On April 7th, a federal bankruptcy court sanctioned Lender Processing Services, Inc., a home foreclosure service provider against whom the Federal Reserve Board and OCC have initiated enforcement action. The opinion explains LPS's business model and that model's failings, and cites case law documenting LPS's historic shortcomings. It reminds litigants that proving a default is the lender's, not counsel's, responsibility. In re Ron Wilson, Sr.  

On April 12th, a federal district court addressed the in pari delicto defense, including the sole actor exception to the adverse interest exception. In the instant case, a litigation trust created in bankruptcy court to pursue the debtor's claims sued Credit Suisse for allegedly assisting the debtor's founders' looting of the debtor's subsidiaries. Credit Suisse sought summary judgment, asserting the in pari delicto defense. The Court agreed, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the founders so dominated the subsidiaries that the subsidiaries lacked a separate existence.

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.

The case of Canrock Ventures LLC v. Ambercore Software Inc. et al is a cautionary tale for a Receiver and its counsel alike. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a Receiver’s application for the approval of an asset purchase agreement because of a failure to take the requisite steps when conducting a sale process and, in the Court’s view, failing to remain a neutral officer of the Court.

On March 15th, the FDIC published for comment a proposed rule that would establish the priority of payments to creditors when the FDIC acts as liquidator for a failed non-bank financial institution. The proposal also would establish the procedures for filing a claim with the receiver and clarifies the receiver's clawback authority. Comments should be submitted within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which is expected during the week of March 21.

FDIC Proposes Rules for the Recoupment of Compensation from Executives of Failed Financial Institutions I hope this does not apply to any of you, but on Tuesday, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to clarify application of the orderly liquidation authority contained in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, "Orderly Liquidation Authority" (OLA).

In a previous Financial Services Flash, we brought to your attention the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the case ofIn re Tousa. In a decision that raised serious concerns for lenders in the United States, Justice Olson held that the first and second ranking secured lenders of Tousa Inc. (“Tousa”) did not act in good faith and were grossly negligent in providing Tousa with a secured loan less than six months before Tousa filed for bankruptcy.

The 2010 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corp. (Trustee of) considered the role of a trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court and its obligation to act fairly and with integrity throughout bankruptcy proceedings.

On February 22nd, the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the liquidation of Lehman Brothers' broker-dealer business denied motions seeking to modify the order approving the sale of the business to Barclays Capital. The Court noted the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the sale, the affirmance of that sale order, and movants' failure to challenge the order for one year. The court held that even if the evidence presented here were known in 2008, the result would have been the same, i.e., the sale would have been approved.

On February 16th, the Third Circuit addressed an issue of first impression and held that the discounted cash flow method was the proper measure of damages under Bankruptcy Code Section 562 when a market price cannot be determined. The parties had entered into a $1.2 billion repurchase agreement for a portfolio of home mortgages. On the day the debtor defaulted, the distressed state of the credit markets made it commercially unreasonable for the purchaser to sell the portfolio and the market price would not reflect the asset's worth.