On April 23, the FDIC submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in support of the defendant: the Colorado attorney general. This case involved Colorado HB 23-1229 (the “Act”), which was enacted on June 5, 2023, and will become effective on July 1. As previously covered by InfoBytes, trade groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent enforcement of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 purported to “opt out” of Section 521 of the DIDMCA which had allowed state-chartered banks to export rates of their home state across state borders.
Section 525 of DIDMCA allows any state to enact legislation to opt out of Section 521 with respect to “loans made in such State.” In the brief, the FDIC argued that courts interpreting federal law have concluded “it is reasonable to conclude that interstate loans are made in the state in which the borrower enters into the transaction and in the state in which the lender enters into the transaction” and that “[i]t would be arbitrary and artificial to select one state when the parties enter into the transaction in two different states.” Thus, according to the FDIC, loans would be made in a state if either the borrower or the lender entered into the transaction in that state. Therefore, the FDIC argued that plaintiffs were incorrect in claiming that the opt-out would apply to loans made by out-of-state creditors to borrowers who were physically located in Colorado.
In addition, the FDIC disagreed with plaintiffs’ argument that FDIC General Counsel Opinion No. 11, 63 Fed. Reg. 27282 (May 18, 1998), which set forth the FDIC’s position regarding where a bank is “located” for purposes of section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, was applicable to interpreting Section 525. The FDIC’s amicus brief stated that Opinion 11 does not address opt-out or Section 525. Moreover, the FDIC argued that “where a loan is made under Section 525 cannot be equated with where a bank is located under Section 521.” The FDIC disagreed similarly with plaintiffs’ reliance on the 1978 Supreme Court of Marquette Nat’l Bank v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., on the grounds that it concerned where a bank was located and not considered where a loan is “made.”
The plaintiffs’ reply brief will be submitted by May 7, and a hearing of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for May 16.
