On October 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 666, which amends the California Financing Law to prohibit a covered entity from charging certain fees in connection with a commercial financing transaction with a small business. Under the law, a small business is defined as an independently owned and operated business, with its principal office located in California, its officers domiciled in California, and, together with affiliates, 100 or fewer employees and average annual gross receipts of $15 million or less over the previous three years. “Covered entities” do not include depository institutions.
Caleb is an associate in the firm’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group. He focuses his practice on helping federal and state-chartered banks, fintech companies, finance companies, and licensed lenders navigate regulatory risks posed by state and federal laws aimed at protecting consumers and small businesses in the credit and alternative finance products industry.
In a major victory for small business lenders, yesterday the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted motions filed by three groups of trade association intervenors to extend the court’s existing injunction against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) enforcement of its final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule) to cover all small business lenders nationwide. A discussion of the preliminary injunction issued by that Texas federal court on July 31 can be found here. The injunction in Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB will dissolve if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit in Community Financial Services Association v CFPB (CFSA case), which found the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional.
September 12-14, 2023
Keith Barnett, Jason Cover, James Kim, Kim Phan, Jean Smith-Gonnell, James Stevens, Misha Tseytlin, Rich Zack, Ketan Bhirud, Carlin McCrory, and Caleb Rosenberg will be speaking on a variety of topics during the TPPPA 2023 Solving the Payments Puzzle Conference, which will be held September 12 – 14, 2023 in…
Earlier this month, the California Department of Financial Regulation and Innovation (CA DFPI) announced a new rule expanding the definition of unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices (UDAAP) to commercial financing. Specifically, the rule makes it unlawful “for a covered provider to engage or have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing or another financial product or service to a covered entity.” The new rule also includes annual reporting requirements (described below) for any covered provider who makes more than one commercial financing transaction to covered entities in a 12-month period or who makes five or more commercial financing transactions to covered entities in a 12-month period that are “incidental” to the business of the covered provider. Importantly, this rule does not apply to banks, credit unions, federal savings and loan associations, current licensees of the CA DFPI or licensees of other California agencies “to the extent that licensee or employee is acting under the authority of” the license.
As discussed here, on April 26, the Texas Bankers Association, the American Bankers Association (ABA), and Rio Bank, McAllen, Texas (Rio Bank) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) final rule under § 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Final Rule). As discussed here, § 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to impose significant data collection and reporting requirements on small business creditors. The plaintiffs’ complaint relied heavily on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) v CFPB, finding the CFPB’s funding structure unconstitutional and, therefore, rules promulgated by the Bureau invalid. The CFPB’s appeal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (discussed here).
As discussed here, in April 2023, Colorado introduced HB 1229 that proposed to limit certain charges on consumer loans and simultaneously opt Colorado out of sections 521-523 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). Sections 521-523 of DIDMCA empower state banks, insured state and federal savings associations and state credit unions to charge the interest allowed by the state where they are located, regardless of where the borrower is located and regardless of conflicting state law (i.e., “export” their home state’s interest-rate authority). However, section 525 of DIDMCA gives states the authority to opt out of sections 521-523. Indeed, Colorado initially opted out of DIDMCA when it was enacted, but later repealed its opt-out. This week HB 1229 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis joining Colorado with Iowa and Puerto Rico as the only jurisdictions currently opting out.
On April 12, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced that it is ending the moratorium that capped the number of small-business lending companies permitted to participate in its § 7(a) loan program at 14, and opening up participation in the program to fintech firms and other alternative lenders. The SBA’s loan program offers small businesses loans of up to $5 million, with the agency guaranteeing up to 85% on loans up to $150,000, and 75% for loans more than $150,000. The new rule will take effect on May 12.