Introduction

After months of drama prompted by the intertwined destinies of a constitutional referendum and the recapitalization of Monte dei Paschi di Siena (“MPS”), Italy’s third largest bank, and following the resignation of the Renzi government, the first important measure approved by the new Italian cabinet was an emergency decree aimed at safeguarding the Italian banking sector.

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 Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of a mortgagee that failed to meet the FHA requirement to either have a face-to-face meeting with the borrowers or to make “a reasonable effort” to arrange a face-to-face meeting before filing foreclosure, because doing so would have been a futile act after the borrowers’ mortgage loan debt was discharged in bankruptcy and they did not reaffirm the debt.

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.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently allowed a debtor to modify his confirmed Chapter 13 plan based upon a mistake by the debtor’s counsel. The result of the modification was to reduce the plan to 36 months from 60 and reduce the repayment to unsecured creditors by 80 percent.

A copy of In re Luman is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that “escrow funds, insurance proceeds, or miscellaneous proceeds” are protected by the anti-modification provisions for Chapter 13 bankruptcies as “incidental property” under the definition of “debtor’s principal residence” in the federal Bankruptcy Code.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank’s relationship with a software services company, under which the software services company required its customers to use the bank for the depositary services ancillary to the software, did not violate anti-tying provisions of the federal Bank Holding Company Act, at 12 U.S.C. § 1972.

A federal district court recently rejected the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s attempt to hold a buyer of assets liable for the seller’s unfunded defined benefit plan liabilities under a successor liability theory.[1] While the court decided the issue in favor of the buyer, it is a cautionary tale for buyers as it appears to be the first time the PBGC has argued for the application of successor liability in this context and is a depar

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (“TIA”) provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the right of a holder of an indenture security to receive principal and interest payments, or to institute suit to enforce such payments after they become due, shall not be impaired or affected without such holder’s consent. Market participants had long viewed Section 316(b) of the TIA as a “boilerplate” provision, contained or incorporated by reference in most high yield indentures, that protected only a bondholder’s right to bring suit to enforce payment obligations.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday in Midland Funding v. Johnson. A primary issue before the Court is whether the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is violated by the filing in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of a proof of claim representing a debt subject to an expired limitations period. The case originated from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which along with its earlier decision in Crawford v. LVNV, held the FDCPA is violated in those instances. Every other Circuit Court of Appeals has since found otherwise.