The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (DFPR) has issued Predatory Loan Prevention Act Frequently Asked Questions (PLPA).  The PLPA became effective on March 23, 2021, the day it was signed into law by Governor Pritzker.  The DFPR also issued a “Notice Regarding the Consumer Reporting Database and the Predatory Loan Prevention

Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and Chris Van Hollen have introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the OCC’s “true lender” final rule.  The rule addresses when a national bank or federal savings association should be considered the “true lender” in the context of a partnership with a third party.

To

On March 23, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed into law SB 1792, which contains the Predatory Loan Prevention Act (the “Act”).  The new law became effective immediately upon signing notwithstanding the authority it gives the Illinois Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation to adopt rules “consistent with [the] Act.”

The Act extends the 36%

The OCC has filed a reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed by state AGs to enjoin the OCC’s final rule (Rule) purporting to override the Second Circuit’s Madden decision as to national banks and federal savings associations.  The filing of the OCC’s reply concludes the briefing on the

The Attorneys General of California, Illinois, and New York have filed their opposition to the OCC’s cross-motion for summary judgment in their lawsuit to enjoin the OCC’s final rule (Rule) purporting to override the Second Circuit’s Madden decision as to national banks and federal savings associations.  In their filing, the AGs also reply to the

Unless vetoed by Governor Pritzker, SB 1792 will soon become law and overhaul the state’s consumer finance laws.  After discussing the lenders and loans covered by the 36% APR cap, the types of charges included in the cap, and the penalties for violations, we look at what SB 1792 means for loans made via a

The parties in Petersen v. Chase Card Funding, LLC and Cohen v. Capital One Funding, LLC, have filed Stipulations agreeing to the withdrawal with prejudice of the plaintiffs’ appeals to the Second Circuit from the district courts’ decisions holding that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts their claims that the interest charged on credit

The plaintiffs in Cohen v. Capital One Funding, LLC and Petersen v. Chase Card Funding, LLC have filed appeals with the Second Circuit from the decisions of two New York federal district courts that held the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts their claims that the interest charged on credit card receivables assigned to affiliated securitization

Less than one month after hearing oral argument in RD Legal Funding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a summary order affirming the district court’s holding that the Dodd-Frank Act’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause provision is unconstitutional, reversing its holding that the provision is not severable, and remanding the case to the