Saliha Madden sued defendants for charging and collecting interest rates higher than permitted under New York's usury law and violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The defendants argued that state-law claims and FDCPA claims based on state-law violations against a national bank's assignees, like them, are preempted by the National Bank Act. The court held that NBA preemption did not apply to third-party debt buyers who were not acting on behalf of a national bank in trying to collect a debt. The court distinguished the Krispin v. May Department Stores case because the non-national bank entity involved in that case had transferred all authority over credit card accounts to a national bank and a wholly-owned subsidiary. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC (2015)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
786 F.3d 246
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
