The Clearing House (TCH), joined by the ABA and the LSTA, filed two amicus briefs in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in connection with two cases brought by the State of Colorado against two marketplace lenders, Avant and Marlette, each of which purchases loans from a respective state-chartered bank partner. In contravention of the “cardinal rule” that a loan that is valid when made as to its interest rate remains valid regardless of whether it is subsequently sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred to another entity, the state alleges that under Madden, the non-bank marketplace lenders are not authorized to charge interest rates on loans purchased from banks in excess of the rates permitted in the state of Colorado. The amicus briefs argue (similar to our Madden amicus briefs) that: (i) Madden contradicts important, long-settled expectations concerning usury law, and (ii) adopting Madden would have harmful economic consequences.
You Might Also Be Interested In...
Amicus Briefs BPI, Trades File Brief Supporting BofA Argument that National Law Preempts N.Y. Mortgage Escrow Rate Requirements
Amicus Briefs BPI, Joint Trades File Amici Brief in Goldman Shareholder Class Action Case Before SCOTUS
Consumer Affairs BPI Files Joint Amici Brief With Other Trades in California v. OCC Case on the OCC’s ‘Madden Fix’ Regulation
Amicus Briefs BPI Submits Amicus Brief in Hymes v. Bank of America National Bank Act Preemption Case
Amicus Briefs BPI Files Amicus Brief on Applicability of HOLA Preemption to Successor Banks in McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase
More Posts by This Author
Bank Capital and Stress Testing BPI Response to Federal Reserve Vice Chair Barr’s Statements on Bank Capital Requirements
Supervision & Enforcement FDIC’s Proposed Changes to Supervisory Appeals System Fall Short of Progress
Supervision & Enforcement BPI and Trade Coalition Comment on FDIC Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations