On August 10, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) announced a new two-phase process for reviewing deposit insurance applications. The new process is intended to encourage new bank formation, accelerate the speed of the review process and improve the efficiency of the application process. The FDIC has historically been notoriously reluctant to approve deposit insurance applications for a variety of reaso
Firm News
Summer Roundup: It’s Raining Briefs In Didmca Litigation
It was a busy July for briefing before (i) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for its en banc review in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser,1 and (ii) the U.S District Court in Oregon in National Association of Industrial Bankers v. O’Day.2 See our ALERTS of Apr. 2, 2026 and June 16, 2026.
Ten States Sue Occ Over Escrow Preemption Rule
Ten states, led by Oregon and New York, have sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) to block the OCC’s recent preemption rule regarding state interest-on-escrow requirements. Complaint, Oregon v. OCC, No. 3:26-cv-1672 (D. Or. filed Aug. 11, 2026); see our ALERT of Jan. 2, 2026; see also our ALERT of May 11, 2026.
Fincen Permanently Ends U.S. Beneficial Ownership Reporting
On August 11, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a final rule that permanently removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership (UBO) information to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. FinCEN will also delete previously reported information on U.S. persons.
MD District Court Upholds National Bank Rate Exportation Authority
On July 20, a Maryland District Court dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing a national bank of charging excessive interest rates to credit-card customers. See Strange v. Capital One,
N.A., Civil Action No. 25-2711-TDC, 2026 WL 2085917 (filed July 20, 2026). The plaintiff had alleged that the bank knowingly collected credit card interest from class members at a rate exceeding the
maximum permitted by Virginia law and thereby violated the National Bank Act, (NBA) 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86.1 Capital One filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, which the court granted.
Ohio Enacts Update to UCC to Address Digital Assets
This week the Ohio Governor signed Ohio H.B. No. 195 into law to revise the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) to address digital assets and other emerging technologies. The bill will become effective 90 days after it is filed with the Ohio Secretary of State. The Ohio UCC update bill is based on the draft bill created by the Uniform Law Commission and enacted in other states. The provisions in the bill include:
Trades File Suit Challenging Oregon’s Didmca Opt Out, Seeking Declaratory And Injunctive Relief
On April 7, 2026, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed Oregon HB 4116 into law, with an effective date of June 5, 2026. Various trades have not filed suit to block the law and obtain injunctive relief. See Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, National Association of Industrial Bankers v. O’Day, No. 6:26-cv-01201-AA (D. Or. filed June 15, 2026).
Among other things, Oregon HB 4116 enacted Section 725.015(2), a DIDMCA opt out, which reads in relevant part: “The Legislative Assembly hereby declares that this state does not want any of the amendments set forth in section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (P.L. 96- 221, 94 Stat. 132) [DIDMA] to apply to consumer finance loans made in this state.” The new law contains numerous vague and problematic provisions, including the scope of permissible fees that creditors may impose on loans of $50,000 or less for which the law asserts extraterritorial application.
Read More
Merchant “Swipe Fee” Litigation Appears To Near End After 20 Years
Interchange continues to be the topic of the day! While states continue to attempt to challenge interchange fees with restrictive laws (see our ALERT of June 8, 2026), on Tuesday U.S. District Judge Brian M. Cogan in Brooklyn, New York, said a proposed settlement covering Visa, Mastercard and more than 12 million merchants was “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and that he was likely to eventually grant final approval. See In re Payment Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:05-MD-1720 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2026).
In this litigation, numerous merchants accused Visa, Mastercard and banks of conspiring to violate U.S. antitrust laws, including through the card networks’ collection of “swipe fees.” Judge Cogan’s ruling comes nearly two years after an earlier judge rejected a proposed $30 billion settlement as “too small”. In separate statements, the National Retail Federation and the National Association of Convenience Stores have said that the revised settlement failed to address a “broken” credit card market, and the NACS’ General Counsel Doug Kantor predicted “many more objections” will be filed.
Read More
Interchange Fee Law Vetoed In Colorado, And Delayed In Illinois And Judge Issues New Decision Following Occ Preemption Action
It has been a busy week for interchange with potentially big wins for some banks! The Colorado legislature passed a bill banning banks from charging interchange fees on tips and sales tax, similar to an Illinois law, the Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (“IFPA”), but the Colorado governor vetoed the Colorado law, referencing the controversy surrounding the Illinois law.
Read More
California Court Issues Final Decision In Oppfi True Lender Case
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts filed a final Statement of Decision and Judgment in favor of Opportunity Financial, LLC (“OppFi”) in a key “true lender” case. See Statement of Decision and Judgement, Opportunity Financial, LLC, v. Hewlett, No. 22STCV08163 (Cal. Super. Ct., dated May 19, 2026 and May 20, 2026, respectively). For background on this case, see our ALERTS of Mar. 13, 2026 and Mar. 28, 2022 and Elizabeth L. Anstaett and Mercedes C. Ramsey, Opportunity Financial LLC v. Hewlett: True Lender and Usury Issues, 77 CONSUMER FIN. L.Q. REP. 221 (2024). The court affirmed its rejection of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (“DFPI”) claim that OppFi was the “true lender” of certain loans originated by FinWise Bank, a federally insured Utah bank, under the OppFi name (“OppFi Loans”). The DFPI could now appeal.
Read More