Lender Liability: Defending Against Attacks on Loans in Workout, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Lender Liability: Defending Against Attacks

• n Loans in Workout, Modification,

Default and Bankruptcy

Lessons From Recent Financial Litigation and Best Practices for Evaluating and Minimizing Claims Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's

• speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you

have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2014

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Zachary G. Newman, Partner, Hahn & Hessen, New York Richard Donovan, Member, Rose Law Firm, Little Rock, Ark.

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality

• f your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet

connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-888-450-9970 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of

attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form). You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner. If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-

hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a

PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.
• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

January 15, 2014 LENDER LIABILITY: DEFENDING AGAINST ATTACKS ON LOANS IN WORKOUT, MODIFICATION, DEFAULT AND BANKRUPTCY LESSONS FROM RECENT FINANCIAL LITIGATION AND BEST PRACTICES FOR EVALUATING AND MINIMIZING CLAIMS

6

This CLE live web seminar will analyze the most common types

• f lender liability claims, discuss how they are being asserted

in various phases of the lending cycle and in bankruptcy, and explain lessons learned from recent financial litigation. The panel will outline best practices to minimize and avoid the risk

• f lender liability claims.

Following the speaker presentations, you'll have an

• pportunity to get answers to your specific questions during

the interactive Q&A.

7

Your Moderator

Zachary represents public and private companies, national banking associations, commercial lenders, leasing companies, and hedge funds in business litigation throughout the United States. His practice focuses on

• Banking Litigation (enforcing multi-

million dollar credit facilities on behalf

• f national and regional banks and

institutional and specialty lenders, securing provisional remedies, and defending lender liability litigation);

• Commercial Litigation (litigating

contract disputes, commercial insurance claims, aircraft lease disputes, unfair competition and restrictive covenants, bankruptcy disputes, and judgment enforcement);

• Fiduciary Litigation (contested

accountings, Prudent Investor Act claims, and breach of fiduciary duty claims); and

• Art and Antique Litigation (national

and international reacquisition of lost

• r stolen art, repossessions and

liquidations, and disputes regarding valuations, fraudulent auctions, consignor-lender issues, and lien priority). Fordham University School of Law (’94) Co-Chair, Litigation Management Subcommittee of the America Bar Association Corporate Counsel Committee New York Metro Area Super Lawyers 2011, 2012, and 2013

212.478.7435 Znewman@ hahnhessen.com

8

Best Lawyers in America - 2006-2014 Editions - Commercial Litigation; Bet-the- Company Litigation, Litigation - Banking & Finance, and Litigation – Securities Chambers USA Leading Lawyers, 2004- 2013, Litigation: General Commercial Mid-South Super Lawyer Top 50 Lawyers in Arkansas, 2011-2013 Pulaski County, Arkansas, and American Bar Associations; Member, American Board of Trial Advocates; Master of the Bench, Henry Woods American Inn of Court; St. Thomas More Society, Member University of Arkansas, Bachelor of Arts, University of Arkansas, Juris Doctor (honors) Member, Arkansas Law Review

Guest Speaker

Richard Donovan

501.377.0325 rdonovan@ roselawfirm.com

9

Introduction to Our Program

10

• Banking, lending, financial services, and private equity

have been subject to substantial criticism:

• Websites (e.g., stopgreedybanks.com)
• Courts
• Borrowers
• Editorials
• Blogs
• The current economic environment has created heightened

tensions between lenders and borrowers

SCORECARD

11

ELECTED & COURT OFFICIALS ARE NOT RELUCTANT TO SPEAK THEIR MIND

• Representative Barney Frank, Chair of House Financial Services

Committee, recently had a “blunt” statement to Bankers:

• “People really hate you, and they’re starting to hate us because

we’re hanging out with you.”

• http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18372.html
• In an Orange County mortgage modification case, Justice Catherine M.

Bartlett cut off the bank lawyer who argued the proper documentation was not submitted and noted:

• You, she said, are telling me lies … [The bank] got a bailout, and

this is an outrage, how this man has been treated … Hard-working, middle-class Americans are trying to make it, trying to refinance with your bank … Either bank officials show up in person, or I’m going to

• rder them here in handcuffs.

