The question of does a lien exist without a debt for it to secure is a complicated issue that unfortunately does not have a universal answer. This post will use two recent cases to explore concerns that counsel should examine if presented with this question.

A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in the case of In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. on Dec. 12, 2019. The panel decided that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) share jurisdiction when a Chapter 11 debtor moves to reject a power purchase and sale contract over which the FERC has jurisdiction (Power Contract). However, the Sixth Circuit noted that such jurisdiction is not equal; declaring the bankruptcy court’s authority as primary and superior to that of the FERC.

Loan servicers’ employees are human beings. Loan servicing employees use systems designed by other human beings. We all know this and so should anticipate that there will be mistakes in loan servicing operations. Recently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that how loan servicers plan for and react to inevitable mistakes is important. The case also has some good reminders for litigation counsel and planning tips for loan servicers.

Lenders and their counsel know that it is important to properly describe the collateral on which a lien (mortgage or security interest) is being granted. The purpose of this post is to discuss some recent decisions contrary to what many corporate counsel thought they knew concerning collateral descriptions in security agreements and UCC financing statements.

Ohio and other states where Frost Brown Todd has offices have long had witness and/or notary requirements for the execution of mortgages. Ohio Revised Code Section 5301.01 provides that a “mortgage . . . shall be signed by the . . . mortgagor. . . . The signing shall be acknowledged by the . . . mortgagor . . . before a . . . notary public . . .

In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.

In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.

Consider the common commercial loan collection situation: a business debt collateralized by relatively permanent collateral (real property or durable non-mobile equipment such as a printing press) and transient collateral (inventory, accounts receivable and cash).[1] Frequently, there is also potentially recoverable unsecured debt because the collateral is insufficient to pay the entire debt and (a) the collateral does not include all the borrower’s

A lawyer’s usual task is to help solve the client’s current problem: resolve a dispute; close a loan; obtain a permit; avoid a conviction; etc. Lawyers are so task oriented that some consultants advise us to have task specific engagement understandings and send dis-engagement letters when a task is complete. For bankruptcy lawyers representing individuals in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the task at hand is getting clients to and through a confirmed Chapter 13 plan with the promised debt relief and fresh start.

Lawyers representing creditors often compete with federal government claims against the same insolvent borrower/debtor. There are several common federal statutes that impact these disputes including: 11 U.S.C. Section 507[1]; 26 U.S.C. Section 6321[2], et seq.; and 31 U.S.C.

The High Court has held that a bank owed a duty of care to its customer when on notice that an agent acting for the customer was misusing his authority. In the case of Singularis Holdings Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch), a bank was liable in negligence to its customer since it was on notice that its customer was at risk of being defrauded by its director but failed to stop payments made for the purpose of misappropriating funds of the company.

The Facts