Federal Preemption and Credit Regulation

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is publishing its response to a written request for the OCC’s opinion of whether Federal law would preempt a Michigan statute, as interpreted by the Michigan Financial Institutions Bureau, that limits the ability of national banks to make loans to finance motor vehicle sales. The OCC has determined that the state law, as interpreted, would be preempted under Federal law.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for comment a written request for the OCC’s opinion about whether Federal law preempts certain provisions of the Financial Institutions Insurance Sales Act (FIISA), enacted by the State of Rhode Island in 1996. The purpose of this notice and request for comment is to provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit comments prior to the OCC’s issuance of a written opinion in this matter.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for comment a written request for the OCC’s opinion about whether Federal law preempts certain provisions of the Massachusetts bank insurance sales statute and regulations promulgated pursuant to that statute by the Division of Banks and the Division of Insurance. This Notice refers to the statute and regulations collectively as the Massachusetts Law.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is publishing for comment a written request for the OCC’s determination of whether Federal law preempts certain provisions of the West Virginia Insurance Sales Consumer Protection Act (West Virginia Law). The purpose of this notice and request for comment is to provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit comments prior to the OCC’s issuance of any final opinion in this matter.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is updating and clarifying its rules regarding investment securities, corporate activities, and bank activities and operations. Most of the changes involve the OCC’s interpretations regarding national bank activities and operations. This final rule clarifies existing rules, adds new provisions based on recent statutory changes, judicial rulings, OCC decisions, and other developments, and makes technical changes.

The FDIC has received inquiries regarding the application of section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to State banks operating interstate branches.

The FDIC’s Legal Division has received a request for guidance regarding the types of charges that constitute ‘‘interest’’ for purposes of section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. This General Counsel’s Opinion is being provided for the benefit of the public, as well as institutions subject to section 27, because the statute speaks only in terms of ‘‘interest’’ but does not define the term.

In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of competition, this consent agreement, accepted subject to final commission approval, would require, among other things, the Georgia-based money lender and its president to send a notice to all of its current customers offering them the opportunity to cancel the credit-life, credit-disability, and accidental death and disbursement insurance coverages written on their loans, and to receive cash refunds or credits.

This 2024 FDIC Amicus Brief in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2024) supports Colorado's legislation opting out of out-of-state, state banks' ability to export their home state rate caps to Colorado.

This is a 2020 order by a bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of North Carolina rejecting bank interest rate preemption because the related non-bank lender was the true lender.  The bankruptcy court denied the creditor’s proof of claim because the loan was usurious under North Carolina law and could not be saved because the loan was allegedly initiated by a bank.