The United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s holding that an insured’s claim was barred under the title insurance policy’s exclusion for title risks “created, allowed, or agreed to by” the insured. SeeMoser v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 2018 WL 1413346 (E.D. Tex Mar. 21, 2018). Kernel and Stanley Thaw (the “Thaws”) were a married couple, and in 2008 a creditor brought an action against Stanley seeking repayment of a debt.

In a decision approved for publication, New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently remanded an action to the Chancery Division in order to determine whether a lender improperly collected more than one-hundred percent of the debts owed to it. SeeBrunswick Bank & Tr. v. Heln Mgmt. LLC, 2018 WL 987809 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 21, 2018). In the case, the lender made five construction loans to two entities, which were guaranteed by the entities’ principal and his daughter.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently affirmed a trial court’s order granting a title insurance company summary judgment based on a defect that a survey of the premises would have shown. SeeKreider v. Correia, 2018 WL 359285 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 11, 2018). In the case, the plaintiff insured purchased a property after the lender had obtained it via a foreclosure (the “Property”). Before plaintiff purchased it, the real estate agent informed him that the Property included a two-car garage and some other surrounding land.

Encrypted digital currencies (“cryptocurrencies”),1 particularly Bitcoin, have recently become the target of enormous international speculation and market scrutiny. Some expect cryptocurrency payments and other transactions tracked via distributed ledger technology (“DLT”, of which “blockchain” technology is one example) to be the future of commercial interaction. The theory is that cryptocurrencies could become “the holy grail of commerce – a payment system that would eliminate or minimize the roles of third party intermediaries.”2

An equipment finance company finances the purchase of a truck and registers a purchase-money security interest (a “PMSI”) pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) to protect its interest. The truck breaks down and is taken in for repairs. While the truck is in the shop, the debtor defaults under its lending arrangements with the equipment finance company.

In a January 31, 2018 decision from the bench in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. (Court File No. CV-14-10784-00CL) (“A-1 Asphalt”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) held that the deemed trust provisions of subsection 8(1)(a) of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) were not, on their own, sufficient to create a trust recognized in a contractor’s bankruptcy or proposal proceedings.

Until a court orders otherwise, a monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is a neutral party and may not take sides in favour of one stakeholder over another.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin recently held that a creditor did not perfect its security interest in the debtor’s property because the creditor inadvertently included a space in the debtor’s name in its UCC financing statement. SeeUnited States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. ISC, Inc., 2017 WL 3736796 (W.D. Wis. 2017). In the case, the creditor filed a UCC financing statement with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) regarding an interest it had in certain assets of the debtor, ISC, Inc.

Secured creditors have taken note and expressed concern regarding a recent decision from the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”), which has upended conventional wisdom regarding the priority and treatment of GST/HST arrears in a bankruptcy. In Canada v.

The United States District Court for Nevada recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s decision and held that a title insurance company’s bankruptcy claim was not barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because, among other reasons, it was not a party to the underlying state court action. SeeCommonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Creditor Grp., 2017 WL 4683968 (D. Nev. Oct. 17, 2017). In the case, two individuals (the “Owners”) formed two companies (the “Companies”) to purchase and develop property.