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 . . .
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.
A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.
The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.
In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.
The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.
The law is now clear. Or is it?
For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.
If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?
It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.
On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released draft reform legislation to Australia’s insolvency laws to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and help reduce the stigma associated with business failure.
The reforms, known as ‘safe-harbour’ provisions propose changes to directors’ personal liability for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Background