Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

abiu worked as a bank teller, 2003-2007. He searched account records for account holders with balances exceeding $100,000, then stole their information and, along with codefendants, compromised that information to divert money into fraudulently opened bank accounts. Postal inspectors lawfully searched his home and seized notes containing names, Social Security numbers, and account information of 86 customers, and an unspecified number of fake driver’s licenses and Social Security cards bearing the names of some of those customers, but only 17 customers suffered a loss. The losses were reimbursed by the banks. Rabiu pleaded guilty to bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1344, 1029(a)(2), 1028A(a)(1), admitting participation in the scheme, but insisting that some of the names and identifying information on the phony driver’s licenses and Social Security cards were fictitious and not from customers. The government successfully sought a four-level upward sentencing adjustment under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) based on 50 or more victims. The government cited a definition of “victim,” which, for offenses involving identity theft, was broadened in 2009, after Rabiu’s arrest, to include “any individual whose means of identification was used unlawfully or without authority.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the court overstated the number of victims, it was clear that the judge would have imposed the same sentence even had he accepted Rabiu’s calculation; the error was harmless. View "United States v. Rabiu" on Justia Law

BNY, as Trustee of an investment portfolio of collateralized loan obligations, initiated an interpleader action to resolve a contract dispute between certain shareholders and the manager of that portfolio, Franklin. At issue were the terms of the indenture and, specifically, terms governing distribution of a Contingent Collateral Management Fee, which was payable to Franklin only if distributions reached a twelve percent internal rate of return (IRR). The court granted the partial summary judgment to Franklin and the denial of summary judgment to the Shareholders, as well as the award of attorneys fees and costs. The court vacated, however, the award of statutory prejudgment interest with instruction to award prejudgment interest actually accrued on the fee owed to Franklin, to be paid from the court's account. View "Franklin Advisers, Inc. v. CDO Plus Master Fund, Ltd." on Justia Law

Dayton Title brokered real estate closings and had a trust account at PNC Bank for clients’ funds. In 1998-1999, Dayton facilitated bridge loans from defendants to Chari, from $1.9 million to $3.2 million, for commercial real estate purchases. Defendants would deposit funds into Dayton’s PNC account, which Dayton would transfer to Chari. Chari’s loan payments would pass through Dayton’s account. The first six bridge loans were paid, but not always on time. Defendants provided Chari another bridge loan, for $4.8 million. After the due date, Chari deposited a $4.885 million check into Dayton’s account. The PNC teller did not place a hold on the check. On the same day, Dayton “pursuant to Chari’s instructions” issued checks to defendants. PNC extended a provisional credit for the value of Chari’s check, as is standard for business accounts. After the checks were paid, PNC learned that Chari’s check was a forgery drawn on a non-existing account, exercised its right of “charge back” on the Dayton account, and regained about $740,000 of the provisional credit. Dayton was forced into bankruptcy. Chari declared bankruptcy and was convicted of racketeering, fraud, and forgery. Dayton’s bankruptcy estate and PNC sued, seeking to avoid the $4.885 million transfer to defendants as fraudulent under 11 U.S.C. 548 and Ohio Rev. Code 1336.04(A)(2). The bankruptcy court held that all but $722,101.49 of the transfer was fraudulent. The district court held that all but $20,747.13 of the transfer was not fraudulent. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, reinstating the bankruptcy court holding. Dayton did not hold the provisional credit funds in trust; the funds were not encumbered by a lien at the time of transfer. The funds were “assets” held by Dayton, so the transfer satisfied the statutory definition of “fraudulent.” View "In re: Dayton Title Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

Green sued under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1606, claiming that U.S. Cash Advance misstated her loan’s annual percentage rate. The lender requested arbitration under the loan agreement, which referred to “binding arbitration by one arbitrator by and under the Code of Procedure of the National Arbitration Forum.” The agreement was signed in 2012; the Forum has not accepted new consumer cases for arbitration since 2009, when it settled a suit alleging bias in merchants’ favor. The lender asked the court to appoint a substitute arbitrator under 9 U.S.C. 5. The judge declined, stating that identification of the Forum as arbitrator was “integral.” The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the agreement calls for use of the Forum’s Code of Procedure, not for the Forum itself to conduct proceedings. The court noted that the lender will have to “live with” the judge’s broad discretion in choosing an arbitrator, who might be familiar with practices in the payday loan industry or open to use of claimant classes in arbitrations, perhaps on a theory “that a consumer who would not voluntarily waive her rights under the Truth in Lending Act probably should not be deemed to have implicitly waived her right to the only procedure that could effectively enforce those rights.” View "Green v. U.S. Cash Advance IL, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Chase under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1641(g), alleging that Chase did not comply with disclosure requirements when it did not inform them that it had been assigned an interest in their mortgage. The court concluded that the assignment was an "administrative convenience" within the meaning of section 1641(f) because the assignment allowed Chase to perform foreclosure, a requirement of servicing the loan. Accordingly, Chase was not subject to the disclosure requirements and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Chase. View "Reed, Jr., et al. v. Chase Home Finance, LLC" on Justia Law

