This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The plain language of the governing federal statute applies only to interest that an FDIC-insured state bank may charge. Allegedly, the FDIC’s rule represents an expansion of the FDIA’s preemption of state law interest rate caps by extending the preemption to assignees of loans originated by such banks.
The FDIC designated SVB as systemically important. They were under an FDIC consent order from 2014 through 2020 relating to their BSA and OFAC compliance and their relationship with third parties seeking access to the banking system. Its national lending program represents all but a small percentage of its entire loan portfolio.
Because CCBank is a state-chartered FDIC-insured bank located in Utah, Section 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act authorizes CCBank to charge interest on its loans, including loans to California residents, at a rate allowed by Utah law regardless of any California law imposing a lower interest rate limit.
A California federal district court judge recently rejected the California AG’s challenge (in which other states joined) to the FDIC’s rule and, in a separate lawsuit, also rejected a challenge by the California AG and other state AGs to the OCC’s Madden -fix rule codified at 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4001(e).
The Attorneys General of California, Illinois, and New York have filed a motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit filed against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to enjoin the OCC’s final rule purporting to override the Second Circuit’s Madden decision as to national banks and federal savings associations.
A Primer on Money, Banking, and Gold 2008 Cordelia Frances Biddle Biddle, Cordelia Frances Biddle, Jackson, and a Nation in Turmoil: The Infamous Bank War 2021 Alan S. Inside the FDIC: Thirty Years of Bank Failures, Bailouts, and Regulatory Battles 2015 Louis D. The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath 2015 Peter L.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 23,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content