Do Junk Debt Buyers have "exportation authority" ?

[flatpanel]

What is the name of your state? FL

"Exportation authority" of sister-state interest rates for "contractual" prejudgment interest claims that would be usurious in the home state of the debtor sued by the JDB.

The "exportation authority" of high interest rates is provided through National Bank Act, section 85, to National Bank Act "associations", such as a big credit card bank, that possess a National Bank Charter, for example, Citibank, which also must possess an "organization certificate" from the state of South Dakota that designates it's "location" for National Bank Act purposes as the state of South Dakota, and also for the purposes of South Dakota state law, meet one of the 25 possible definitions of a "regulated lender" for the purposes of permission under South Dakota law, to be free of South Dakota's usury law.

If a defaulted Citibank credit card account is assigned, for pennies on the dollar, to a junk debt buyer located, not in South Dakota but, for example, in Michigan,

is Citibank's South Dakota interest rate "exportation authority" assignable to the Michigan-located JDB, who obviously, does not have its own National Bank Charter and is not a National Bank "associate", and is not "located" in the state of South Dakata, and thus does not possess a South Dakota "organization certificate", and also fails to meet any of the 25 definitions of "regulated lender" required by South Dakota law to be able to qualify for the waiver of South Dakota usury law on the assigned "agreement", such that they could "export" into Florida an interest rate, that is usurious under Florida law, for a claim of a "contractual" prejudgment interest sum to inflate a debt collection lawsuit damages claim by thousands of dollars?

Are they provided the right of "exportation authority" and "sister-state preemption" under Section 85 of the National Bank Act by the mere assignment of a credit card debt from a NBA-association card issuing bank?

 

[divgradcurl]

What is the name of your state? FL

"Exportation authority" of sister-state interest rates for "contractual" prejudgment interest claims that would be usurious in the home state of the debtor sued by the JDB.

The "exportation authority" of high interest rates is provided through National Bank Act, section 85, to National Bank Act "associations", such as a big credit card bank, that possess a National Bank Charter, for example, Citibank, which also must possess an "organization certificate" from the state of South Dakota that designates it's "location" for National Bank Act purposes as the state of South Dakota, and also for the purposes of South Dakota state law, meet one of the 25 possible definitions of a "regulated lender" for the purposes of permission under South Dakota law, to be free of South Dakota's usury law.

If a defaulted Citibank credit card account is assigned, for pennies on the dollar, to a junk debt buyer located, not in South Dakota but, for example, in Michigan,

is Citibank's South Dakota interest rate "exportation authority" assignable to the Michigan-located JDB, who obviously, does not have its own National Bank Charter and is not a National Bank "associate", and is not "located" in the state of South Dakata, and thus does not possess a South Dakota "organization certificate", and also fails to meet any of the 25 definitions of "regulated lender" required by South Dakota law to be able to qualify for the waiver of South Dakota usury law on the assigned "agreement", such that they could "export" into Florida an interest rate, that is usurious under Florida law, for a claim of a "contractual" prejudgment interest sum to inflate a debt collection lawsuit damages claim by thousands of dollars?

Are they provided the right of "exportation authority" and "sister-state preemption" under Section 85 of the National Bank Act by the mere assignment of a credit card debt from a NBA-association card issuing bank?

But the junk debt buyers aren't exporting the interest rate into another state, just a lump-sum debt they purchased from the original creditor. Yes, that lump-sum debt may be comprised of interest from higher-than-legal interest rates in a particular state, but if that lump-sum was legally acquired in another state, then sold to someone else, well, this really isn't the issue you are trying to make it.

Now, if the junk-debt holder continued to tak on interest at Citibank's rate, then maybe you would have a point, but if they just purchased the lump-sum amount, then your arguments aren't going to fly.