This article explores the facts and holdings of Madden and its short-term and longer-term legal and commercial implications. The authors conclude that Madden was wrongly decided due to a misplaced primary focus by the defendants on federal bank preemption principles, causing the Second Circuit to all but ignore the valid-when-made doctrine. Although Madden is having an adverse short-term impact, the authors believe that ultimately it will be properly limited in its scope and impact, will not be embraced across the board by other state or federal courts, and will not result in significant changes to the law and principles of bank lending and usury. In other words, notwithstanding the Madden decision, the valid-when-made doctrine should remain alive and well.
Charles M. Horn & Melissa R. Hall,
The Curious Case of Madden v. Midland Funding and the Survival of the Valid-When-Made Doctrine,
N.C. Banking Inst.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncbi/vol21/iss1/5