12

“HE MUST HAVE DONE IT BECAUSE THEY DID IT”

• From A Recent Brief Filed By A Borrower

(A Lawyer, And A Former Bank Executive):

• Through its acts and omissions, [the Bank] – like so

many mortgage lenders and other banks in recent years – acted in bad faith and/or negligent manner to the detriment of [us borrowers] ....

• While courts in New York and elsewhere are holding

lenders accountable for such conduct, [the Bank] nevertheless seeks to shield itself from the consequences of its own actions ....

13

WHY THE RISE IN CLAIMS? HERE ARE SOME CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

• Borrowers are defaulting
• Distressed loans
• Secondary markets and assignments
• Constriction of availability / deepening insolvency
• Busy court dockets
• Deep pockets become the focus
• The plaintiff’s bar
• Club deals - participations - syndicated loans
• Underwriting criteria
• Health of the loan documents

14

LAWYER ADVERTISING AND BORROWERS FLEXING THEIR MUSCLES

• Google Answers Post:
• I am looking for examples of borrowers who have

(successfully) sued banks for issuing them a highly risky loan. I'd appreciate any pointers to U.S. legal precedence for action taken against a bank for giving someone a risky loan.

• http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=531128
• Times Magazine:
• Do banks, those powerful and wise institutions, sometimes

behave like bullies? While quite a few borrowers would say yes, U.S. banks have long seemed virtually immune to retaliation for heavy-handed tactics. Now, however, hundreds of borrowers are taking their lenders to court and winning.

• http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967374,00.html

15

THE STIGMA OF AFFIRMATIVELY ACKNOWLEDGING A DEBT IS NON-EXISTENT

• Danny Tarkanian, a U.S. Senate candidate, filed suit

against La Jolla Bank in Las Vegas seeking to avoid a debt noting:

• “It’s something happening quite a bit in this

environment … Unfortunately, we’re caught in the middle of it.”

• http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jan/22/tarkanian-family-sues-bank-avoid-propertys-

foreclo/

16

RISKS OF LENDER LIABILITY

• Delay in recovery
• Increased legal fees
• More extensive discovery required
• Imposition of counterparty legal fees
• Recharacterization of debt
• Equitable subordination
• Cancellation of debt
• Compensatory damages (lost profits – speculative)
• Reputational damage (fraudulent and predatory lending

claims)

• Client resources (witnesses; document production;

electronic discovery; in-house counsel)

17

SIGNIFICANT DELAYS IN RECOVERING LOAN BALANCES

• TSL (USA) Inc et al v. OppenheimerFunds Inc et al, New York State Supreme

Court, New York County, No. 600976/2010

• On the other hand, it may be difficult for a lender to recover if they lend funds under

circumstances in which they are found to have been without all material facts. The lenders alleged that Oppenheimer breached its duty under a certain administration agreement by failing to notify them of four amortization events that occurred as a result of non-conforming securities purchases, and two additional events when expenses exceeded revenue for certain transactions.

• The lenders claimed they continued lending without being told of the events, and

they could have terminated funding. The judge dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim with prejudice. No damages. The portfolio is performing and the theory of recovering loans lent is simply too speculative.

• Court acknowledged that the specific performance claim could be replead to permit

the lenders to claim Oppenheimer is obligated to replace the non-conforming securities with conforming securities.

18

TRENDING …

• Loan commitment & failing to lend issues
• Good-faith and fair dealing
• Exercise of control
• Cessation of funding
• Declaring defaults & loan modifications
• Waivers & financial covenants
• Fiduciary duty
• Roadblocks to recovery

19

LOAN COMMITMENTS, TERM SHEETS & THE “FAILURE TO LEND” CLAIMS

20

THE INITIAL LOAN DOCUMENTS PROVIDE A ROAD MAP FOR THE UNDERLYING LOAN TRANSACTION

• If a lender deviates from its commitment after it has been accepted

by the borrower, then the possibility for lender liability claims arises.

• What if underwriting and due diligence documents demonstrate that a

covenant is unattainable?

• Failing to fund will be inevitably challenged by the borrower in a

subsequent proceeding.

