Usury Exemptions Bites Back

Last week, I wrote about the oft overlooked California Finance Lenders (CFL) law. In general, that law provides that anyone engaged in the business of making consumer or commercial loans must obtain a license from the Department of Corporations (unless an exemption is available).

CFL licensees do enjoy one benefit. They constitute a class of “exempt persons” for purposes of California’s constitutional usury limitations. Cal. Fin. Code § 22002.

Usually, an exemption is a good thing. In Moore v. Hill, however, the CFL exemption proved to be a bad thing. The case involved a claim that the CFL licensee had borrowed at usurious interest rates. Thus, the issue was not whether the loans made by the licensee were exempt, but whether the licensee’s obligations were exempt.

Article XV, § 1 of the California Constitution provides in relevant part...

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Business Organization Updates, General Business Updates, Constitutional Law Updates

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 »