Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Alpine Vision entered into loan agreements with Prinsburg State Bank's predecessor in interest. Several individuals (Guarantors) executed personal guarantees for the loans. Knighton Optical subsequently purchased Alpine Vision and defaulted on the loans. Prinsburg sued the Guarantors to recover the balance. Prinsburg then sold the collateral but did not apply the sale's proceeds to the outstanding balance of the loans. The Guarantors objected to the sale. After the district court denied all but one of Prinsburg's claims on summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a list of statements consistent with the district court's findings and conclusions, and additionally to a statement that resolved the remaining claim in favor of the Guarantors. The district court accepted the parties' stipulations and summarily denied all of Prinsburg's claims. The court of appeals declined to consider Prinsburg's arguments on appeal, concluding that the parties' stipulations unambiguously resolved the case and precluded appellate review. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that, because Prinsburg stipulated to the district court's resolution of this case, it was estopped from challenging that resolution on appeal. View "Prinsburg v. Abundo" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the good faith requirement of 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 extended to third parties and requires that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. The trial court found the interest of Plaintiff-Appellee Bank of Beaver City (Bank) in the livestock of cattle operation and debtor Lucky Moon Land and Livestock, Inc. (Lucky Moon) to be superior to that of another creditor of Lucky Moon, Defendant-Appellant Barretts' Livestock, Inc. (Barretts). The Bank alleged that in 2004 it perfected a security interest in all of Lucky Moon's livestock, including all after-acquired livestock, giving it a superior claim to cattle purchased by Lucky Moon from Barretts to satisfy the debt owed by Lucky Moon to the Bank. Barretts asserted that the Bank did not have priority over it because the Bank was not a good faith secured creditor. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Bank's perfected security interest had preference over Barretts' unperfected security interest. Barretts appealed, contending that Bank did not have a superior security interest because: 1) the Bank's security interest never attached; and 2) the Bank had not acted in good faith. The Court of Civil appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Bank sought certiorari, contending that: 1) the case presents an issue of first impression as to when good faith under 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 should be determined; 2) Bank's security interest never attached; and 3) the Court of Civil Appeals' decision was inconsistent with a different decision of the Court of Civil Appeals on which the court relied. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that 12A O.S. 2011 section 2-403 did not extend to third parties nor require that the third party be notified of a debtor's financial condition. View "Bank of Beaver City v. Barretts' Livestock, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002, Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) created the "Dante Programme" by which certain special purpose entities issued notes of collateralized debt obligations (the Notes). The Notes were purchased by appellants as well as other investors. The same special purpose entities entered into a swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Incorporated (LBSF) whereby LBSF agreed to pay amounts due under the Notes in exchange for certain interests in the collateral that secured the Notes. Appellants and LBSF had competing interests in the Collateral. LBSF subsequently commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court against the trustees of the Dante Programme and the issuers of the Notes, seeking declaratory relief with respect to priority in the Collateral. The court held that in the circumstances here, the bankruptcy court's denial of appellants' motions to intervene in the adversary proceeding was a final appealable order. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from the ruling of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment to SunTrust and denying summary judgment to debtors, on debtors' adversary complaint that challenged SunTrust's standing to enforce a promissory note and deed of trust on debtors' property, and sought to remove the deed of trust from the chain of title to such property. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that SunTrust was entitled to enforce it and the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court properly used evidence from the affidavit of SunTrust's representative and properly applied judicial estoppel. View "Knigge, et al v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

EAR, a seller of manufacturing equipment, defrauded creditors by financing non-existent or grossly overvalued equipment and pledging equipment multiple times to different creditors. After the fraud was discovered, EAR filed for bankruptcy. As Chief Restructuring Officer, Brandt abandoned and auctioned some assets. Five equipment leases granted a secured interest in EAR’s equipment; by amendment, EAR agreed to pay down the leases ($4.6 million) and give Republic a blanket security interest in all its assets. Republic would forebear on its claims against EAR. The amendment had a typographical error, giving Republic a security interest in Republic’s own assets. Republic filed UCC financing statements claiming a blanket lien on EAR’s assets. After the auction, Republic claimed the largest share of the proceeds. The matter is being separately litigated. First Premier, EAR’s largest creditor, is concerned that Republic, is working with Brandt to enlarge Republic’s secured interests. After the auction, EAR filed an action against its auditors for accounting malpractice, then sought to avoid the $4.6 million transfer to Republic. The bankruptcy court approved a settlement to end the EAR-Republic adversary action, continue the other suit, divvy proceeds from those suits, and retroactively modify the Republic lien to correct the typo. First Premier objected. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. First Premier was not prejudiced by the settlement. View "First Premier Capital, LLC v. Republic Bank of Chicago" on Justia Law

