Company: AFRM
Filing Date: 2025-08-28
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0001820953-25-000080
Chunk: 26

Company: Affirm Holdings, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-08-28
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1
Chunk 26
---
 to rely on an alternative bank relationship, find an alternative bank relationship, rely on existing state licenses, obtain new state licenses, pursue a federal charter, offer consumer loans, and/or be subject to the interest rate limitations and loan product requirement limitations of certain states. There are two examples of claims that have been raised that could each, separately or jointly, result in this outcome in some or all states.

The FDIC stated that its Federal Interest Rate Authority Rule was promulgated in part to codify the “valid when made” doctrine due to court decisions such as the one in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 2505 (June 27, 2016). In Madden v. Midland Funding, the Second Circuit ruled that federal preemption generally applicable to national banks did not apply to non-bank assignees if the assignee was not acting on behalf of the bank, if the bank no longer had an interest in the loan, or such determination did not significantly interfere with the bank’s exercise of its federal banking powers. Under this rationale, the Second Circuit did not preempt state interest rate limitations that might apply to the non-bank assignees. The Second Circuit’s holding in the Madden case is binding on federal courts in the states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. Following the Madden decision, there have been a number of lawsuits in other parts of the country making similar allegations. Under the Federal Interest Rate Authority Rule promulgated by the FDIC, which is the interest rate authority of state-chartered banks (such as our originating bank partners), the interest rate applicable to a loan originated by a state-chartered bank on the date of origination will carry with the loan irrespective of ownership (i.e., the interest rate is “valid when made”). The OCC issued a similar rule on May 29, 2020 with respect to loans originated by national banks. State attorneys general of the states of California, New York and Illinois have filed a lawsuit against the OCC alleging that the OCC had no statutory authority to issue its May 29, 2020 rule regarding 

15

Table of Contents

the permissibility of interest rates on loans purchased from a national bank and failed to follow required procedures in promulgating the rule. State attorneys general of the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina, together with the District of Columbia