In a contract dispute related to the funding of the development of the Fountainebleau Resort in Las Vegas (the Project), Term Lenders appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank. The court concluded that under the Disbursement Agreement the Bank was permitted to rely on the Borrowers' certifications that the conditions precedent were satisfied unless it had actual knowledge to the contrary. The court also concluded that there remained genuine issues of material fact about whether the Bank had such knowledge and whether its actions amounted to gross negligence. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Term Lenders' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the district court's interpretation of the Bank's obligations under the Disbursement Agreement. The court reversed, however, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bank and the court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America, NA" on Justia Law

An Illinois judgment creditor may, without court action, require a third party to freeze property of a judgment debtor until a court determines whether the creditor has a valid claim, by serving the third party with a citation to discover assets. If the third party releases the property without court order, the third party may be liable to the creditor for property that was released. Mendez was awarded $387,931 in damages for unlawful abuse suffered at the hands of her employer. She served more than 50 citations to discover assets on the employer and banks where she believed the defendants had deposited assets. She successfully fought the employer’s fraudulent attempt to declare bankruptcy. She has recovered only $99,519.97. Mendez served Republic Bank a citation, requiring the bank to freeze accounts held under the names of 22 entities that Mendez believed contained assets belonging to her former employers. Republic Bank froze all of the listed accounts. Interveners, who owned only a subset of the accounts frozen, obtained a court order that the bank claims unambiguously required it to unfreeze all accounts, except two that were specifically mentioned as remaining frozen. The Seventh Circuit held that Republic Bank is not liable because the most reasonable reading of the order unfroze the accounts in question. View "Mendez v. Republic Bank" on Justia Law

This case concerned the withdrawal liability for a pro rata share of unfunded vested benefits to a multiemployer pension fund of Scott Brass, Inc. (SBI), a bankrupt company. SBI had withdrawal pension obligations to the multiemployer pension fund (TPF), which sought to impose the obligations on two private equity funds (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs asserted they were passive investors that indirectly controlled SBI and sought a declaratory judgment against the TPF. The TPF counterclaimed and sought payment of the withdrawal liability at issue. The district court entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, holding (1) at least one of the private equity funds that operated SBI sufficiently operated and was advantaged by its relationship with SBI, and further factual development was necessary as to the other equity fund; (2) the district court erred in entering summary judgment for Plaintiffs under the "trades or businesses" aspect of a two-part "control group" test under 29 U.S.C. 1301(b)(1); and (3) the district court correctly entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs on TPF's claim of liability on the ground that the funds had engaged in a transaction to evade or avoid withdrawal liability. Remanded. View "Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, appealed from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff sought an Order to Show Cause, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from levying against his SSI benefits to enforce a child support order. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 659(a) authorized levy against SSI benefits provided under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., to satisfy the benefits recipient's child support obligations. The court concluded that SSI benefits were not based upon remuneration for employment within the meaning of section 659(a); section 659(a) did not preclude plaintiff's claims; and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the exception to federal jurisdiction for divorce matters did not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment to the extent the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the agency defendants and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against Bank of America because his complaint had not alleged facts establishing that the bank was a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Sykes v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) initiated an unlawful detainer action against Appellant, claiming ownership of Appellant's home pursuant to a trustee's deed it obtained from ReconTrust, a national bank that conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in its capacity as trustee of the trust deed that Appellant had executed to secure her mortgage. After an immediate occupancy hearing, the district court entered an order of restitution requiring that Appellant vacate her home. At issue on appeal was whether ReconTrust had authority to conduct the foreclosure sale and convey Appellant's home to the FNMA where Utah Code 57-1-21 and 57-1-23 limits the power of sale to trustees who are either members of the Utah State Bar or title insurance companies with an office in Utah. The district court concluded that ReconTrust, as a national bank, was authorized to conduct the sale under federal law and that federal law preempted Utah law. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order of restitution, holding that the relevant Utah statutes were not preempted by federal law, and therefore, a national bank seeking to foreclose real property in Utah must comply with Utah law. Remanded. View "Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Sundquist" on Justia Law