For the second time in a single litigation (Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners, LLC, et al. v. James Schwebel, Esq., et al.), the Minnesota Supreme Court will consider the propriety and permissible scope of private...more
A New York federal court ruled that a pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) and mortgage loan purchase agreement (MLPA) that select New York as their governing law may not require application of New York’s statute of...more
The Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York provided guidance to banks regarding payment notices in the case of In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers after Citibank erroneously transferred over...more
A New York court has determined that certificateholders in Article 77 proceedings may recover their attorney’s fees in “unique” cases where their efforts increase overall recoveries to the trust....more
After nearly 10 years of litigation, the Second Circuit has weighed in on an appeal in an adversary proceeding arising out of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. The August 11, 2020, decision confirms that a trustee’s termination...more
Can a Trustee prosecute fraudulent transfer and tortious interference claims if no event of default on the notes it oversees has yet occurred? This was the question of first impression (at least in New York) recently...more
The concept of default-rate interest — interest that accrues on a debt at a higher-than-normal rate if the debtor defaults on terms of the underlying financial instrument — is well known. Default-rate duties, however, may be...more
For many, the term “champerty” might be more readily associated with Monty Python whimsy than sophisticated legal argument. And while champerty is in fact an “ancient legal doctrine” that finds its genesis in medieval...more
Three recent corporate trust decisions provide insight into issues of jurisdiction, standing of indirect holders and the authority of limited direct certificateholders to direct trustees. The U.S. Supreme Court has left alone...more
A Petition for Certiorari is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association, asking the Court to consider the constitutionality of whether...more
To be an “interested person” under the Minnesota Trust Code, a party must have a property right in or claim against the assets of the trust arising out of the trust instrument itself, not merely a possibility of becoming a...more
On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that an unaccepted offer to satisfy a named plaintiff’s individual claim does not render a case moot. The Court also held that sovereign...more
1/21/2016
/ Campbell Ewald v Gomez ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Representatives ,
Federal Contractors ,
Mootness ,
Rule 68 ,
SCOTUS ,
Settlement Offer ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
TCPA ,
Text Messages
On June 22, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175, holding that facial challenges can be brought under the Fourth Amendment and that a municipal ordinance requiring hotel operators to...more
6/23/2015
/ City of Los Angeles ,
City of Los Angeles v Patel ,
Due Process ,
Fourth Amendment ,
Guest Registry ,
Hotels ,
Judicial Review ,
Local Ordinance ,
Right to Privacy ,
SCOTUS ,
Warrantless Searches
On June 22, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kinsgley v. Hendrickson, No. 13-1175, holding that to prove an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee need show only that an officer’s deliberate use of force was...more
6/23/2015
/ Detainees ,
Due Process ,
Excessive Force ,
Fourteenth Amendment ,
Harmless Error ,
Jury Instructions ,
Kingsley v Hendrickson ,
Legitimate Business Interest ,
Objective Unreasonableness Standard ,
Police ,
SCOTUS
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc,. et al., No. 12-1497, holding that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) does not apply to civil claims brought under the False...more
On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp et al. v. Dudenhoeffer et al., No. 12-751, holding that a fiduciary of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) is subject to the same duty of prudence that...more
On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Halliburton Co. et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., holding that plaintiffs in securities fraud class action cases may continue to invoke Basic Inc. v. Levinson's rebuttable...more