Congress has enacted and President Joseph Biden has signed a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC’s) “true lender” rule, which, as we previously discussed, had provided that a national bank is as a matter of law the lender on any loan for which it is the named lender or for which it provides the loan funding.

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval on March 26 that would invalidate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC’s) true lender final rule.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a final rule on October 27 that determines when a national bank or federal savings association (bank) makes a loan and is the “true lender” in the context of a partnership between a bank and a third party, such as a marketplace lender.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a final rule on June 25 that reaffirms the enforceability of the interest rate terms of loans made by state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (collectively, state banks) following the sale, assignment, or transfer of the loan. The rule also provides that whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made, and is not affected by a change in state law, a change in the relevant commercial paper rate, or the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan. The final rule follows the FDIC’s proposed rule on this topic, and will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a final rule on May 29 clarifying that when a national bank or national savings association sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers a loan, interest permissible before the transfer (the maximum rate permitted in the bank’s home state) continues to be permissible after the transfer.

We think of our All Things FinReg blog to be global in nature, so when interesting regulatory developments occur somewhere in our blog footprint (namely, the planet), we try to highlight them, especially where they may have relevance beyond the jurisdiction or region where such developments occur. A recent action by the French competition authority (ADC) may be one such event.

A recent legal conference in Washington, DC, highlighted newly proposed and ongoing regulatory changes in California concerning consumer and commercial lending. In short, one of the conference’s messages was that lending enforcement is increasing and the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) is becoming much more aggressive in its enforcement posture (including with respect to treating retail installment sales contracts and merchant cash-advance products as loans).

When the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Madden v. Midland Funding in 2015, it sent shockwaves through the financial community for its unexpected ruling that nonbank assignees of a national bank did not get the benefit of National Bank Act “preemption” permitting lenders to charge any interest rate provided it does not exceed the rate permitted in the bank’s home state.

Arizona has become the first state in the United States to enact a law to create a “Fintech Sandbox” – a safe zone for fintech startups to test new applications and financial services otherwise subject to state money transmitter, banking, and similar licensing requirements without having to obtain a state license. Although other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Australia, have created similar fintech sandboxes, similar legislation or regulations thus far have not been adopted in the United States at the federal or state level.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued its first No-Action Letter under the final policy on No-Action Letters that it released in early 2016.