- Topic: Interest & Usury
- White PaperSeptember 2020
The 2020 update of Chapman's marketplace lending guide discusses the Colorado true lender settlement, new “valid when made” regulations, and the latest legal, regulatory, and judicial developments affecting the marketplace lending industry.
- Client AlertSeptember 28, 2020
In 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that, under the doctrine of federal preemption, a non-bank assignee of a bank loan could not charge and collect the rates and fees that the bank could charge and was therefore subject to state law usury limits.
- ArticleThe Banking Law JournalSeptember 2020
The Ofﬁce of the Comptroller of the Currency recently issued its ﬁnal rule codifying as a regulation that the interest charged on loans that is permissible before the loan is transferred remains in effect after the loan is transferred.
- Client AlertJuly 24, 2020
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have been quite active in issuing or proposing new regulations and initiatives focused on financial technology and innovation in financial services.
- Client AlertJune 1, 2020
On May 29, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued its final rule codifying as a regulation that the interest charged on loans that is permissible before the loan is transferred remains in effect after the loan is transferred.
- ArticleThe Banking Law JournalMay 2017
The May 2015 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC sent shockwaves through the marketplace lending industry, and nearly two years later the questions generated by this case remain largely unanswered. These questions have been further complicated by the long-awaited remand decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Client AlertFebruary 28, 2017
On February 27, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued its long-awaited remand decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC.
- ArticleLending TimesJuly 25, 2016 (Originally Published July 22, 2016)
A recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals could require marketplace lenders and others who arrange for federal or state banks to fund consumer loans to consumers residing in Maryland to obtain licenses as “credit services businesses” and could prohibit them from arranging those loans at interest rates exceeding the applicable Maryland usury caps.
- Client AlertMarch 21, 2016
On Friday, March 18, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a call for the views of the Solicitor General of the United States before it decides whether to hear an appeal from a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision rendered last May in the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC.
- ArticleLaw360February 8, 2016 (Originally Published February 1, 2016)
Law360 republished a Chapman Client Alert.
- Client AlertFebruary 1, 2016
A recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has highlighted once again the regulatory risks that the so-called “true lender” doctrine can create for internet-based lenders who partner with banks to establish exemptions from applicable state consumer protection laws.
- Client AlertNovember 9, 2015
A recent decision of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals could impact marketplace and other lenders who arrange for federal or state banks to fund consumer loans in Maryland at rates in excess of the applicable Maryland usury caps.
- ArticleFederal Court Decision Creates Uncertainty for Non-Bank Loan Assignees and Certain Marketplace Lenders Regarding the Scope of Federal Preemption of State Usury LawsThe Banking Law JournalSeptember 2015 (Originally Published June 3, 2015)
The Banking Law Journal republished a Chapman Client Alert.
- Client AlertAugust 13, 2015
In the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, the Second Circuit narrowly interpreted the scope of federal preemption of state usury laws under the National Bank Act as such laws apply to certain non‑bank loan assignees.