Four named plaintiffs filed three separate class action lawsuits in state court alleging, inter alia, that three Missouri credit unions, by participating in a subprime motor vehicle lending and investment program administered by now-bankrupt Centrix Financial, LLC, violated provisions of the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code (Mo UCC) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA). Defendants removed under the Class Action Fairness Act and moved to dismiss the complaints. The district court issued three identical orders dismissing all the state law claims. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the three appeals and affirmed, holding that plaintiffs' Mo UCC claims were time-barred and that the MMPA expressly exempted Missouri credit unions. View "Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union" on Justia Law

Over seven days in 2009, Ocean Bank authorized six apparently fraudulent withdrawals, totaling $588,851.26, from an account held by Patco, after the perpetrators correctly supplied Patco's customized answers to security questions. Although the bank's security system flagged each transaction as unusually "high-risk" because they were inconsistent with the timing, value, and geographic location of Patco's regular orders, the system did not notify commercial customers of such information and allowed the payments to go through. Ocean Bank was able to block or recover $243,406.83. Patco sued, alleging that the bank should bear the loss because its security system was not commercially reasonable under Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 11, 4-1101) and that Patco had not consented to the procedures. The district court held that the bank's security system was commercially reasonable and entered judgment in favor of the bank. The First Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on commercial reasonableness and remanded for determination of what, if any, obligations or responsibilities Article 4A imposes on Patco. View "Patco Constr. Co., Inc. v. People's United Bank" on Justia Law

Griffin, a futures commission merchant, went bankrupt in 1998 after one of its customers, Park, sustained trading losses of several million dollars and neither Park nor Griffin had enough capital to cover the obligations. The Bankruptcy Court first relied on admissions by the controlling Griffin partners that they failed to block a wire transfer, allowing segregated customer funds to be used to help cover Park’s (and thus Griffin’s) losses. On remand, the court reversed itself and held that the trustee failed to establish that the partners actually caused the loss of customer funds and failed to establish damages. The district court affirmed, applying the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code to a series of transactions that was initiated by the margin call that caused Griffin’s downfall. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that there is no reason why the transactions at issue (which involved banks in England, Canada, France, and Germany, but not Illinois) would be governed by Illinois law. The Bankruptcy Court’s first decision appropriately relied on the partners’ admission that they failed in their obligation to protect customer funds, which was enough to hold them liable for the entire value of the wire transfer. View "Inskeep v. Griffin" on Justia Law

This case presented a battle between banks over the proceeds of the sale of cattle by a financially strapped borrower who had financial dealings with both banks. When Security Savings Bank (Security) obtained the proceeds of the sale, Peoples Trust and Savings Bank (Peoples) claimed a security interest in the proceeds and sued for conversion. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Peoples. After Security appealed, Peoples commenced garnishment proceedings against Security to enforce its judgment, and Security paid the underlying judgment. The court of appeals then determined that Security had waived its right to appeal and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a defendant faced with post-judgment garnishment does not waive a pending appeal by paying the judgment in order to avoid further enforcement proceedings; and (2) the district court correctly determined that Peoples had a security interest in the proceeds superior to Security's interest and that Peoples did not waive its superior position through its course of conduct. View "Peoples Trust & Savings Bank v. Sec. Savings Bank" on Justia Law

Principals of Cybercos defrauded lending institutions out of more than $100 million in loan. In 2002, Huntington granted Cyberco a multi-million-dollar line of credit, and Cyberco granted Huntington a continuing security interest and lien in all of Cyberco's personal property, including deposit accounts. After discovering the fraud, the government seized approximately $4 million in Cyberco assets, including $705,168.60 from a Huntington Bank Account. Cyberco principals were charged in a criminal indictment with conspiring to violate federal laws relating to bank fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Count 10 issued forfeiture allegations against individuals regarding Cyberco assets, including the Account. In their plea agreements, defendants agreed to forfeit any interest they possessed in the assets or funds. The district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture with regard to the assets, including the Account. Huntington filed a claim, asserting ownership interest in the forfeited Account. The district court found that Huntington did not have a legal claim. On remand, the district court again denied the claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed. A party who takes a security interest in property, tangible or intangible, in exchange for value, can be a bona fide purchaser for value of that property interest under 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(6)(B). View "United States v. Huntington Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law