PNC v. Lyons

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit
William T. Lyons, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of Maryland
Brief for American Bankers Association as Amicus Curiae In Support of Appellee and Affirmance

Disclosure Statement

• In civil, agency, bankruptcy, and mandamus cases, a disclosure statement must be filed by all parties, with the following exceptions: (1) the United States is not required to file a disclosure statement; (2) an indigent party is not required to file a disclosure statement; and (3) a state or local government is not required to file a disclosure statement in pro se cases. (All parties to the action in the district court are considered parties to a mandamus case.)
• In criminal and post-conviction cases, a corporate defendant must file a disclosure statement
• In criminal cases, the United States must file a disclosure statement if there was an organizational victim of the alleged criminal activity. (See question 7.)
• Any corporate amicus curiae must file a disclosure statement.
• Counsel has a continuing duty to update the disclosure statement.

Interest of Amicus Curiae

The American Bankers Association (“ABA”) is the principal national trade association for the financial services industry in the United States. Founded in 1875, ABA is the voice for the nation’s $23.7 trillion banking industry and its more than two million employees. ABA members provide banking services in each of the fifty States and the District of Columbia. Among them are banks, savings associations, and non-depository trust companies of all sizes.

ABA often submits amicus curiae briefs in state and federal courts in matters that significantly affect its members and the business of banking. ABA submits this brief to address the novel and unprecedented interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has advanced in its amicus brief in this case. CFPB’s brief sets forth a new interpretation of “credit card plan” in Section 1666h that departs from the agency’s (and its predecessor’s) longstanding recognition that credit cards and home equity lines of credit (“HELOCs”) are different consumer credit products.

Introduction and Summary of Argument

TILA prohibits credit card issuers from offsetting a “cardholder’s indebtedness arising in connection with a consumer credit transaction under the relevant credit card plan against funds of the cardholder held on deposit with the card issuer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1666h (emphasis added). Stated more simply, a bank may not take money from a customer’s checking or savings account to pay a debt that the customer owes on his or her credit card account with that bank.

Download the amicus brief to read the full text.