With major segments of the financial industry wobbling on the brink (due to really bad judgment by a bunch of idiots turning shady mortgages into the next big investment vehicle), the lending industry caught a break today. In Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank (September 24, 2008), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held, in a 2-to-1 decision, that rescissions under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) were intended to be "a purely individual remedy that may not be pursued" on a class-action basis. (Ruth Simon, Court Rejects Class Action on Option ARM Loans (September 24, 2008) online.wsj.com.) This outcome is consistent with California's approach to the issue (Laliberte v. Pacific Mercantile Bank, 147 Cal.App.4th 1, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (2007)), and reflects what appears to now be the solid majority view as to whether rescission rights are available as a class-wide remedy under TILA. Having personally pursued that issue through to a Petion for a Writ of Certiorari at the United States Supreme Court in Laliberte, I was hopeful for a while that Andrews might push the pendulum back and generate some interest for review. Many prognosticators thought such a pro-borrower ruling was likely. But, in light of the current mess swirling around the banking industry, I'd imagine that such a ruling in Andrews would have simply generated some emergency legislation that eliminated class-wide loan rescissions under TILA.