• Defaults can be many shades of gray.
• If a borrower acts in reliance on a bank officer’s oral promise to

make a loan, equity may intervene to protect the borrower.

• What about oral modification clauses?
• Issuance of a commitment letter or term sheet may require a lender

to pursue negotiations in good faith, even if market conditions have declined.

• Why can’t the lender simply shut down the negotiations?

21

CAN YOU ADVANCE TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, AND NON-PAYMENT DEFAULTS?

• The “material adverse change” clause.
• The MAC clause at issue provided that Wachovia may

terminate the LCA if there is material adverse change in the capital, banking and financial market conditions that could impair the sale of the loan by Lender as contemplated in the term sheet.

• Clear or not? Ambiguous or designed?
• The issue typically becomes whether MACs apply only to

unforeseeable events, or foreseeable events.

• In Capitol Justice LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., (D. D.C.

2009), the court said ambiguous because there is more than one interpretation that a reasonable person could assign to the MAC when viewing the contract in the context and circumstances surrounding the agreement.

22

LENDER’S CONDUCT, WAIVERS AND MODIFICATIONS

23

LOAN MODIFICATIONS IN CALIFORNIA

Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 213 Cal. App. 4th 872, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 546 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2013)

• Modified an entire body of case law by holding that

whether a lender can be liable for negligence is a question of fact. Thus, summary judgment is not necessarily available to easily dispose a disgruntled borrower’s negligence claims.

• Chase’s statements to the borrower that the requested

modification was “highly probable,” “likely” and “look[ed] good” were not just opinion, and could be fraudulent.

• The court: “[T]he world [has been] dramatically rocked

in the past few years by lending practices colored by short-sighted self-interest”

24

CALIFORNIA AGAIN? WHY IT SEEMINGLY DESPISES THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE

Riverisland v. Fresno-Madera Credit Assn. (Ca. 2013)

• Plaintiff filed an action for fraud and negligent

misrepresentation, alleging that the bank’s vice- president orally promised that the loan extension would be for two years and only required two additional property as additional collateral.

• Abrogated California case law from 1935, regarding

evidence offered to prove fraud for purposes of the parol evidence rule.

• Affirmed reversal of summary judgment for

defendant.

25

FLORIDA WEIGHS IN ON NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION In Dixon v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 710 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2010), the borrower argued the lender promised different financing terms from those included in the loan documents. The court barred the claim under the Banking Statute of

• Frauds. Furthermore, the

borrower could not establish reasonable reliance when the purported misrepresentation is contradicted by the express terms of the signed loan documents. In Coral Reef Drive Land Development, LLC v. Duke Realty Limited Partnership, 45

• So. 3d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA

2010), the Third District stated that “[t]he world of commercial real estate is not a warm and fuzzy place. That is why parties to substantial transactions consult counsel and prepare highly-detailed written agreements to address every contingency the parties and counsel can imagine.”

26

INCREASE IN CASES LEADS TO INCONSISTENT RULINGS AND INABILITY TO PREDICT OUTCOMES

• Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (4th Cir. Md. Apr. 19, 2013)
• Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). Passed as part of

Congress’s response to the financial and housing crisis that started in fall of 2008.

• Mortgagors brought breach of contract, negligence, and violation of Maryland

Consumer Protection Act claims when Wells Fargo rejected their application for a mortgage modification under HAMP.

• There is no privity of contract without a Trial Period Plan agreement.
• No private right of action for alleged failure to follow HAMP guidelines.
• Dismissal of all claims affirmed.

27

OTHER COURTS HOLD TRUE TO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES

• ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., (N.Y.
• App. Div., 1st Dep't May 14, 2013)
• Claims based on ABACUS CDOs were dismissed as

plaintiffs were found to be unable to plead justifiable reliance as it was “a highly sophisticated commercial entity” that could have verified the information it allegedly relied upon.

• Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall L.P., 2013
• Mich. App. LEXIS 651, 5, 2013 WL 1442053 (Mich.
• Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2013)
• Interesting case – involving a solvency covenant for a

single purpose entity.

28

GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

29

WHAT IS GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING?

