SB 1235 is one of two bills in California aimed at commercial transactions that will change California’s Finance Laws. The bill is an act that would be added to Division 9.5 (commencing with Section 22800) to the Financial Code, relating to commercial financing. SB 1235, introduced by Senator Steve Glazer (D), was referred to the Senate Banking and Finance Committee, passing through committee on June 25, 2018.
Assembly Bill 3207 is one of two bills in California aimed at commercial transactions that will change California’s Finance Laws. The bill is an act to amend Sections 22004, 22059, 22100, 22337, 22338, 22602, 22604, and 22701 of, and to add Sections 22005.5, 22010.5, 22050.1, 22337.5, 22338.5, and 22348 to, the Financial Code, relating to finance lending. The hearing date before the Banking & Finance Committee is scheduled for August 6, 2018.
As summer began, the judges of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (E.D. Cal.) drafted a letter to the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives providing notice of a current crisis as well as a warning that any exacerbation of this crisis will have serious and devastating consequences. The most significant consequence is that the eight million residents of the Eastern District face inaccessibility to the United States Federal Court system.
Today’s blog reviews a case where the plaintiffs were time-barred from filing their lawsuit by the statute of limitations, but tried to claim that the filing of a different lawsuit by a third-party satisfied the statute. In Reid v. City of San Diego - filed May 25, 2018, Fourth District, Div. One 2018 S.O.S. 2617, Plaintiffs, Yvonne Reid and Serena Wong, sued the City of San Diego (City) and the San Diego Tourism Marketing District (TMD) in a putative class action complaint, claiming that the defendants were charging “an illegal hotel tax.”
In Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong, 2018 S.O.S. 2627, the plaintiff, Stephen Bushansky, filed a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a nominal defendant, NantKwest, Inc. The trial court dismissed the suit based on a forum selection provision in NantKwest’s certificate of incorporation that named Delaware as the forum for shareholder derivative actions. The forum selection clause required that the parties file any disputes in Delaware, “subject to the court’s having personal jurisdiction over all indispensable parties named as defendants.”
Enacted in 1994, the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA) became effective in 1996. The California Assembly formulated the CRMLA as an alternative to existing regulations that licensed lenders under existing law including the California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL). The purpose of the CRMLA was to provide a licensing law specifically intended to regulate mortgage bankers and their primary functions of originating and servicing residential mortgage loans.
In February of 2018, the State Regulatory Registry, LLC (the “Registry”) reached out seeking public comment on proposed changes to the NMLS Mortgage Call Report, which provide information about a licensed mortgage business enterprise’s financial condition, loan activities, and loan origins. However, the Registry issued a notice in June stating that the implementation of planned changes to reporting requirements for the Nationwide Multi-state Licensing System has been delayed.
The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (SAFE Act) requires all state mortgage licensees to submit a report of financial condition and loan activity to the NMLS. The California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL) and the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA) both contain provisions related to reporting requirements for licensees, including rules related to Mortgage Call Reports, annual reports, special reports detailing servicing activity, and audit reports. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac Sellers/Services or Ginnie Mae Issuers must submit an Expanded Mortgage Call Report.
A recent study shows that many small and medium-sized enterprises/businesses (SMEs, SMBs) are unprepared for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that took effect on May 25, 2018. The consequences may be costly financially as the GDPR replaces the entire body of existing data protection laws throughout Europe and significantly effects how companies handle, protect and profit from data.
In Airs Aromatics v. CBL Data Recovery Technologies, 2018 S.O.S. 2612, filed May 23, 2018, CBL Data Recovery Technologies, Inc. (CBL) appealed an order denying its motion to set aside a default judgment entered in favor of Airs Aromatics, LLC (Airs). CBL argued that because the trial court awarded damages above the amount demanded in the complaint, the default judgment was void pursuant to § 580 (a) and § 585 (c) of the California Code of Civil Procedure.