Marketplace Lending Update: Who’s My Lender?

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Over the last several weeks, two notable cases in federal court challenging certain aspects of the business model of marketplace lending companies headed down separate paths.  First, in an action brought against Kabbage, Inc. and Celtic Bank Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the parties agreed to, and the Court approved, a stipulation staying the proceedings pending an arbitrator’s review of whether the claims in that action are covered by the arbitration provisions in the governing loan agreements.  Second, in an action against marketplace lender Avant in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the Court accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to remand the case to state court over Avant’s objection.

The Kabbage Action (Massachusetts)

In October 2017, Plaintiffs NRO Boston, LLC and Alice Indelicato sued Kabbage, a non-bank finance company, and Celtic Bank, Kabbage’s lending partner, alleging violations of Massachusetts’ criminal usury and consumer protection laws.  In short, Plaintiffs alleged that Kabbage’s arrangement with Utah-based Celtic Bank enabled it to make loans with interest rates exceeding twenty percent, the maximum rate allowed under the Massachusetts criminal usury statute.  Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Kabbage entered into a “criminal enterprise with Celtic Bank for the express purpose of evading the criminal usury laws.”  Plaintiffs claimed that even though Celtic Bank is listed as the lender on Kabbage’s loan documents, Celtic is not the “true lender” because those loans are immediately assigned to Kabbage following their issuance.  Plaintiffs contended that Kabbage is the lender because Kabbage originates, underwrites, funds, and assumes full responsibility for all risk of loss on the loans.  According to Plaintiffs, by making loans with rates above twenty percent, Kabbage violated Massachusetts’ criminal usury laws, the penalty for which is to render void the allegedly usurious loans, not merely to reduce their interest rates to a non-usurious level as in most jurisdictions. 

In response to Plaintiffs’ claims, Defendants countered that Plaintiffs’ federal action was inappropriate given the arbitration provisions in the loan agreements.  When Plaintiffs refused to consent to arbitration, Kabbage and Celtic Bank moved to compel arbitration.  After the parties had fully briefed the motion, they entered into a stipulation staying the federal court proceedings until an arbitrator determines whether Plaintiffs’ claims must be arbitrated.  On February 23, 2018, the Court approved this stipulation and denied Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration as moot.  Plaintiffs must file a demand for arbitration by March 25, 2018, and the parties must update the Court within thirty days of the arbitrator’s decision.

The Avant Action (Colorado)

Meanwhile, in Colorado, marketplace lender Avant is facing litigation in Colorado state court after the federal District Court’s March 1, 2018, decision to adopt a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to remand the action to state court.  Colorado’s Administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code sued Avant in state court in early 2017, alleging that Avant, also a non-bank finance company, charged interest rates above the maximum allowed by Colorado law and that Avant’s loan agreements contained unlawful choice-of-law provisions through its affiliation with Utah-based WebBank.  Avant’s relationship with WebBank is similar to Kabbage’s relationship to Celtic Bank.  Unlike in Massachusetts, however, a violation of the Colorado usury statute does not result in voiding the loan; instead, the statute calls on the Court to reduce and enforce the finance charge to comply with the statutory limit. 

Avant removed the action to federal court but, on March 1, 2018, the Court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation to remand the action to state court.  The Court agreed with the magistrate that Plaintiff’s state law claims were not completely preempted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Act because the claims at issue were not asserted against a state bank, as state-chartered WebBank was not a named Defendant in the action.  In adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court rejected arguments advanced by several industry associations appearing as amici curiae, including the American Bankers Association and Loan Syndications and Trading Association, that the true lender doctrine warranted federal jurisdiction because the loans were made by WebBank.  Rather, the Court concluded that although Avant may have a federal preemption defense to Plaintiffs’ state law claims if WebBank is determined to be the true lender, this does not does not provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction based on complete preemption and, therefore, does not justify removal.  As a result, Avant will be forced to assert its argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by federal law, and any other defenses, in state court.  That being said, the analysis in the magistrate’s recommendation adopted by the Court suggests that the magistrate believed that the true lender in this instance was Avant, not the bank.

Takeaways and Analysis

Both the Kabbage and Avant actions are part of a series of challenges to the marketplace lending model in courts across the country that have reached different results due to the variations of state laws, the unpredictability of courts, and the competing policies of consumer protection and federal preemption.  These actions join a growing number of cases attempting to apply usury concepts to loans originated by marketplace lenders that use arrangements with unaffiliated banks to originate their loans, a practice commonly referred to as “the bank origination model.”  Unlike a finance company, a bank is not required to comply with state law licensing requirements and loans made by a bank do not need to comply with home state usury rates due to federal preemption.  For marketplace lenders, the bank origination model facilitates streamlined and efficient origination of loans without the burden of having to comply with fifty different sets of state laws.  Conversely, critics of the bank origination model view it as enabling unregulated out-of-state lenders to evade state supervision and to charge interest rates exceeding state usury caps.  Thus, the key question in these cases has become, who is the “true lender” of these loans – the marketplace lender or the bank?

In determining the “true lender,” courts have developed two different approaches, with the choice of approach invariably dictating the result.  Certain courts focus on the fact that the bank is the party to the loan agreement and is the entity that actually disbursed the proceeds.  These courts conclude that the bank is the true lender and that federal preemption applies.  Other courts, however, conduct a broader analysis, focusing on the origination and underwriting of a loan, as well as any material interest in the extension of credit, if any, the bank retains after origination.  These courts conclude that the finance company is the true lender and, therefore, federal preemption does not apply.

In February 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would seem to resolve the “true lender” dispute in favor of the bank origination model; however, the U.S. Senate has yet to consider the bill.  Thus, it seems that true lender challenges to the bank origination model are likely to continue for the foreseeable future, as litigants wrestle with the patchwork of state usury and consumer protection laws implicated by these actions in courtrooms across the United States. 


The Kabbage and Avant true lender cases are notable for different reasons.  The Kabbage action in Massachusetts raises concerns for marketplace lenders because the state law penalty for usury is to void the loan, which would not only negatively impact Kabbage but also increase the risk for parties that purchase and securitize Kabbage loans.  On the other hand, the Avant litigation in Colorado is one of the first challenges brought by a state regulator against a finance company that is not thought of as a payday lender.  While the resolutions of these actions may not provide much certainty for marketplace lenders given the myriad of regulatory regimes that presently govern the online lending industry, these cases likely will establish guideposts for how courts and tribunals are viewing these issues.  We will continue to monitor these developments closely.


  1.   NRO Boston, LLC & Indelicato v. Kabbage, Inc. & Celtic Bank Corp., No. 1:17-cv-11976 (D. Mass. Oct. 12, 2017).
  2.   Meade v. Avant of CO, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00620 (D. Col. Mar. 9, 2017).
  3.   The Clearing House Association, the Marketplace Lending Association, and non-party WebBank also filed briefs as amici curiae.
  4.   Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017 (H.R. 3299).

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.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft 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.