• Can lenders rely on the terms of a loan agreement

when calling loans or otherwise enforcing their rights.

• How should concepts of good faith and fair dealing

impact your lending decisions? How can borrowers use this to their advantage?

• Given the current economic climate, borrowers are

alleging breach of good faith and fair dealing by lenders.

30

GOOD FAITH QUIZ

Gilmore v Ute City Mortgage Co, 660 F Supp 437, 442 (D Colo 1986) Finding that where lender rescinded commitment to lend and commitment was contingent upon lending committee approval, duty of good faith would not be met, and bank would have breached contract, if lender failed to submit commitment to lending committee. KMC Co v Irving Trust Co, 757 F2d 752, 759-60 (6th Cir 1985 Finding that even where literal terms of credit agreement allowed bank control

• ver customer’s receivables and operating credit availability, duty of good faith

required bank to provide notice and an opportunity to seek alternative financing before curtailing financing. Continental Cas Co v Fifth/Third Bank, 418 F Supp 2d 964, 973 (ND Ohio 2006) “’Mere failure to follow commercially reasonable banking procedures or to comply with its own policies’ does not per se equal bad faith” and concluding the bank had acted in good faith.

31

SUING LENDERS FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS?

Claim allowed?

• Lender’s alleged conduct of not providing borrowers with

correct loan information, refusing to modify loan, losing papers and documents, and threatening foreclosure was “not so

• utrageous” as to support claim for intentional infliction of

emotional distress.

• Borrowers’ negligent infliction of emotional distress claim

against lender failed where no physical impact alleged and no exceptions to impact rule applied. Echeverria v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Case No. 6:10-cv- 01933-JA-DAB (11th Cir. July 18, 2013) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim)

32

ACTIONS UNDER THE LOAN AGREEMENTS

Will a strict enforcement of terms and conditions form the basis for a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing?

• Bank of America, N.A. v. Shelbourne Development Group, Inc., (N.D. Ill.
• Mar. 3, 2011) (“As the Seventh Circuit explains, Illinois law holds that parties

to a contract are entitled to enforce the terms to the letter and an implied covenant of good faith cannot overrule or modify the express terms of a contract”).

• Interpharm, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2010) (Lender

liability claims dismissed to the extent that Wells Fargo had a right to threaten to do what it was legally entitled to do under the loan agreements).

• Roswell Capital Partners LLC v. Alternative Constr. Tech., (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

(Lender’s appointing two members to the Board of Directors, ownership of shares through the 2008 Funding were NOT an exercise of control, did not create a fiduciary duty, nor a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as they were merely an exercise of plaintiff’s contractual rights).

• Takeaway: Exercising contract rights to protect an investment should not

constitute bad faith.

33

LENDERS MUST BE MINDFUL OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING WHEN INTERACTING WITH BORROWERS

• A breach of this duty may be alleged as a defense or

claim in a later litigation

• Lenders should try to avoid:
• Deviating from an established course of dealing with

borrowers.

• Acting precipitously and, without warning, exercising

rights under loan documents or in accordance with depository set off language.

• Exerting undue control over borrowers.
• Demonstrating an unwillingness to negotiate or to

engage in meaningful workout discussions with borrowers.

34

CONTROL BY LENDERS

35

THE DANGER OF EXERCISING CONTROL

• Do lenders expose themselves to liability to borrowers and

potentially third parties if they exert undue control over borrowers?

• OVER THE LINE? Can lenders require borrowers to obtain

permission before making major changes in their business

• perations where such changes might affect the lenders’ security?
• OVER THE LINE? Can lenders dictate changes in borrowers’

business plans, sales and credit policies, and daily business practices?

• ′′[A] lender may offer advice and use the leverage which its position

gives it vis-a-vis the debtor, without being viewed as controlling the debtor, so long as the debtor continues to operate, and the management of the debtor continues to make its own business decisions.”

• Lender Liability: Law, Practice and Prevention, § 5.7-8

36

DEFINING CONTROL

• A determination of whether a lender has exerted undue control
• ver a borrower typically is factual in nature, but a number of

practices could raise red flags:

• Threatening the acceleration of a loan to influence borrowers’

decisions.

