Colorado Attorney General Pursues 'True Lender' and 'Madden' Actions Against Major Non-Bank Online Lenders

by Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP

These complaints drive home the importance of closely scrutinizing contractual provisions governing a “bank model” relationship between a non-bank lender and a bank to ensure that all legal and economic risks cannot be construed as resting with the non-bank.

On February 15, the Colorado Attorney General filed substantially similar, separate amended complaints in the U.S. District Court of Colorado against Marlette Funding LLC and Avant of Colorado LLC, alleging violations of Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code based on “true lender” and loan assignment cases. Both actions were originally filed in state court on January 27, 2017, and both were subsequently removed to federal court — on March 3, 2017 and March 9, 2017, respectively. In each instance, the complaint cites CashCall, Inc. v. Morrisey, 2014 W. Va LEXIS (W. Va. May 30, 2014), and Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), as legal authority for claims alleging usury and other violations of Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code.

CashCall, Inc. v. Morrisey affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in West Virginia v. CashCall, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 781, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23179 (S.D. W. Va. 2009). In that decision, the court found that non-bank defendant CashCall and not First Bank and Trust of Milbank, with whom CashCall maintained an agreement to originate loans, was the true lender for loans made to West Virginia residents. The court reached this conclusion by applying a fact-based “predominate economic interest” test that looked past the parties’ agreement designating Milbank as the lender to determine which party bore the greatest economic risk and, hence, should be deemed the actual lender as a matter of law. The respective complaints filed by the Colorado Attorney General against Marlette and Avant closely track the foregoing analysis. In each case, the complaints cite specific provisions of the defendant’s then-current contract with the state-chartered bank that originated the subject loans, with the aim of demonstrating that the non-bank defendant bore nearly all of the legal and economic risks.

The amended complaint filed in Mead v. Marlette Funding LLC d/b/a Best Egg asserts that Marlette paid all costs, including legal, marketing and other expenses, incurred by Cross River Bank in originating Best Egg loans. According to the complaint, the parties’ agreement gives Marlette the ability to decide which applicants will be approved. In addition, the complaint asserts that Cross River “bears no risk that it will lose its principal in the event consumers default on the Best Egg Loans that it sells to Marlette or to Marlette’s non-bank designees” because: (i) Marlette maintains a bank account in favor of Cross River in the amount of Marlette’s anticipated purchases; (ii) Best Egg loans originated by Cross River are sold to Marlette within two business days; (iii) the parties’ contract specifies that Cross River has no liability to Marlette for sold loans, and (iv) Marlette is obligated to indemnify Cross River “against any claim that any aspect of the Best Egg lending program violates the law.”

Furthermore, although both parties share in the profit of Best Egg loans, the complaint notes that Cross River’s share “is only approximately 1% of total profit.” In addition, Marlette maintains a tracking and accounting system at its own expense for Best Egg loans and furnishes the program’s funding. Finally, the complaint alleges that Cross River is prohibited under the parties’ agreement from using, selling or transferring any information regarding Best Egg applicants or customers unless it obtains Marlette’s consent.

The amended complaint filed in Mead v. Avant of Colorado LLC, in turn, similarly asserts that Avant and not WebBank, which originated the subject loans, bears all cost and expenses, including the costs of evaluating loan applications and credit reports and the costs associated with dispersals of loan proceeds. In this regard, the complaint describes the various provisions of the parties’ contractual agreement for ensuring that “WebBank bears no risk that it will lose principal in the event that customers default on Avant Loans that it sells to Avant.” As in the case of the Marlette complaint, the Avant complaint also asserts that Avant, and not its bank partner, is solely responsible for legal compliance. In this regard, the complaint notes that Avant developed and implemented both a Bank Secrecy Act policy and a Truth in Lending Act policy for the Avant lending program.

In addition, according to the complaint, Avant and not WebBank is responsible for all communications with customers and for “all servicing and administration of the Avant Loans, even during the period before WebBank sells the loans to Avant or its affiliates.” The complaint also notes that “WebBank cannot use information regarding Avant Loan applicants for any reason.” Lastly, the complaint asserts that the funding for Avant Loans is provided by Avant.

Both the Marlette and the Avant complaints cite the Madden case for the broad legal position that “a bank cannot validly assign [federal interest rate exportation] to a non-bank.” In this regard, we note that the facts of Madden concerned the sales and assignment of charged-off debt and not a loan origination under an ongoing “bank model” lending arrangement between a non-bank lender and federally insured bank. Furthermore, in a footnote near the conclusion of its decision, the Second Circuit in Madden expressly left the door open to the possibility that a loan assignment under different factual circumstances might lead to a different outcome, noting that the extent of the bank/loan assignor’s ongoing involvement might be a distinguishing factor. In any event, however, it is clear that the Colorado Attorney General interprets Madden broadly.

Pepper Points

  • These “true lender” actions by the Colorado Attorney General against Marlette and Avant highlight the ongoing concern within the online lending industry that the Madden and West Virginia CashCall decisions will trigger lawsuits, and potentially result in unfavorable court decisions, outside the jurisdictions where those cases were decided.

  • The respective complaints filed against Marlette and Avant allege facts that are clearly distinguishable from the facts considered by the Second Circuit in Madden. Yet those differences did not prevent the Colorado Attorney General from citing Madden for the broad-based proposition that a non-bank that receives the assignment of a loan from a bank can never rely on federal preemption of state usury laws “because banks cannot validly assign such rights to non-banks.” If adopted by the court, this position could have severe adverse consequences for the marketplace and online lending industry and for the banking industry generally, which relies on the ability to sell loans to other parties as part of managing their balance sheets.

  • These complaints drive home the importance of closely scrutinizing contractual provisions governing a “bank model” relationship between a non-bank lender and a bank to ensure that all legal and economic risks cannot be construed as resting with the non-bank.

  • Regardless of whether these cases move forward beyond summary judgment, they highlight the unsettled state of the law and are likely to spur increased interest among fintech lenders about the possibility of obtaining a special-purpose national bank charter.

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.

© Pepper Hamilton LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.