Insights
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) related beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting rules.
-
A well-trodden path for banks to achieve regulatory capital reductions by mitigating credit risk is through a synthetic securitization, either by issuing credit-linked notes (CLNs) or engaging in bespoke bilateral credit derivative transactions. These transactions—while complex to execute—offer the significant advantage of transferring risk on a large, diversified portfolio of obligors, allowing investors to evaluate credit risk on a statistical basis. This lessens the need for investor diligence at the level of individual obligations, which facilitates risk transfer on obligors for whom information might be limited or costly to digest.
Chapman wrote the book on the marketplace lending regulatory landscape that the entire industry has come to rely upon. First published in 2013, the 2024 update covers a vast array of topics affecting the marketplace lending industry.
The Division of Examinations of the Securities and Exchange Commission published its examination priorities for fiscal year 2025. The 2025 Exam Priorities reflect practices, products, and services the Division believes present heightened risks to investors and the U.S. capital markets.
-
There have been several recent notable enforcement actions, including continued enforcement by the SEC and CFTC against off-channel communications, as well as an SEC fraud settlement with Macquarie Investment Management Business Trust.
Chapman's quarterly Regulatory Update contains an overview of the latest regulatory actions, market happenings, and litigation and enforcement activity in the investment management space.
-
On September 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) adopted amendments to CFTC Regulation 4.7 (Reg. 4.7), a rule that provides exemptions from the broader compliance requirements under Part 4 of the CFTC regulations (Part 4) for registered commodity pool operators (CPOs) with respect to pools (4.7 pools) offered solely to “Qualified Eligible Persons” (QEPs) and registered commodity trading advisors (CTAs) that advise or manage commodity trading accounts of QEPs. The amendments (i) increase the financial thresholds in the “Portfolio Requirement” of the QEP definition and (ii) permit CPOs of fund of fund pools offered solely to QEPs to provide monthly account statements within 45 days of the month-end, rather than providing quarterly account statements within 30 days of the quarter-end. The CFTC chose not to adopt, at this time, the proposed minimum QEP disclosures.
A recognized securities and commodities regulatory authority, Peter’s practice focuses on the registration and regulation of investment advisers, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators, and introducing brokers, as well as the formation and ongoing compliance obligations of registered and private investment companies.
Chapman's 2024 Social Impact and Sustainability report showcases our commitment to the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC).
- Topic: Interest & Usury
15 matches.
A recent federal district court decision out of Massachusetts found that a bank was the true lender on a loan subsequently transferred to a trust consisting of student loans. Robinson and Spears v. Nat’l. Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2, 2021 WL 1293707, Case No. 20-cv-10203 ADB (D. Mass. April 7, 2021).
In the past few days, two courts have actions that are of significance to marketplace lenders and their funding sources.
In 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that, under the doctrine of federal preemption, a non-bank assignee of a bank loan could not charge and collect the rates and fees that the bank could charge and was therefore subject to state law usury limits.
- The Banking Law Journal
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently issued its final rule codifying as a regulation that the interest charged on loans that is permissible before the loan is transferred remains in effect after the loan is transferred.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have been quite active in issuing or proposing new regulations and initiatives focused on financial technology and innovation in financial services.
On May 29, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued its final rule codifying as a regulation that the interest charged on loans that is permissible before the loan is transferred remains in effect after the loan is transferred.
- May 2017The Banking Law Journal
The May 2015 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC sent shockwaves through the marketplace lending industry, and nearly two years later the questions generated by this case remain largely unanswered. These questions have been further complicated by the long-awaited remand decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On February 27, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued its long-awaited remand decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC.
- July 25, 2016 (Originally Published July 22, 2016)Lending Times
A recent decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals could require marketplace lenders and others who arrange for federal or state banks to fund consumer loans to consumers residing in Maryland to obtain licenses as “credit services businesses” and could prohibit them from arranging those loans at interest rates exceeding the applicable Maryland usury caps.
On Friday, March 18, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a call for the views of the Solicitor General of the United States before it decides whether to hear an appeal from a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision rendered last May in the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC.
- February 8, 2016 (Originally Published February 1, 2016)Law360
Law360 republished a Chapman Client Alert.
A recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has highlighted once again the regulatory risks that the so-called “true lender” doctrine can create for internet-based lenders who partner with banks to establish exemptions from applicable state consumer protection laws.
A recent decision of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals could impact marketplace and other lenders who arrange for federal or state banks to fund consumer loans in Maryland at rates in excess of the applicable Maryland usury caps.
- September 2015 (Originally Published June 3, 2015)The Banking Law Journal
The Banking Law Journal republished a Chapman Client Alert.
In the case of Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, the Second Circuit narrowly interpreted the scope of federal preemption of state usury laws under the National Bank Act as such laws apply to certain non‑bank loan assignees.