• Instituting mandatory financial plans on borrowers
• Deciding which of the borrowers’ creditors should be paid and in

what order.

• Making personnel decisions for borrowers.
• Advice relating to marketing, equipment purchasing, products,

location or expansion.

• A bank’s ′′right to receive regular financial reports and monitor

[the debtor’s] performance, and even to limit salaries paid . . ., was not at all unusual in the context of a commercial loan and [did] not create a fiduciary relationship′′

• Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Wayman, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 20, 606

N.E.2d 925, 928 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993)

37

ENDING THE RELATIONSHIP

• FAMM Steel Inc. v. Sovereign Bank, 571 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2009)
• Court dismissed the borrower’s claims that Sovereign had a

fiduciary relationship with them since there was no evidence that despite Sovereign’s insistence that the consultants be hired, that they were acting under the bank’s direction.

• The court noted that the lender’s actions took place while

FAMM was in default, and that the majority of the allegations were based on the lender’s failure to take actions that were not required under the loan agreements

• F.D.I.C. v. LeBlanc, 85 F.3d 815, 822 (1st Cir. 1996)
• Under Massachusetts, law no breach of the implied covenant in

a bank’s ′′hard-nosed′′ dealings with a borrower where it was undisputed that the bank did not take any of the adverse actions before the borrower defaulted.

• Plaintiffs raised new arguments on appeal based on Illinois law,

under which they asserted that the implied covenant requires a bank to exercise its discretion reasonably,

• BA Mortgage & Int’l Realty Corp. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co.
• f Chi., 706 F. Supp. 1364, 1373 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

38

CONTROL AS “UNCLEAN HANDS”?

• Domus, Inc. v. Davis-Giovinazzo Constr. Co., (E.D. Pa.
• Aug. 22, 2011)
• Creditors claiming priority to certain account receivables
• btained in an arbitration action alleged that the secured

creditor, Susquehanna had overstepped its authority by filing AAA Arbitration proceedings on behalf of the borrower.

• However, the Security Agreement explicitly allowed the bank

to step into the borrower’s shoes and collect amounts due to the borrower.

• Other creditors argued that Susquehanna had unclean hands

due to its failure to comply with the minority business enterprise certification requirements.

• The court however, rejected the argument as it found the

bank neither knowingly or intentionally failed to comply, and regardless, there was no evidence that it thus harmed the

• ther creditors.

39

LIABILITIES IN DEALING WITH COLLATERAL

• Environmental
• Ultimate Industries Site - October 2012 – Agreement by the

lender to pay for 10% of the costs incurred by the EPA in removing hazardous waste drums at a facility that had been

• wned by the defunct borrower.
• State of Ohio v. Estate of Roberts (Ohio 2010) – Court of

Appeals found that there were issues of fact as to whether the bank failed to properly dispose of the drums and allowed useful assets to deteriorate into hazardous waste

• After the bank had taken possession of the property, it in fall of

2004, the bank sold some of the equipment, and 2 of the 35 drums with usable chemicals, paint, and stain.

• Bank bought the property at the foreclosure sale but moved to

vacate the sale due to “newly discovered evidence.”

• The hole left by the sale of one piece of equipment led to a defect

and subsequent leak, resulting in black mold.

40

INDIRECT LIABILITY

• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Bulletin 2013-02, dated

March 21, 2013

• In auto financing, auto dealers often facilitate indirect financing by a

third party (who does not actually meet the consumer) by providing basic information regarding the applicant and in turn receiving offers to provide financing at a certain rate.

• Some indirect auto lenders allow dealers to mark up the interest rate

above the indirect auto lender’s rate and the difference is typically called the “reserve,” which becomes one way the auto dealer is compensated.

• The Bulletin warns that an indirect auto lender is a “creditor” under the

Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, national origin, and other prohibited bases, and thus could be liable under the Act.

• Creditor includes “any assignee of an original creditor who participates

in the decision to extend, renew, or continue credit.”

• Specifically, the Bulletin noted that the policy to allow auto dealer to

mark up lender-established rate and compensate dealers from the markups created incentives, which, coupled with the discretion permitted, that posed a significant risk of resulting disparities in the pricing of auto loans.

