In the wake of rulings upholding federal regulators’ “valid when made” rules, a new lawsuit serves as a reminder that state regulators and class-action plaintiffs’ lawyers may continue to challenge the bank partnership lending model under the “true lender” doctrine.

In early March, the fintech OppFi filed suit to stop California’s banking commissioner from enforcing the state’s interest rate caps on loans made in partnership with FinWise Bank.  See Opportunity Fin., LLC v. Hewlett, No. 22STCV08163 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 7, 2022).  According to the complaint, the state regulator threatened enforcement on the grounds that OppFi—and not FinWise Bank—is the supposed “true lender” for purposes of assessing the validity of the loans’ interest rates.  The interest rates on the loans, if made by OppFi, would exceed California’s interest rate caps, including under California’s Fair Access to Credit Act (also known as AB 539), which took effect in January 2020.

OppFi is seeking a declaration that California’s interest rate caps do not apply to the loans made in partnership with FinWise Bank “because OppFi is not making the loans—the Bank is.”  OppFi alleges that FinWise Bank is the lender because it is the entity that “extended credit, entered into contracts with the borrowers for repayment, and remains the title owner of the loans.”  OppFi argues that this has two primary implications.  First, loans made by state-chartered banks like FinWise Bank are statutorily exempt from California’s interest rate caps.  Relying on a favorable decision that Covington obtained for Navient Solutions, a California federal judge recently dismissed claims against OppFi on this same basis, as OppFi alleges.  Sims v. Opportunity Fin., LLC, 2021 WL 1391565, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2021).  Second, section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act permits FinWise Bank to make loans at the rate of interest allowed in its home state of Utah (where there is no interest rate cap), and preempts California’s contrary laws.

According to OppFi, the California banking commissioner is attempting to “wage a war” against fintechs that partner with banks.  OppFi said in a press release that the company filed suit “so it can continue to serve close to 7.2 million Californians in need of credit.”  The commissioner, who declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, said in a statement, “Companies doing business in California that do not comply with the law will be investigated and may be subject to enforcement action to ensure consumer protection and compliance with state law.”

The state regulator’s challenge is part of a continuing trend (as reported here), whereby attacks on bank partnerships have started to abandon Madden arguments in favor of arguments that the nonbank partner is the “true lender.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Ashley Simonsen Ashley Simonsen

Ashley Simonsen is a litigator whose practice focuses on defending complex class actions and mass torts in state and federal courts across the country.

Ashley represents clients in the technology, consumer brands, financial services, and sports industries through all stages of litigation, including trial…

Ashley Simonsen is a litigator whose practice focuses on defending complex class actions and mass torts in state and federal courts across the country.

Ashley represents clients in the technology, consumer brands, financial services, and sports industries through all stages of litigation, including trial, with a strong track record of success on early dispositive motions. Her practice encompasses advertising, antitrust, product defect, and consumer protection matters. Ashley regularly advises companies on arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and related issues, including mass arbitration risks and issues arising under McGill v. Citibank, N.A. And she is one of the nation’s leading experts on “true lender” issues and the related “valid when made” doctrine.

Ashley has been recognized three times by Law360 as an “MVP” (in Class ActionsTechnology, and Banking) and as a “Rising Star” (in Banking). Her successful representation of Meta earned her a 2021 “Top Verdict” recognition from the Daily Journal. She has also been included in the Daily Journal’s list of the “Top 100 Lawyers” and “Top Women Lawyers” in California, named a “Lawyer on the Fast Track” and “Women Leader in Tech Law” by The Recorder, and recognized twice as a Leader of Influence: Litigators & Trial Lawyers by the Los Angeles Business Journal. Before practicing law, Ashley was an associate at Lehman Brothers in New York where she advised banks on balance sheet management and interest rate hedging strategies.

Photo of Andrew Soukup Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes. Recognized for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety…

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes. Recognized for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims ranging in exposure from millions to billions of dollars.

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, and media and communications industries. He has helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew provides a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters, his understanding of their businesses, and his creative strategies.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

  • Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands from claims that they engaged in deceptive marketing or sold defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Delivering wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a “Class Action Group of the Year.”
  • Helping one of the world’s largest seafood companies defeat ESG-related claims accusing the company of misrepresenting its environmental-friendly production practices.

Andrew has also obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial and indemnification disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. And he advises companies on their arbitration agreements, and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by successfully enforcing their arbitration agreements.

Photo of Matthew Verdin Matthew Verdin

Matthew Verdin focuses on defending clients in the technology and financial services sectors. He has a strong record of delivering wins on behalf of clients in class actions and complex litigation, particularly in privacy and consumer protection lawsuits. Matthew is particularly successful in…

Matthew Verdin focuses on defending clients in the technology and financial services sectors. He has a strong record of delivering wins on behalf of clients in class actions and complex litigation, particularly in privacy and consumer protection lawsuits. Matthew is particularly successful in securing dismissals at the pleadings stage. For example, he won dismissal at the pleadings stage of over a dozen wiretapping class actions involving the alleged use of website analytics tools to collect data about users’ website visits. He also advises companies on managing litigation risk under federal and state wiretapping laws.

Matthew is also dedicated to pro bono legal services. Recently, he helped a domestic violence survivor win a case in the California Court of Appeal. Matthew’s oral argument led to the court ordering renewal of his client’s restraining order just one day later.