Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 15 OCTOBER 2015

Madden v. Midland Funding LLC – Implications And Potential Responses

Milbank
Milbank
Contributor
Milbank

Milbank

Milbank has been in London for over 40 years, assisting clients with their most complex,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Milbank

This client alert focuses on the implications of the Second Circuit's decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC and considers strategies for secondary market loan transactions that may mitigate its effects.

United StatesFinance and Banking

This client alert focuses on the implications of the Second Circuit's decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC1 ("Madden") and considers strategies for secondary market loan transactions that may mitigate its effects.

BACKGROUND AND MARKET RESPONSE

Under the National Bank Act ("NBA"), national banks may be sued for usury only if they charge an interest rate higher than that allowed by their home state.2 All other usury claims against national banks are preempted by the NBA. On May 22, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Madden that a non-national bank assignee of debt originated by a national bank could not rely on the NBA for preemption of state usury laws.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from