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
Four Democratic members of the California state legislature recently sent a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) urging the agency to take action against FDIC-supervised banks that partner with non-bank lenders to originate high-cost installment loans.
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.
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.
The OCC’s attempt to provide a clear bright line test for determining when a bank is the “true lender” in a bank-model program through a regulation was overturned by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.) Maryland, New York, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Colorado.
Ray Grace, NorthCarolina's banking commissioner, believes federal bank regulators should embrace charters for banks dedicated to innovation. Doing so, he said, would help the banking industry secure its spot as a "laboratory for change.".
What is interesting about the success of Bank of the Ozarks and its CEO is the fact that he wasn''t the "experienced banker" regulators almost insist upon when approving the appointment of bank leadership. Bank of the Ozarks and their regulators were not so myopic in their view. How did they grow so quickly? billion was 1.24%.
The OCC failed to consider the rule’s facilitation of rent-a-bank schemes and that the rule creates a regulatory vacuum by placing non-bank loan buyers outside any meaningful regulation. The second lawsuit was filed in the same California federal district court as the lawsuit against the OCC and both cases will be heard by Judge Jeffrey S.
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