SEC and FDIC Propose Dodd-Frank Broker-Dealer Resolution Rules

On April 6, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) rescinded Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 50-2009 entitled “Enhanced Supervisory Procedures for Newly Insured FDIC-Supervised Depository Institutions.” The FIL, among other measures, had extended the de novo period for newly organized, state nonmember institutions from three to seven years for examinations, capital maintenance and other requirements.

The recent decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ECP Commercial II LLC v. Town Center Flats, LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC), gives us at the Weil Bankruptcy Blog a reason to revisit the issue of “absolute” assignments of rent.

Creditors seeking to exercise control over a borrower or collateral may utilize a number of remedies. They may seek a foreclosure or UCC sale, assignment for the benefit of creditors, file an involuntary bankruptcy petition under Section 303 of the Bankruptcy Code (if they hold unsecured claims),[1] or, seek the appointment of a receiver.

In MERV Properties, L.L.C. v. Forcht Bancorp., Inc. 2015 WL 5827775, 61 BCD 170 (Bankr. 6th Cir. 2015), the 6th U.S. Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed summary judgment entered by the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in favor of defendant bank on plaintiff borrower’s fraud and collusion claims.

It always starts so easy. Borrower comes in and wants to borrow money. Lenders want some form of collateral to secure (potentially) a loan and the Borrower happily agrees to provide, or pledge, collateral to secure a loan. Common examples are the Borrower pledging inventory, equipment or receivables (assuming of course there is no real estate to lien with a mortgage). Lender, either internally, or with outside counsel, prepares the necessary security agreement to document the pledge of collateral. This is generally the description of a secured transaction.

Creditors of a Chapter 11 debtor asserting “state law, constructive fraudulent [transfer] claims … are preempted by Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e),” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 29, 2016. In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, 2016 WL ____, at *1 (2d Cir. March 29, 2016), as corrected.

Two recent court decisions may affect an equity sponsor’s options when deciding whether and how to put money into - or take money out of - a portfolio company. The first may expand the scope of “inequitable conduct” that, in certain Chapter 11 settings, could lead a court to equitably subordinate a loan made by a sponsor to its portfolio company, placing the loan behind all of the company’s other debt in the payment queue. The second decision muddies the waters of precedent under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code on the issue of the avoidability of non-U.S.

Lenders of troubled mortgages upon Massachusetts real property should carefully review their mortgages to avoid potential invalidation of such mortgages in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy courts in Massachusetts have led the charge in avoiding mortgages containing defects in notary clauses.

Massachusetts law requires that a validly executed acknowledgement be attached to a mortgage as a prerequisite to recording the mortgage in the registry of deeds.

In Providence Hall Associates Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the Fourth Circuit denied plaintiff’s attempt to receive a second bite at the apple, finding that plaintiff’s lawsuit was appropriately dismissed by the district court on res judicata grounds.