On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”1 where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.
Lenders take note—a state court has held that in some circumstances a refinancing transaction can extinguish an original guarantee.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 30, 2007, affirmed the dismissal of a lender liability class action brought by employees of a defunct originator and seller of mortgages and home equity loans. 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20791 (2d Cir. August 30, 2007). Agreeing with the district court, the Second Circuit held that the lender was not an "employer" within the meaning of the Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), and thus was not liable to the employees for the sudden loss of their jobs. Id., at *2.
Organizations that acquire claims in bankruptcy should acquire such claims by a sale without knowledge of the debtors’ claims against the original holder or prior transferees, and obtain an indemnification from the transferor of such claims.
On October 3, 2007, legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate to amend provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that currently prevent homeowners from using bankruptcy to modify mortgage loans secured by their primary residence. Proponents of the legislation believe that permitting homeowners to modify mortgage loans in bankruptcy will encourage lenders to engage in voluntary modifications prior to bankruptcy.
A recent ruling by a federal court in New York has the potential to severely impact the $500 billion a year distressed debt market.
The United States Supreme Court held that reckless violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) constitute a willful failure to comply, subjecting violators to liability for actual damages, statutory penalties and potentially punitive damages. Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Burr, 551 U.S. _____ (June 4, 2007).
District Judge James D. Zagel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 9, 2007, ordered a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to "immediately" pay its so-called "commitment" and "DIP Facility Funding" fees. ("Loan Fees"). Arlington LF, LLC, v. Arlington Hospitality, Inc., 2007 WL 3334499 (N.D. Ill. 11/9/07). Reversing the bankruptcy court, the district court held that the DIP was not excused from paying the fees despite the lender's earlier refusal to advance further funds on its $6 million revolving loan agreement ("Revolver"). Id. at 5.
January 8, 2008 A Delaware bankruptcy court decided on Friday that mortgage servicing rights could be severed from a mortgage loan repurchase agreement that fell within applicable safe harbors of the Bankruptcy Code, at least where the loans were transferred “servicing retained.” The decision isCalyon New York Branch v. American Home Mortgage Corp., et al. (In re American Home Mortgage Corp.), Bankr. Case No. 07-51704 (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 4, 2008).
Late last year, government responses to the subprime mortgage crisis proliferated but most attention focused on those measures that could be, and in some cases were, rapidly implemented — measures like the Treasury Department’s urging holders of certain subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) to freeze interest rates temporarily or the Federal Reserve’s proposed tightening of lending requirements.