BCLP Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments

Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments

Secured Transactions

Main Content

How to Lose a Receiver in One Appeal

February 6, 2019

Categories

How to Lose a Receiver in One Appeal

February 6, 2019

Authored by: Keith Aurzada

The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.  (And by the way, check out a prior post by my colleague Brad Purcell on “Fourteen Ways to Appoint a Receiver in the Lone Star State.”)  Although this post focuses on Texas law, the statutes governing most states and federal receiverships have similar requirements.

The general receivership statute in Texas allows for the appointment of a receiver under a number of conditions including[1] an action by a creditor to subject any property or fund to his claim if the creditor has a probable interest in or right to the property or fund and the property is in danger of

In a Case of First Impression, the Ninth Circuit Begins to Unravel the Mystery of When a Claim to Enforce a Rescission Request under TILA May be Time-Barred

Editor’s Note:  Our good colleagues at BankBCLP are always at the forefront of matters of concern to the banking and financial services community; this blog post first appeared on BankBCLP.  Consumer financial services remains a morass of challenging rulings and regulations.  Jim Goldberg from BCLP’s San Francisco office provides some guidance on a recent TILA decision on the right of rescission.

An action by a Washington state borrower to enforce a request for rescission of a loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) is analogous to an action to enforce a contract and must be brought within the Washington state statute of limitations for such a contract claim, given that TILA itself does not provide a limitations period.  Hoang v. Bank of America, N.A., 2018 WL 6367268 (9th Cir. December 6, 2018).

To effect rescission of a loan under TILA,

Distressed Step-In as a Remedy for UK Lenders

This article first appeared in Corporate Rescue & Insolvency, December 2018.

Key points

  • Step-in is a versatile tool which gives a lender the right, in certain circumstances, to step-in to a contract between a borrower and its contractual counterparty, and to perform the borrower’s part of the bargain to keep the contract alive.
  • It can have much less impact on the actual project or development than the commencement of formal insolvency proceedings, thereby minimising loss.
  • Step-in won’t be right for all situations (or for all lenders) and, where there is distress, additional risk factors need to be brought in to a consideration of the lender’s options.

Introduction

Step-in is a self-help remedy. It is a creature of contract and, in a finance structure, gives lenders the right, in certain circumstances, to step-in to a contract between a borrower and its contractual counterparty, and perform the borrower’s part of

Singularis v Daiwa: UK banks beware!

Editors’ Note:  The Global Restructuring and Insolvency Developments team of BCLP presents this very concerning opinion for any financial institution that operates in the United Kingdom.  Specifically, in Singularis Holdings Ltd (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd (copy of the ruling is here), the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) considered a bank’s duty, commonly known as a Quincecare duty, to protect companies from fraud by authorised officers.  Robin Ganguly and Alexandra Kirby of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s London office present the GRID readers with a summary and the key takeaways of this ruling.

Key points

  • Banks (and other financial institutions) have a duty to protect companies from fraud by authorised officers although the extent of the duty will depend upon the services being provided.
  • An objective test needs to be satisfied as to whether there were reasonable grounds for the

Circuit Split – Allowing Receiverships by Contract

“I think now that I’m older, I do think I’m the greatest receiver to ever do it.” -Randy Moss, Receiver, probably not talking about Fed. R. Civ. P. 66.

Editors’ Note: Will Easley of our Kansas City restructuring & insolvency practice knows about NFL receivers.  He also knows about the far more exciting receivers appointed under Federal Rule 66.  If you want to talk about either, or both, give him a call!

Even if you know the best receivers in the game, they cannot preserve your collateral if a court will not appoint them. In federal court, a receiver is usually only appointed when the plaintiff shows fraud or other threat to the collateral.  For creditors who have the Randy Moss (or the objectively better Jerry Rice) of receivers, and a provision allowing appointment in the loan documents, this may come as a shock. Currently, there is

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case Due to Lack of Corporate Authority to File (and provides a blueprint for veto powers over bankruptcy filings?)

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Franchise Services of North America, Inc. (“FSNA”) was once one of the largest rental car companies in North America. Id. at 203.  In 2012, FSNA desired to purchase Advantage Rent-A-Car and enlisted an investment bank, Macquarie Capital (U.S.A.), Inc. (“Macquarie”), to assist. Macquarie created a fully-owned subsidiary, Boketo, LLC (“Boketo”), to make a $15 million investment in FSNA.

In exchange for the capital infusion, FSNA gave Boketo 100% of its preferred stock in the form of a convertible preferred equity instrument.

Reverse Mortgage Update: New York Law Mandates New Foreclosure Notices and Certificate of Merit

Editors’ Note:  While this post is not a per se bankruptcy issue, matters on consumer financial services are always in the curtilage of bankruptcy and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Our BCLP consumer financial services colleague Cathy Welker is an expert in this area, advising banks, servicers, and other financial institutions on the Byzantine regulatory world they face, not only in New York where she practices but also at the federal level.  Likewise, BCLP’s Dallas office enjoys the benefits of Greg Sachnik, a former senior banking executive deep in the front lines of TILA, RESPA, deceptive trade practices, wrongful foreclosure, and fair debt collection.  We appreciate seeing this update from them, especially as reverse mortgage issues grow exponentially – according to one study, reverse mortgage foreclosures increased by over 600 percent in recent years.  So we are pleased to re-publish it here, and for you to read

Clear Error They Say! Supreme Court Opines On Standard Of Review For Determining Non-Statutory Insider Status

Pictured:  Reno Nevada’s The Villages at Lakeridge, a great investment for non-statutory insiders, or for anyone else!!

 

Last April, we updated you that the Supreme Court had granted review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our most recent post is here.

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court held a clear-error standard of review should apply to a review of a determination of non-statutory insider status. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509, ___ S. Ct. ___2018 WL 1143822, at *2 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018).

As a refresher, in Village at Lakeridge, in exchange for $5,000, an insider (Bartlett) transferred a $2.76 million claim against the debtor to an individual (Rabkin) who was not a statutory insider. 

Bankruptcy Court Reluctantly Allows Creditor To Shuck “Lil’ Sweet Pea” Accounts

Any first-year law student could attest that understanding what the law is can be a difficult task, in part because the law is not always applied consistently by courts.  This problem gives rise to a maxim law professors often invoke (sometimes citing Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, a proponent of this maxim) when questioned about the law’s occasional incoherence: “hard cases make bad law.”[1]  The idea is that courts are sometimes tempted to skirt the proper application of the law when the result seems harsh or unfair.  Typically, this happens when a court is faced with a particularly sympathetic party who happens to be on the wrong side of the dispute.  Although the court’s desire to avoid a harsh outcome is laudable, if the court allows this desire to distort its interpretation of the law it allows other (often less sympathetic) parties to avoid proper application of the law

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.