41

INDIRECT LIABILITY - SUCCESSORS

Drakopoulos v. U.S. Bank National Association (SJC Mass. July 12, 2013)

• Found that a bank, not the original lender but holder of a

residential mortgage through assignment and its servicer, was subject to claims seeking damages and rescission for violations of the Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the Borrower’s Interest Act.

• Court determined that the fact that the bank was the assignee and

not the original lender did not shield the bank from liability.

• The court absolved the servicer for claims arising from the actions
• f the original lender, as it was not an assignee

42

OVERREACHING OR JUST BUSINESS?

• Credit Suisse v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

(In re Yellowstone Mountain Club), Case No. 08-61570-11, Adv.

• No. 09-00014, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2047 (D. Mo. May 13, 2009)
• Facts:
• CS creates loan for property developers that allows them to take

most of the money in the form of a dividend. CS then sells off most

• f the loan to participants, externalizing all of the risk while keeping
• rigination fees for itself.
• CS markets loan to Yellowstone, a high end property development

with cash flow problems, and after aggressive pursuit, an agreement is reached to loan $375M secured by the property.

• Problem: Initial valuation of the property at “market value” was

$420M, making loan-to-value ratio too high for CS.

• Solution: CS invents the “Total Net Value” valuation method, applies

a discount rate of zero to Yellowstone’s cash-flows, and originates loan through an offshore subsidiary to avoid compliance with Financial Institutions Reform Act of 1989 methodology.

• CS collects $7.5M in fees and sells off all of the loan to third party

investors

43

WHAT ELSE ARE THOSE COUNTERPARTIES UP TO?

• Attack on jury waivers
• Reliance on state court claims to avoid the bounds of

the credit agreement (interference with business relations; fraudulent inducement; duress; forum shopping; deceptive business practices; frustration of performance; etc.)

• Impairing collateral
• Resorting to bankruptcy filings
• Multiple changes in counsel
• Rushing to the courthouse to file first
• Attacking legal fees incurred by the lender and other

loan administration expenses

44

FOCAL POINTS WHEN ‘LITIGATING LENDER LIABILITY CASES

45

POINT #1: TERM SHEETS AND LETTERS OF INTENT

• Clearly Identify Binding v. Non-Binding Obligations
• Agreeing to Negotiate?
• Use Separate Sheets for Binding and Non-Binding Terms
• Specific Terms v. Ranges
• Be Careful Using Phrases “I Agree” or “I will fund the loan if”
• Clearly spell out conditions to funding
• Conduct Matters
• Context of Statements
• Be Consistent in Statements to Borrowers
• Partial Performance?
• Industry Custom?
• Liability for Costs & Expenses
• KEEP IT SIMPLE

46

POINT #2: REVIEW DEFINITIONS OF COLLATERAL

• Actions can speak louder than words
• Can negotiated protections under loan agreements be waived by

lenders’ course of conduct with borrowers?

• Common Sense Rules:

1. Include express reservation of rights language in all written correspondence with borrowers. 2. Avoid informal modifications or waivers of agreement’s terms. 3. Include “no oral” waiver language in agreements and amendments. 4. Include settlement language in all documents and communications reflecting negotiations.

a) “Submitted in furtherance of settlement negotiations” b) Subject to FRE 408 / Inadmissible in Court”

5. Refrain from editorializing in internal documentation or correspondence with the borrower. 6. Put everything in writing! But be mindful that whatever is put in writing may end up in court even if the lender believes it is protected.

47

POINT #3: ENFORCEMENT AND LIQUIDATION PLANS

• Where to Enforce: Forum Selection Clauses
• What Country?
• What Court?
• State or Federal?
• Where and How Can You Serve Legal Papers, and Who Must Get

Them?

• Agents
• Registered Mail?
• Upon Default, What Are Your Rights?
• Right to Hold Collateral While Suing On Debt?
• Duty to Take Possession of Collateral?
• Right to Break and Enter?
• Consent to Immediate Attachment/Replevin even if counterclaims/defenses

to debt?

• Waivers?
• What is Commercially Reasonable?
• Private v. Public Sale?
• Notice obligations?
• Where Must Notice Be Given? Newspaper? Trade Journal?

