Banks regularly enter into commercial relationships with their customers such as opening new depository accounts. These relationships are often contractual in nature and seem relatively straightforward until an unexpected incident occurs that causes the relationship to unravel. What then are the duties owed by each party to each another? The default rule seems to be that the terms and conditions that the parties agreed to at first govern the parties’ actions throughout their banking relationship.
In December 2017, Congress passed and President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 (TCJA). Effective as of Jan. 1, 2018, the TCJA is a wide-ranging change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Tax Code) affecting individual, corporate, and international taxation.
Lost amongst the many commentaries are two changes that have a negative impact on business debtors under the Bankruptcy Code: (1) reduction of the corporate tax rates and (2) elimination of the ability to carry back net operating losses.
Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that overdraft payments advanced by Banks which are later repaid by their customer constitute preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. In re Agriprocessors, Inc., involved a meat packing company which periodically overdrew its bank accounts, and the bank issued provisional credit to cover the overdrafts. The bank initially denominated those overdrafts as “intraday” overdrafts until the midnight settlement deadline, at which point they became “true” overdrafts.
Can a bankruptcy trustee recover a fraudulent transfer made six, eight, ten years ago? Bankruptcy courts around the country are answering that question with a resounding “yes”, so long as the IRS holds an unsecured claim against the debtor. If more courts arrive at this conclusion, creditors face the risk that trustees will step into the shoes of the IRS to borrow its ten-year statute of limitations for the recovery of fraudulent transfers.
The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1] These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e). Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .
On March 8, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) finalized certain changes to its mortgage servicing rules. The Bureau issued a final rule1 to provide mortgage servicers with more flexibility and certainty regarding requirements to communicate with borrowers under the CFPB’s 2016 mortgage servicing amendments.
Background
On February 1, 2018, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Georgia in In re: Kenneth R. Pierce found that the printed name on the debtor’s driver’s license was the name that was important for Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) security interest perfection purposes (No. 17–60154–EJC, 2018 WL 679677 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Feb. 1, 2018)).
Summary: A California appellate court has held that a lender that allegedly directed its borrower to default on her loan in order to qualify for a home mortgage modification may be held liable in tort for its mishandling of her application, because the lender exceeded the role of a conventional lender. [Rossetta vs. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2017 Westlaw 6422567 (Cal.App.).]
Context
If you are a licensee under a trademark license, what happens to your license if the licensor winds up in the Bankruptcy Court? A recent United States Circuit Court case demonstrates how uncertain the answer is at this time.
Some bankruptcy basics