- Posts by Robert BaileyAssociate
Robert is an Associate with PIB Law and focuses his practice on the representation of financial institutions in connection with financial services-related litigation matters.
Prior to joining PIB Law, Robert was a Partner with ...
On March 27, 2019, in a case handled by PIB, New Jersey’s Appellate Division affirmed a trial court decision denying the defendant’s eleventh-hour motion to vacate a sheriff’s sale and restrain delivery of the deed to a third-party purchaser predicated on a novel – but incorrect – theory that a reinstatement quote constituted a binding contract. The decision is significant because, had Defendant’s argument been successful, it could have created the threat of potential litigation based solely upon routine communications between servicers and borrowers.
On May 15, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential ruling in which it held that the time limit within which to challenge debt collection practices under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is not tolled by the discovery rule. The Court, in Kevin Rotkiske v. Paul Klemm, et al., case No. 16-1668, disagreed with United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held that the time begins to run not when the violation occurs, but when it is discovered.
On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, holding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) did not strip state courts of their jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”). The Court’s decision upheld the original language of the 1933 Act, authorizing both state and federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over actions brought under the 1933 Act, and barring removal of actions brought in state court under the 1933 Act.