b'In August 2020, seven statesCalifornia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolinaand the District of Columbia filed suit against the FDIC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. FDIC, No. 20-5860 (FDIC Action), regarding the FDICs valid when made doctrine. In July 2020, a smaller group of statesCalifornia, Illinois, and New Yorkalso filed suit in the Northern District of California against the OCC, captioned People of the State of California, et al. v. The OCC, No. 20-5200. The states in both actions argue that the rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The states claim that they, like many states, impose maximum interest rate caps to prevent lenders from charging excessive rates on consumer loans, which are intended to protect consumers from excessive interest rates that make it difficult for consumers to repay loans. The states also assert that the FDIC and OCC rules are an impermissible attempt to overturn Madden. The states claim the agencies failed to meaningfully consider the rules inevitable facilitation of predatory rent-a-bank schemes by permitting lenders to evade state law by partnering with national banks. Further, the states argue that the FDICs new rule impermissibly extends this preemption to non-FDIC Banks.The parties respective motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed in both actions for some time, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is likely to rule in 2022. The outcome of these lawsuits may significantly impact the secondary market for loans originated by national banks.'