Commissioner Signals Intent To Expand Authority Over Federal Bank Subsidiaries

Last month, Commissioner of Business Oversight Jan Owen issued an invitation for comment on two proposed rules that would subject non-depository operating subsidiaries, affiliates and agents of federal banks and other financial institutions to licensing under the California Finance Lenders Law or the Residential Mortgage Lending Act.  I found this proposal to be particularly interesting because as Commissioner of Corporations I had issued two specific rulings concluding that these types of subsidiaries were not subject to licensure by virtue of Section 22050(a) of the Financial Code.  1996 Cal. Sec. LEXIS 6 (Oct. 22, 1996) and 1996 Cal. Sec. LEXIS 9 (Nov. 9, 1996).  That statute provides that the CFL does not apply to “any person doing business under any law of any state or of the United States relating to banks, trust companies, savings and loan associations, insurance premium finance agencies, credit unions, small business investment companies, community advantage lenders, California business and industrial development corporations when acting under federal law or other state authority”.

Thereafter, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the former of Office of Thrift Supervision issued regulations preempting state authority over bank and savings association subsidiaries.  This seemed to further foreclose any state regulation.  The wheel turned, however, in 2010 with the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act which eliminated federal preemption with respect to state incorporated, non-bank operating subsidiaries, affiliates, and agents of banks and savings associations.

By opening the door to state regulation, the Dodd-Frank Act revived the older question of statutory interpretation that was addressed in the specific rulings that I and other Commissioners had issued.  The current Commissioner is now proposing to abrogate those interpretations by adoption of regulations.  The Commissioner isn’t arguing that the rulings were, or are, incorrect.  Rather, she is arguing that changed circumstances warrant a changed interpretation.

I’m not sure that the invitation for comment makes a strong case, particularly with respect to commercial loans.  The current CFL imposes virtually no substantive requirements on commercial loans or lending practices.  Thus, imposing a licensing requirement would do little in the way of borrower protection.

Comments are due by May 7, 2014 and can be submitted electronically to



Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.