Last week, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) filed two new motions in its ongoing Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court litigation against approximately 130 loan originators and brokers: (1) an Omnibus Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaints Pursuant to Rule 7015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint”); and (2) a Motion for Leave to Amend and Extend the Scope of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Orders for Indemnification Claims of the Debtors against Mortgage Loan Sellers (“ADR Motion”).

On March 8, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded a lengthy “claims estimation” trial to determine the appropriate final settlement price for a resolution of lawsuits filed on behalf of investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) created by Lehman Brothers Holdings prior to its bankruptcy in September 2008. The judge determined that the final settlement value of this particular set of claims was $2.38 billion – down from the $37 billion initially demanded, and the $11.4 billion sought by the plaintiffs in this claims estimation trial.

Thousands of mortgage lenders across the country either recently received, or will soon be receiving, this document from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).

Wednesday, February 1 brought a welcome development for the many correspondent lenders currently defending against claims filed by (or threatened with future lawsuits by) Residential Funding Company (“RFC”) and its successor-in-interest, the ResCap Liquidating Trust (“ResCap”).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

It is estimated that there were almost 40,000 Protected Trust Deeds (“PTD”) entered into between 2005 and 2010. Similar to an IVA, a PTD is a voluntary arrangement in which the debtor conveys his estate to an insolvency practitioner (“the Trustee”) to be held on trust for the benefit of creditors. A large number of those who enter into a PTD do so because of borrowing that they have incurred on credit cards.

Despite the improvement in the economy since the advent of the “Great Recession,” many businesses nevertheless continue to struggle. Accordingly, lenders are well advised to stay up to date on  “best practices” when facing a potential restructure of a troubled loan. In a series of posts, we will address a number of considerations in dealing with a post default loan situation.

Part 1. Good Faith Obligations

In an effort to minimize the risk of loss in connection with a loan default, lenders often employ creative means to make it difficult, if not impossible, for a borrower to file bankruptcy. Lenders are generally aware that the right to seek bankruptcy protection is a fundamental constitutional right, given the inclusion of Congressional power to establish uniform laws on bankruptcy set forth in Article 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

A creditor who settles with a debtor during a bankruptcy case must be sure to continue following the case during the plan stage, or risk the plan affecting the creditor’s rights against third parties.  Iberiabank learned that lesson the hard way, after a plan was confirmed in the chapter 11 case of FFS Data, Inc.