The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a mortgage foreclosure deficiency judgment lien may be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2), reversing the bankruptcy court’s ruling to the contrary.

A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion. 

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding without leave to amend, holding that:

(a) the debtors failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law;

(b) the debtors failed to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not third-party beneficiaries of the pooling and servicing agreement;

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of LIBOR-manipulation fraud claims brought by a group of hotel-related entities and their investor against a bank and two of its subsidiaries.

In so ruling, the Second Circuit held that:

(a) the borrower and related entities lacked standing to sue because they failed to list their potential claims in their bankruptcy case and the claims were barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel; and

(b) the claims of the investor and guarantors were untimely and barred by the law of the case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a court cannot extinguish a secured creditor’s state-law security interests for failure to file a proof of claim during the administration of an equity receivership over entities involved in a Ponzi scheme.

A copy of the opinion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wells Fargo Bank is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that the collection of garnished wages earned during the 90 days prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition is an avoidable transfer, even if the garnishment was served before the 90-day preference period.

The ruling creates a potential split with the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, with the Fifth Circuit joining with the Sixth Circuit on the issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that certain deposits and wire transfers into a bankrupt debtor’s personal, unrestricted checking account in the ordinary course of business were not “transfers” under § 101(54) of the Bankruptcy Code, affirming the district court’s and bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the bank in an adversary proceeding brought by the bankruptcy trustee.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover fraudulent transfers could recover direct and indirect loan repayments made after the bank had knowledge of the debtor’s Ponzi scheme, but could not recover deposits not applied to pay back the bank’s debt because the bank was not a “transferee” under the Bankruptcy Code as to ordinary bank deposits.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background