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).
Over the past week, Fannie Mae has announced numerous servicing policy changes through a series of Servicing Guide Announcements.
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.
Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., 68 A.3d 197 (2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In re WL Holmes LLC, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2013 WL 4019397 (3rd Cir 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).
11/13/13: “Goal for CFPB chief: Calming conflict on car loans”
In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.
In Burcam Capital II, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., et al, No. 13-00063-8 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. Oct. 1, 2013), an adversary proceeding filed in In re: Burcam Capital II, LLC, No. 12-04729-8, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the court held that the Debtor Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that its lender and the special servicer of the loan breached their duty to act in good faith and to deal fairly.