) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don't miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting our industry and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" sharing ideas on how to improve your bottom line. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken

On April 18 of this year, we had Mitch Kider as a guest on this program talking about the first ever lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB’s) authority.   As you no doubt heard, the ruling from this seminal case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, was announced this past Wednesday.   The one reoccurring theme in all the headlines publishing the ruling was this, “The Appeals Court Rule that CFPB is Unconstitutional”.  So what does this ruling mean for our industry?  We have back on the program today Mitch Kider to share with our listening audience what this means for our industry.  I encourage you to go back and listen to the podcast from April 18th which you can find at… http://tobtr.com/8711169   Don’t miss this MUST LISTEN TO program. As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting our industry and Andy Schell, a/k/a "Profit Doctor" sharing ideas on how to improve your bottom line. Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry.  For information on advertising, please contact jeff@sellersmediaservices.com.  Thank you, David Lykken

Click Here Or On Above Image To Reach Our ExpertsMystery Shoppers Reveal Mortgage Loan Discrimination In 2013, a loan officer at BancorpSouth Bank's Madison, Ala., branch received visits from two people with similar profiles within 10 days of each other, both saying they were first-time home buyers—one white, the other black. The employee allegedly steered the black customer to a smaller and more expensive loan, even though her stated income and credit score were higher than the white applicant's.When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against the bank in June for allegedly discriminating against African-American customers in mortgage lending, the federal watchdog agency disclosed that the aspiring borrowers were “mystery shoppers,” or undercover investigators, sent in by the agency.The case is the latest example of the five-year-old CFPB testing boundaries with its enforcement tactics, a pattern that has sparked clashes between the agency and the financial industry and Republican lawmakers.PRO-DTECH II FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Undercover operations are common in criminal probes. But they are rarely used by regulators in civil law-enforcement cases because of limits imposed under the 1974 Privacy Act and other concerns. That law maintains that government officials must identify themselves if seeking information from individuals. Some agencies interpret that as prohibiting any covert investigations. The CFPB and others argue it doesn't apply to “mystery shopping,” because that tactic is used only to seek information that would be available to any member of the public, and doesn't involve eliciting personal information about individuals.The agency won't discuss the extent of its use of such mystery shoppers, and the BancorpSouth case is the only one in which the CFPB has disclosed deploying them. Quyen Truong, a partner at Stroock And Stroock And Lavan LLP who served as the agency's deputy general counsel until May, said implementing the mystery-shopping program “took significant efforts but it's been up and running.” She added that the agency developed the program “after evaluating all the potential legal restrictions.”CELLPHONE DETECTOR (PROFESSIONAL)(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Related Article:Consumers File Complaints Directly To Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)The use of mystery shoppers signals the CFPB's new emphasis on combating so-called redlining—a bank's refusal to lend to residents in certain neighborhoods marked by a hypothetical red line on a map—and other forms of alleged lending discrimination against minority borrowers. “To this day, the lines of segregation remain evident and their impact persists,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a July 19 speech, as he pledged to fight “active discrimination.”PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)BancorpSouth signed a $10.6 million settlement with the CFPB and the Justice Department on June 29. It didn't admit wrongdoing and it disputed the findings, though it didn't specify which parts. The bank also criticized the methods used in the case. “We have concerns with the way the information was collected, and selectively released,” the Tupelo, Miss.. bank said in a statement, adding that it has “zero tolerance for this type of behavior” from employees.The CFPB's use of undercover investigators “is a worrisome precedent, because...we see more and more aggressive civil law-enforcement activity by the government, so that civil law enforcement borders on, if not bleeds into, criminal law enforcement,” said Andrew Vollmer, a former deputy general counsel at the Securities and Exchange Commission who now teaches at the University of Virginia's law school. “What we do not have are the corresponding protections of the criminal law-enforcement system for the accused.”PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Sam Gilford, a CFPB spokesman, said the privacy act's limits pertain to personal information collected from individuals and don't apply to cases such as that of BancorpSouth, adding, “The Bureau will continue to use all available tools, as the circumstances warrant, to further its mission of protecting consumers from discrimination.”CFPB critics have previously raised questions about the agency's tactics, including the agency's reliance on educated guesses to identify minority borrowers in auto lending discrimination cases and the unusually heavy application of fines for a real-estate transaction law, now contested in court by lender PHH Corp.WIRELESS/WIRED HIDDENCAMERA FINDER III(Buy/Rent/Layaway)In a case revolving around the scope of the CFPB's investigative authority, a district court in April ruled against the agency's attempt to compel a college accrediting agency to hand over oral testimony in an investigation.PRO-DTECH IV FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Spokesmen for the SEC and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Treasury Department's anti-money-laundering unit, said their agencies don't use undercover operations. In 2011, criticism from Republican lawmakers prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to drop plans to use mystery shoppers disguised as patients to probe care access at doctors' offices.Wireless Camera Finder(Buy/Rent/Layaway)In explaining the CFPB's actions, the agency's Mr. Gilford said that “testing has long been an investigative tool used by federal agencies” such as the Justice Department and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.But there appear to be differences between those efforts and the consumer agency's tactics.MAGNETIC, ELECTRIC, RADIO ANDMICROWAVE DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)The Justice Department says it does use “testers” for civil fair-housing investigations, although the tactic appears to be applied on a smaller scale than that deployed by the CFPB. It says on its website that the 96 cases resolved using testers since 1992 have yielded a total of $12.9 million in penalties and other damages, about the same size as the single BancorpSouth settlement.COUNTERSURVEILLANCE PROBE / MONITOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)A HUD spokeswoman said the agency doesn't do undercover investigations itself. But the department does provide funding to nonprofit fair-lending groups that routinely use testers, and HUD uses information gathered by these testers in building its cases.PRO-DTECH FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)The Federal Trade Commission also uses undercover tests to confirm whether certain types of firms, including funeral homes, comply with consumer-protection laws. A former director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau,Lydia Parnes, said the testers “obtained in the shoes of consumers” public information, rather than personal information, so their conduct doesn't call into question privacy laws, echoing the CFPB argument.RF SIGNAL DETECTOR ( FREQUENCY COUNTER)(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Your questions and comments are greatly appreciated.Monty Henry, Owner (function () { var articleId = fyre.conv.load.makeArticleId(null); fyre.conv.load({}, [{ el: 'livefyre-comments', network: "livefyre.com", siteId: "345939", articleId: articleId, signed: false, collectionMeta: { articleId: articleId, url: fyre.conv.load.makeCollectionUrl(), } }], function() {}); }());