48

POINT #4: E-MAILS

• E-mails are forever and are discoverable.
• E-mails are evidence.
• Be aware of course of conduct arguments.
• Often, e-mails are the best/worst evidence.
• E-mails never tell the full story, leaving much room for

interpretation.

• E-mails should only be used to confirm oral statements

from borrowers.

49

SIDEBAR: CAN E-MAILS MODIFY CONTRACTS?

• Stevens v. Publicis, S.A., 2008 NY Slip Op 2880, 3, 50 A.D.3d 253,

255-56, 854 N.Y.S.2d 690 (1st Dep't 2008)

• Found that e-mails from plaintiff to defendant agreeing to modification of

the contract were found to “constitute ‘signed writings’ within the meaning

• f the statute of frauds” and thus the contract, as modified was

enforceable

• Tomer v. Hollister Assocs., Massachusetts 2006
• Contract altered despite existence of a no-oral-modification clause

because the “Court considers e-mail communications, in which the sender and recipient are clearly identified, to constitute writings.”

• Lesson Learned: If you wouldn’t send it to your counterparty in hard-

copy form, don’t send it by e-mail.

• Treat e-mail and hard paper as the same thing.

50

POINT #5: DEFAULTS, WAIVERS, & AMENDMENTS

• Identify all defaults you discover, know and/or suspect
• Clearly indicate which defaults are being waived by section

and title

• Communicate with in-house counsel and do not spare the

details

• Waiver of defaults
• Make sure all amendments are defined and agreed to in

writing

51

POINT #6: PERFECTION: RECORD, MONITOR, & AUDIT YOUR SECURITY INTEREST, LIEN & COLLATERAL

• You cannot over-perfect
• File financing statements in each jurisdiction

where an issue of filing may arise

• Conduct reviews of UCC filing statements

concerning your debtor

• Inspect your collateral, and be vigilant about

missing items

• Knowledge of missing items + inaction ?=?

waiver

52

POINT #7: POSSESSION IS 9/10’S OF THE LAW?

• Get physical.
• Beware of unique collateral classes.
• If you can physically move the collateral, others can

too.

• In certain foreign jurisdictions, the first creditor to

take possession of collateral has priority rights to that collateral.

• Consider bailees and bailors.
• Keep it in the United States if possible.

53

POINT #8: FORBEARANCE AGREEMENTS

• Be careful not to create enforceable obligations to extend credit or

renew the loan. Do not make promises inconsistent with the terms of the agreement, or statements that may be construed as such.

• Acknowledgements concerning defaults and the amount of debt.
• Lock down the borrower. Use specific integration clause stating that

borrower has not relied on any promises outside of agreement. If orally negotiating, never agree to anything and state that internal approval is still required.

• Releases. Have borrower sign a broad release that specifically

precludes promissory fraud, misrepresentation, and language that could be construed as a covenant not to sue.

54

• Forbearance Period – stops the legal fees, the disputes, and cools

tempers

• Send follow-up emails after conversations stating that nothing is agreed to

without internal approval.

• Give all agreements to borrower in advance of closing to ensure time for
• review. Have borrower sign specifying that it has:
• Read and understands agreement,
• Consulted with counsel,
• Not relied on any promises other than in the agreement, and
• Has made their own investigations and that the failure to do so is no

defense to enforcement of agreement.

FORBEARANCE CONTINUED

55

POINT #9: VERIFY

• Due diligence
• Warranties and representations
• Release language
• Intercreditor Agreements
• Assignment documentation
• Collateral viability
• Boot collateral
• Guaranties

56 56

This presentation is not intended to provide, and should not be construed as providing, legal advice. This presentation may not reflect current legal developments, or laws or rules that may apply in particular jurisdictions. You should not act or refrain from acting based upon your use of this presentation, without first consulting with and engaging a competent, qualified, and licensed attorney who is authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction or jurisdictions of relevance to you. Hahn & Hessen, its lawyers, and Mr. Newman expressly disclaim all liability in connection with actions taken or not taken based on any or all

• f the content or information contained herein.

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING