Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against Countrywide, alleging violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), 516.231 to 408.241 RSMo. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims as barred by the three-year statute of limitations of section 516.130(2). The court concluded that the MSMLA was subject to the three-year limitations period of section 516.130(2), not the six-year statute of limitations under section 516.420, pursuant to Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union. The court also concluded, under Missouri law, that the "entire damage" to plaintiffs was capable of ascertainment "in a single action" and the "continuing or repeated wrong" exception did not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Washington, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Deutsche Bank appealed the dismissal of its claims against the FDIC. At issue was whether Deutsche Bank's claims were general unsecured claims under 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(11) and thereby prudentially moot because of the lack of sufficient funds in the estate to pay unsecured claims. The court concluded that, because Deutsche Bank was a quintessential creditor, its claims were third-tier general unsecured liabilities under section 1821(d)(11)(A)(iii), and the district court properly held that Deutsche Bank's claims were prudentially moot, as there were insufficient funds to satisfy general unsecured liabilities. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

The Comptroller of the Currency found that petitioner, as the CEO and a director of the Bank, had engaged in a pattern of willfully misrepresenting the Bank's capital reserves to the OTS and the Bank's board of directors, and he issued orders prohibiting petitioner from participation in the affairs of any federally insured financial institution and assessing a civil penalty of one million dollars. Petitioner sought dismissal of the Comptroller's decision and orders, inter alia, on the grounds of legal error in relying on later-developed standards in the OTS New Directions Bulletin of 2009 when there were no clear standards at the relevant times, and in applying a "should have known" scienter standard in findings that required a more demanding level of scienter. The court concluded that petitioner failed to show that the stringent statutory requirements of 12 U.S.C. 1818 for an order of prohibition were not met. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Dodge v. Comptroller of the Currency" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the Citibank defendants engaged in tortious conduct and breached contractual obligations owed to him in connection with private equity investments in Brazil. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of the complaint. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. 632, because plaintiff's claims arose out of a foreign financial operation. The court also concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's tort and contract claims against the Citibank defendants under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wilson v. Dantas" on Justia Law

To safeguard investors and restore trust in financial markets after the Enron collapse, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which provides that no public company nor any contractor or subcontractor of such a company, may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of whistleblowing activity, 18 U. S. C. 1514A(a). Plaintiffs are former employees of FMR, private companies that contract to advise or manage mutual funds. As is common in the industry, those mutual funds are public companies with no employees. Plaintiffs allege that they blew the whistle on putative fraud relating to the mutual funds and suffered retaliation by FMR. FMR argued that the Act protects only employees of public companies, and not employees of private companies that contract with public companies. The district court denied FMR’s motion to dismiss. The First Circuit reversed, concluding that the term “an employee” refers only to employees of public companies. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that section 1514A’s whistleblower protection includes employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors. FMR’s interpretation would shrink the protection against retaliation by contractors to insignificance. The Court stated that its reading fits the goal of warding off another Enron debacle; fear of retaliation was the primary deterrent to reporting by the employees of Enron’s contractors. FMR’s reading would insulate the entire mutual fund industry from section 1514A. Virtually all mutual funds are structured to have no employees of their own and are managed, instead, by independent investment advisors. View "Lawson v. FMR LLC" on Justia Law

