“It is well established that public policy in this Commonwealth prohibits usurious lending, and this prohibition has been recognized for over 100 years.”
How later courts described this case
- “It is well established that public policy in this Commonwealth prohibits usurious lending, and this prohibition has been recognized for over 100 years.”
- discussing the application of Pennsylvania’s lending laws to payday lenders
- explaining the LIPL and CDCA
- relying upon comma placement to interpret a provision of the Consumer Discount Company Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the Court’s holding and support much of the majority’s reasoning. In light of the incongruities in the governing statute relative to foreign lenders and the interpretive history in the Department of Banking, however, I have difficulty with the majority position that the case can be resolved solely based on plain-meaning interpretation. Rather, I believe statutory construction is implicated, to include consideration of the *460 policy objectives of the statute, which I believe strongly support the present holding of the Court.