This past week, oral arguments were made on the first ever lawsuit that effectively challenges the constitutinoality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) authority.  These arguments were made in the case of PHH Corp. v. CFPB that was heard in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.  The outcome of this case could have far reaching implications. Our guest on today's program is MITCH KIDER, Chairman & Managing Partner at Weiner, Brodsky, Kider, PC who has been the attorney representing PHH Corp. in this case.  We have asked Mitch to join us today to discuss the following:  Provide an overview of this case and why it is so important to the industry.  What is the status of where this case stands now that the oral arguments have been made? Depending upon the outcome of this case, what are the possible outcomes? Could this case provide some clarity to RESPA?When we can expect a decision? We say this about most all our programs, but THIS program is a MUST LISTEN TO program if there ever was one.   As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting out industry.   Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry. Thank you, David Lykken

This past week, oral arguments were made on the first ever lawsuit that effectively challenges the constitutinoality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) authority.  These arguments were made in the case of PHH Corp. v. CFPB that was heard in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.  The outcome of this case could have far reaching implications. Our guest on today's program is MITCH KIDER, Chairman & Managing Partner at Weiner, Brodsky, Kider, PC who has been the attorney representing PHH Corp. in this case.  We have asked Mitch to join us today to discuss the following:  Provide an overview of this case and why it is so important to the industry.  What is the status of where this case stands now that the oral arguments have been made? Depending upon the outcome of this case, what are the possible outcomes? Could this case provide some clarity to RESPA?When we can expect a decision? We say this about most all our programs, but THIS program is a MUST LISTEN TO program if there ever was one.   As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting out industry.   Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry. Thank you, David Lykken This past week, oral arguments were made on the first ever lawsuit that effectively challenges the constitutinoality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) authority.  These arguments were made in the case of PHH Corp. v. CFPB that was heard in the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.  The outcome of this case could have far reaching implications. Our guest on today's program is MITCH KIDER, Chairman & Managing Partner at Weiner, Brodsky, Kider, PC who has been the attorney representing PHH Corp. in this case.  We have asked Mitch to join us today to discuss the following:  Provide an overview of this case and why it is so important to the industry.  What is the status of where this case stands now that the oral arguments have been made? Depending upon the outcome of this case, what are the possible outcomes? Could this case provide some clarity to RESPA?When we can expect a decision? We say this about most all our programs, but THIS program is a MUST LISTEN TO program if there ever was one.   As normal, the first half of the program will feature, Joe Farr of MBSQuoteline providing a rate & market update, Alice Alvey of Indecomm Global Services providing a regulatory & legislative update as well as Paul Muolo of IMF News & Sam Garcia of Mortgage Daily giving us a quick overview of the latest news stories impacting out industry.   Please tell others about this program and take a minute to share a link to this program with your friends and associates in the mortgage industry. Thank you, David Lykken