Amzak appealed the district court's summary judgment on its loan loss claims against its title insurance policy provider and related entities. The court concluded that Amzak failed to show that it suffered actual loss because of a failure of title and STL could not be held responsible for any harm suffered by Amzak. The court formalized the holding in First State Bank v. American Title and likewise rejected the guarantee rationale of Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., and agreed with the district court's rejection of Amzak's argument that STL breached the title policy at the time of the loan because its mortgage was voidable at that time. The court also disposed of Amzak's negligence claim where STL's delay in making a complete filing of Amzak's mortgage was not a legal cause of Amzak's loss. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Amzak Capital Mgmt. v. Stewart Title" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the mortgage trust that claimed to hold his mortgage was not validly assigned the mortgage, and therefore, his mortgage could not be foreclosed by the trust. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, Wells Fargo. The court affirmed, concluding that the assignment to the mortgage trust was valid. Given the record, including the custodian's initial certification failing to list the promissory note as missing - which provided a strong inference that the note was not missing - and given the lack of any other reason to believe the note was or is missing, the court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that the original promissory note was not in the Trust's possession on the startup date of the Trust. View "Johnson, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 1989, Seamans received a Federal Perkins Loan of $1,180.00 from Temple University. The first payment was due in 1992. The loan was declared delinquent the following month. Nonths later, Temple notified Seamans that the account had been placed for collection. In 2010, Seamans enrolled at Drexel University. He sought a Pell Grant, but Drexel refused to provide with financial assistance until Seamans repaid the Temple Loan. In 2011, Seamans repaid that loan in full. Seamans then noticed a “trade line” on his credit report. The trade line may or may not have appeared on his credit report when the account was in default. Seamans formally disputed some of the information by contacting the credit reporting agency. Temple, had its loan servicer investigate, but resubmitted information virtually unchanged. Seamans again contacted Temple and credit agencies, to dispute the trade line. After a second investigation, Temple modified certain elements, but still did not report various details. There was evidence that Temple treated other disputes in a similar manner. Seamans sued, alleging that Temple negligently or willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681–1681x. The district court granted Temple summary judgment, finding that the Higher Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1001–1155, exempted Temple from FCRA compliance because the credit instrument was a Perkins Loan. The Third Circuit vacated, stating that Seamans’s dispute appears to have merit and that failure to report the dispute may constitute a material inaccuracy on his credit report. View "Seamans v. Temple University" on Justia Law

Deutsche Bank filed its 1999 Form 1120F (U.S. Income Tax Return of a Foreign Corporation), reporting total tax of $105,725,463, total payment of $188,256,721, including credit for taxes withheld at the source ($13,256,721), and a resulting overpayment of $82.5 million. Form 1120F does not itemize withholding credits, which were derived from Forms 8805 (Foreign Partner’s Information Statement of Section 1446 Withholding Tax) and 1042-S (Foreign Person’s U.S. Source Income Subject to Withholding) received from withholding agents. Deutsche Bank did not attach those forms . The IRS returned the filing, unprocessed, requesting documentation of the withholding credit. In its amended return, Deutsche Bank stated that it discovered an overstatement of the withholding credit by $11,240 and that the correct amount was $13,245,481. The IRS processed the resubmitted return without correcting the error and credited the overpayment to the 2000 tax year. Later, Deutsche Bank filed an amended 1999 return claiming an additional refund of $59 million based on a valuation adjustment. The IRS issued the refund and $5 million in overpayment interest for January 1, 2001 to November 14, 2002. The IRS denied its request for additional interest for March 15 to December 31, 2000. The Claims Court agreed. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating that the return was not filed by the extended return filing due date in processible form to commence the accrual of overpayment interest. View "Deutsche Bank AG v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs granted a mortgage on their property in Massachusetts to Ameriquest Mortgage Company, which assigned its interest in the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS). MERS later purported to assign Plaintiffs’ interest to HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (HSBC). HSBC subsequently began foreclosure proceedings on Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs filed an eight-count complaint against HSBC, claiming the assignment was void, and therefore, HSBC never acquired the mortgage to their property and had no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the assignment because they were not a party to the assignment, nor were they third-party beneficiaries of the assignment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) under Massachusetts law, homeowners in Plaintiffs’ position have standing to challenge a prior assignment of their mortgage on the grounds that the assignment was void, but because Plaintiffs did not set forth a colorable claim that the mortgage assignment in question was void, Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise certain claims; and (2) Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for promissory estoppel with respect to a loan modification. View "Wilson v. HSBC Mortgage Servs., Inc." on Justia Law