The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued the first appellate decision holding that, in actions brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the officers and directors of failed banking institutions can assert affirmative defenses relating to the FDIC’s post-receivership conduct.

Does a lender have a duty to act in good faith when negotiating with a  borrower during a commercial loan modification?  In an order issued recently by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in In re: Burcam Capital II, LLC, the court denied a lender’s motion to dismiss a borrower’s claims against the lender.  The Borrower alleged that the lender’s failure to modify the terms of the loan constituted a breach of the lender’s obligation to deal with the borrower in good faith, as well as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.&nbs

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that Illinois mortgages entered prior to the amendment of 765 ILCS 5/11 need not strictly conform to the form presented in the statute. In re Crane, --- F.3d ---, 2013 WL 6731850 (7th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013). However, the court’s decision in Crane, considered as a whole, serves as a reminder to secured lenders to closely examine the contents of their mortgages and the requirements of applicable state law.

Many loan agreements include clauses that permit borrowers to repay debt prior to the maturity date only if they make additional payments that are typically referred to as “prepayment premiums” or “make-whole payments.” The purpose of such prepayment premiums is to compensate lenders for what would otherwise be the loss of their bargained-for yields for the scheduled lives of their loans.

Nearly two years ago, a bankruptcy court in the Central District of Illinois caused quite a bit of commotion in the lending community when it held that the provisions of Section 11 of the Illinois Conveyances Act (the “Act”) (765 ILCS 5/11) were mandatory rather than permissive.  Crane v. Richardson (In re Crane), 20121 WL 669595 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Feb. 29, 2012).

Part Two of a Two-Part Article

Last month, we discussed “prepayment premiums” or “make-whole payments.” The purpose of such prepayment premiums is to compensate lenders for what would otherwise be the loss of their bargained-for yields for the scheduled lives of their loans. Prepayment premiums are usually either based on a fixed fee, such as a percentage of the principal balance at the time of prepayment, or a yield maintenance formula that approximates the lenders’ damages in the event of prepayment.

Over the past week, Fannie Mae has announced numerous servicing policy changes through a series of Servicing Guide Announcements.

Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., 68 A.3d 197 (2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that a lender’s security interest in accounts was not perfected because a reference to “proceeds” in the lender’s UCC financing statement did not expressly refer to “accounts.” The Sixth Circuit surprisingly interpreted the definition of “proceeds”1 in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code to exclude “accounts”2 (despite and without reference to provisions of UCC Article 9 to the contrary).