A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.
Relevance
Yesterday, the California Department of Financial Institutions closed United Commercial Bank, headquartered in San Francisco, California, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
Yesterday, the Missouri Division of Finance closed Gateway Bank of St. Louis, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, and the FDIC was appointed as receiver.
Yesterday, the Georgia Departments of Banking and Finance closed United Security Bank, headquartered in Sparta, Georgia, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
Yesterday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed Prosperan Bank, headquartered in Oakdale, Minnesota, and the FDIC was named as receiver.
In Dumont v. Ford Motor Credit Company, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the Bankruptcy Code does not protect a debtor’s personal property collateral if the debtor fails to commit to redeem, reaffirm or assume the underlying loan—even if the debtor continues timely to make loan payments.
In a decision to be hailed by buyers of distressed debt and bankruptcy claims on the secondary loan market, on Oct. 15, 2009, the New York Court of Appeals (the “Court”), in a fact-specific ruling, held that an assignment of claim does not violate New York’s champerty statute (forbidding trading in litigation claims) if the purpose of the assignment is to collect damages by means of a lawsuit for losses on a debt instrument in which the assignee holds a pre-existing proprietary interest. Trust for the Certificate Holders of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
Washington, D.C.
November 3, 2009
The bankruptcy court's opinion exemplifies the second guessing that can confront solvency opinion providers and highlights issues that providers should carefully vet with experienced legal counsel.