Banking

Subscribe to Banking via RSS

On November 10, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction in the challenge to Colorado’s H.B. 23‑1229, holding that Colorado may enforce its Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) interest‑rate caps for loans to Colorado borrowers even when originated by out‑of‑state, state‑chartered banks. Interpreting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) § 525’s opt‑out phrase “loans made in such State,” the court concluded it encompasses loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt‑out state. Because Colorado has opted out, § 1831d no longer preempts Colorado rate caps for loans from out‑of‑state state banks to Colorado residents, and the preliminary injunction “falls apart.”

On October 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its rule requiring nonbank entities to register certain agency and court orders with the Bureau. This decision follows a proposal made earlier this year (discussed here), which highlighted concerns about the regulatory burden and costs imposed on nonbank entities, which could ultimately affect consumers.

In a significant development for lenders and borrowers alike, on October 6, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Fox decision, leaving unresolved questions about the retroactive application of the Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA). This decision has shifted the focus to the New York State Court of Appeals where oral argument was heard on October 16, and potentially to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On August 29, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced updates to its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual, marking a pivotal shift in how potential discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act will be evaluated. The FDIC will now focus solely on evidence of disparate treatment, removing all references to disparate impact analysis from its examination procedures. This action follows on the heels of the OCC’s announcement on July 14 that it had removed all references to disparate impact analysis from the Fair Lending booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and directed examiners to cease examining banks for disparate impact liability, discussed here.

On August 26, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) took action to enforce President Trump’s directive by issuing a letter to its network of over 5,000 lenders. This letter mandates the cessation of alleged politicized or unlawful banking practices, requiring lenders to reinstate qualified customers who were wrongfully denied access to financial services based on political, religious, or ideological beliefs. It further warns that punitive measures will be taken against lenders who fail to comply with the directives. This move marks a significant step in implementing Executive Order 14331, Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.

On August 21, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) took a significant step forward in its reconsideration of the Section 1033 open banking final rule, originally issued in November 2024, by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This move follows the Bureau’s announcement that it would be reopening the rulemaking process when it requested a stay to the original rule amidst legal challenges.

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action plaintiff’s claims challenged the credit union’s $15 dollar returned-check fee under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), arguing it was an “unfair” and “unlawful” business practice, especially since the check the plaintiff deposited was declined without any funds being made available to him. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s state law unfair competition claim was preempted by 12 C.F.R. § 701.35, which states expressly that state laws regulating bank fees do not apply to federal credit unions.

Since the House passed the CLARITY Act on July 17, the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has been busy working on its own version of the U.S. crypto regulatory framework. Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC), along with Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), and Bernie Moreno (R-OH), released a discussion draft of the “Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025.” This comprehensive legislation aims to provide regulatory clarity, encourage innovation, and address key risks in the rapidly evolving digital asset ecosystem. This blog highlights critical elements of the draft bill, offering an overview of its major provisions and implications. Alongside the draft, the Senate Banking Committee has issued a broad Request for Information (RFI) to solicit feedback from the public, with responses due by August 5, 2025.

As a follow up to our May post, FAPA in the Spotlight Again: Second Circuit Renews Call for NY Court of Appeals Review, the New York Court of Appeals has finally agreed to consider New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act’s (FAPA) reach and constitutionality in the case of Art. 13 LLC. Interestingly, on the same day the Court of Appeals accepted the Second Circuit’s request, New York’s highest court also agreed to review a separate decision from the First Department, which found that it is constitutional to apply the FAPA amendments retroactively in the case of Van Dyke. Both appeals stem from actions seeking to cancel and discharge mortgages, where the New York trial courts previously held that the statute of limitations for foreclosure had expired.

On July 14, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Bulletin 2025-16, announcing the removal of references to disparate impact liability from the “Fair Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and instructing examiners to cease examining banks for disparate impact liability. This change aligns with Executive Order (EO) 14281, issued by President Trump (discussed here), which aims to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts at both the federal and state level.