My White Paper on this matter can be found HERE and HERE. It was published on September 2, 2014 and entitled, "TILA versus TILA: Rescission by Notice or Lawsuit."

My analysis of the Supreme Court's ruling, issued on January 13, 2015, was published on the same date as the ruling. You can read it HERE and HERE.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that providing a notice of rescission within the three-year period is timely and sufficient to trigger rescission within the meaning of 15 USC � 1635(f), the operative statute.

Since the ruling, I have been asked several questions regarding certain aspects of the Supreme Court's findings and its impact on creditors. In this essay, I consolidate my thinking on this subject, with a view to considering the actual and potential issues arising from the ruling.

The notion that the borrower would have to sue in order to effectuate rescission simply had no traction because, as the court noted, nothing in the applicable section of TILA requires the borrower to sue in order to exercise the right of rescission, and nothing in Section 1635(f) changed this conclusion, because that section tells borrowers " when the right to rescind must be exercised, [but] says nothing about how that right is exercised". (Emphasis in Original)

I think there are a few potentially momentous outcomes of the decision. In my view, these outcomes should be considered immediately by creditors.

In this article, I discuss the crucial consequences.

Thus, this is alert!

Please click Website Article to read the essay.