When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate. This decision should be required reading for all lenders since, in the matter before the Seventh Circuit, the banks’ failure to investigate their borrower’s questionable activity caused the banks to lose their security and have their secured loans reduced to unsecured claims.

The insolvency administrators (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”) of the company Santa Teresa Materiales de Construcción S.L. (hereinafter “the Company”) sought the declaration of invalidity of the transaction undertaken by the Banco Santander S.A. (hereinafter, “the Bank”) classified by the Plaintiff as debt offset.

Hypo Group Alpe Adria AG, an Austrian banking group, was nationalized by the Austrian government in 2009 in order to avert a bank collapse. The Austrian province of Carinthia owned the bank until 2007 and the guarantees given by Carinthia for the bank’s debt still amount to several times its annual budget, which has made the winding-down process more complicated because sharing the losses with bondholders would lead to significant claims against Carinthia.

In FDIC v. AmTrustFinancial Corporation, the Sixth Circuit considered the results of the very first trial in the nation under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(o). Section 365(o) is an infrequently litigated provision of the Bankruptcy Code that requires a party seeking Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to fulfill “any commitment . . .

When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer?  How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”?  A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate.

In re Sentinel Management Group – The Decision

On 13 July 2010 Germany's Federal Ministry of Justice and Finance published a discussion draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of a Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation (Restructuring Act).

Owners of small business entities are frequently required to guaranty the debts of such entities.  Those business entities might later file for Chapter 11, and may be able to achieve confirmation of a plan to restructure their indebtedness.   The question then presented is whether this confirmation event affects the separate guaranty obligations of the owners?  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this issue in In re: Larry

On 13 July 2010 the Federal Ministry of Justice and Finance (Bundesministerien für Justiz und Finanzen) published a discussion draft of an Act for the Restructuring and Orderly Liquidation of Credit Institutions, for the Establishment of a Restructuring Fund for Credit Institutions and for the Extension of the Limitation Period of Corporate Law Management Liability (Restructuring Act) (Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Restrukturierung und geordneten Abwicklung von Kreditinstituten, zur Errichtung eines Restrukturierungsfonds für Kreditinstitute und zur Verlängerung der Verj

On 1 April 2015, responsibility for consumer credit in the UK transferred from the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) to the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). A consequence of this was to replace the OFT’s Consumer Credit Act licencing scheme with the FCA’s authorisation scheme under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).

On 28 June 2010 a motion was passed by the European Parliamentary Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs requesting that the European Parliament pass a resolution enabling the European Commission to prepare draft legislation on cross-border crisis management in the financial sector. The proposed framework would encompass amongst other things: