On April 30th, the FDIC issued a final rule that treats a mutual insurance holding company as an insurance company for purposes of Section 203(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The new rule clarifies that the liquidation and rehabilitation of a covered financial company that is a mutual insurance holding company will be conducted in the same manner as an insurance company.
In the recent decision in In Re Duckworth (March 22, 2012), the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of Illinois issued a decision that may have far reaching effects on some lenders using automated loan documentation software1. In this case, the State Bank of Toulon (the “Bank”) generated loan documents for a $1.1 million agricultural loan.
In a ruling on February 29, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois allowed a bankruptcy trustee to avoid an Illinois mortgage as to other creditors of the estate because the mortgage failed to expressly state the maturity date of and interest rate on the underlying debt (In Re Crane, Case 11-90592, U.S. Dist Ct, C.D. IL, February 29, 2012).
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois recently held that an Illinois mortgage is subject to avoidance in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) unless the mortgage contains among other things, (i) the amount of the debt, (ii) the maturity date of the debt, and (iii) the underlying interest rate. Richardson v. The Gifford State Bank (In re Crane), Adv. Pro. No. 11-9067 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.).
On March 26, 2012, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware refused to rule that, as a matter of law, payments made to satisfy a debtor’s obligations under a letter of credit constitute “settlement payments” protected from avoidance under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. EPLG I, LLC v. Citibank, National Association et al. (In re Qimonda Richmond, LLC, et al.), No. 09-10589, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 1264 (Bankr.
The proliferation of limited recourse financings popularized in the commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS) loan market through the financial innovation of loan securitization may be in jeopardy following the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Wells Fargo, N.A. vs. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership.1 If the Michigan decision is widely followed, an array of unanticipated consequences may arise that could have profound effects on the debt capital markets generally and on single purpose entity (SPE) borrowers in particular.
Introduction
Earlier this month, we reported to you on the bipartisan legislation introduced in the Michigan Legislature known as the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act (the “Act”).
The Act has been approved overwhelmingly by both chambers of the Michigan Legislature and will be presented to the Governor’s office for signature. It is expected that the legislation will be signed into law within the next several business days.
On March 20, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed a rule (Proposed Rule), with request for comments, that implements section 210(c)(16) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act or the Act) , which permits the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States (a covered financial company), to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates of the covered financial company despite contract clauses that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide
On March 13, 2012, Judge Richard J.