Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

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

Trustee sued on behalf of victims in the Ponzi scheme worked by Bernard Madoff under the Securities Investor Protection Act (SIPA), 15 U.S.C. 78aaa, alleging that, when defendants were confronted with evidence of Madoff's illegitimate scheme, their banking fees gave incentive to look away, or at least caused a failure to perform due diligence that would have revealed the fraud. The court concluded that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred the Trustee from asserting claims directly against defendants on behalf of the estate for wrongdoing in which Madoff participated; SIPA provided no right to contribution; and the Trustee did not have standing to pursue common law claims on behalf of Madoff's customers. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Trustee's claims. View "In Re: Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities" on Justia Law

Gaia and State Street were bound by a mezzanine loan agreement with Lehman Brothers to help finance the construction of a residential building in Manhattan. At issue on appeal was whether equitable estoppel, principles of good faith and fair dealing, or general principles of equity prevented State Street from keeping the Accrued Interest. The court concluded that Gaia could not rely on equitable estoppel to recover the Accrued Interest because Gaia did not demonstrate an omission or misrepresentation by State Street on which Gaia reasonably relied to its substantial detriment; State Street was entitled to act in its own self-interest and require payment of the Accrued Interest, even if such action lessened Gaia's anticipated profits, because State Street acted consistently with the contract and did not violate a presumed obligation or Gaia's reasonable expectations; State Street's actions were not taken in bad faith; State Street did not unlawfully demand payment of the Accrued Interest and it was not liable for the Doral damages; and the Professional Fee provision applied in this action and State Street was entitled to Professional Fees incurred as a result of this litigation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Gaia House Mezz LLC v. State St. Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for remand to state courts. This is an interlocutory appeal of a question certified by the district court, calling for interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. 632. Whether the district court's denial of remand was proper turns on whether the dispute falls within section 632. The court concluded that the dispute did not fall within section 632's grant of jurisdiction so that removal from state to federal court was not authorized by the statute. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order denying remand. View "AIG v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

These appeals, heard in tandem, challenged two separate judgments entered in the district court in favor of TD Bank and Capital One, respectively, dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the banks violated Article 52 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), as amended by the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), 2008 N.Y. Laws Ch. 575. Plaintiffs, as judgment debtors, alleged that the banks failed to provide them with certain required notices and forms, restrained their accounts, and assessed them fees, all in violation of the EIPA. Because these appeals presented unresolved questions of law, the court reserved decision and certified the issues to the New York State Court of Appeals. View "Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq., against UBS, alleging that plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist attacks in Israel facilitated by UBS's furnishing of United States currency to Iran, which the U.S. Department of State had listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiffs contended principally that the FAC alleged a chain of causation between transfers of funds to Iran by UBS and plaintiffs' injuries at the hands of various terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, sufficient to establish traceability for purposes both of standing and of stating a claim under the ATA. The court concluded that the FAC was sufficient to show Article III standing but insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rothstein v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from defendant's arrest for bank fraud. The government appealed the district court's denial of its motion in limine to admit a state court temporary restraining order as evidence against defendant. The court held that, because the government was seeking to admit the state court order for a non-hearsay purpose and because the district court's analysis pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 403 did not account for the order's probative value if offered to show knowledge, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Dupree" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed claims against Wachovia for willful noncompliance with certain provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(a) and for common law defamation. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that there was no private cause of action for violations of section 1681s-2(a). Because the complaint only alleged violations of 1681s-2(a)(1), (2), and (8), the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's claims under the Act. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend in regards to plaintiff's failure to state a claim under section 1681s-2(b) in light of plaintiff's delay and the prejudice to Wachovia. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Longman v. Wachovia Bank NA" on Justia Law

LSED sought to rescind an agreement to purchase bond insurance from FGIC and recover its $13 million premium payment. LSED based its claim on failure of cause, a tenet of Louisiana law that required all contracts be supported by cause. Because the court found that the principal cause of the agreement between the parties was the purchase of bond insurance to protect the bondholders in the event of default, not to reduce the interest rate LSED paid to borrow money, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "In Re: Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Argentina appealed from permanent injunctions entered by the district court designed to remedy Argentina's failure to pay bondholders after a default in 2001 on its sovereign debt. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined Argentina from making payments on debt issued pursuant to its 2005 and 2010 restructurings without making comparable payments on the defaulted debt. The court held that an equal treatment provision in the bonds barred Argentina from discriminating against plaintiffs' bonds in favor of bonds issued in connection with the restructurings and that Argentina violated that provision by ranking its payment obligations on the defaulted debt below its obligations to the holders of its restructured debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court; found no abuse of discretion in the injunctive relief; and concluded that the injunction did not violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. However, given the need for clarity as to how the injunctions were to function, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law