On Nov. 9, 2015, Midland Credit Management, Inc., petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Madden v. Midland Credit Management, which held that a loan is no longer protected from state usury laws under the National Bank Act (NBA) once it is sold. Midland Funding, a debt purchaser and servicer, purchased charged-off loans from a national bank. When Midland Bank attempted to collect on the plaintiff’s loan at the contractual interest rate, the borrower sued under New York’s usury laws, arguing that Midland’s attempt to collect unlawful interest voided the loan. The NBA authorizes national banks to charge interest rates in accordance with the laws of the state where the bank is located. Courts have long held that the NBA preempts conflicting state usury laws. Reversing the district court, the Second Circuit held that the NBA no longer applies to a loan once a national bank assigns it to another entity, even though the contractual interest rate was lawful at the time of origination. The Second Circuit held that enforcement of state usury laws would not “significantly interfere” with the national bank’s exercise of its powers under the NBA, including the right to “take, receive, reserve, and charge” interest, and the right to make and sell loans.  Midland’s cert petition urges the Court to review the decision because the Second Circuit decision conflicts with decisions of the Eighth and Fifth Circuits and years of contrary Supreme Court precedent providing broad protection under the NBA.  According to the petition, the Second Circuit should not be permitted to “cast aside the cardinal rule of usury, that a loan which is valid when made cannot become usurious by virtue of a subsequent transaction.” Emphasizing that New York is home to much of the financial services industry, Midland warned of disastrous consequences to the secondary market, and described the case as presenting “one of the most significant legal issues currently facing the financial services industry.”