In 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Mann v. Badger Lines, Inc. (In re Badger Lines, Inc.), 224 Wis. 2d 646, 590 N.W. 2d 270 (1999), in which it addressed a question certified to it by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Does Wisconsin law require that a lien obtained by a judgment creditor who institutes supplementary proceedings under Wisconsin Statutes section 816.04 be perfected, and if so, how is the lien to be perfected?
Banks, insurance brokers, and other agents can breathe a sigh of relief as the Fourth Circuit enabled the “mere conduit” defense to survive another day. The Fourth Circuit has long recognized the proposition that an avoidable transfer cannot be recovered, pursuant to section 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, from a transferee who acted as a “mere conduit” for another party having the direct business relationship with the debtor.
Reaffirmation agreement becomes effective upon filing with the Court if represented by an attorney and not presumed an undue hardship. Per the reaffirmation agreement language set out in the Code, “…No court approval is required if your reaffirmation agreement is for a consumer debt secured by a mortgage, deed of trust, security deed, or other lien on your real property, like your home.” § 524(k)(3)(J)(i)7.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in July of 2014 that will make life for judgment creditors much more complicated. On July 15, 2014, the court issued Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. v. Town Bank, 2014 WI 63, ¶ 25, ___ Wis. 2d _____ and Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 23-25, 38, ____Wis. 2d ______. These cases change the way judgment creditors must act to obtain a priority interest in the personal property of a debtor.
On July 29, the CFPB and 13 state AGs announced a consent order that requires a consumer lender currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy to provide $92 million in debt relief for about 17,000 U.S.
As the wave of litigation spawned by the 2008 financial crisis begins to ebb, insurance-coverage litigation arising out of the credit crisis continues unabated. Financial institutions have successfully pursued insurance coverage for many credit-crisis claims under directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies that they purchased to protect themselves against wrongful-act claims brought by their customers, but in response, some insurers continue to raise inapplicable exclusions in an attempt to diminish or limit coverage for their policyholders.
From the consumer plaintiffs’ perspective, a recent appellate decision in Rundgren v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA, is far from Utopia.
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on July 21, 2014, held that an indenture trustee’s late filing of senior claims did not waive the lenders’ contractual subordination rights, reversing the bankruptcy court. In re Franklin Bank Corporation, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98327 (D. Del. July 21, 2014). Nor did the senior trustee’s late filing show inequitable conduct warranting equitable subordination of the tardily filed senior claims to timely filed junior claims.
In the world of bank holding company bankruptcies, often a dispute arises between the parent company and the FDIC (as receiver for parent’s failed bank subsidiary) over the ownership of the tax refunds issued to the bank’s consolidated group pursuant to a consolidated tax return.
On July 22, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a bank’s motion to dismiss a putative class action adversary proceeding alleging that certain of the bank’s credit reporting practices violated U.S. bankruptcy law. In re Haynes, No. 11-23212, 2014 WL 3608891 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 22, 2014).