A majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the sub-prime lending industry's right to set up loan agreements that force consumers to arbitrate disputes, but allow lenders to initiate foreclosure proceedings in court. The majority held that such agreements are not presumptively unconscionable under state law. The ruling essentially puts the state high court on the same side of the issue as the 3rd Circuit, while Pennsylvania's Superior Court has held otherwise.
June 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A majority of the state Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the sub-prime lending industry’s right to set up loan agreements that force consumers to arbitrate any disputes but allow lenders to initiate foreclosure proceedings in court.
The ruling essentially puts the state high court on the same side of the issue as the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while Pennsylvania’s Superior Court has held otherwise.
Deal Watch: Skadden, Sidley, Slaughter and S&C Lead Big Paper Deal, While Private Funds Grow Massive
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
