Just a cross-posting note: Jonathan Lipson and I comment on the U.S. Supreme Court's Jevic decision at the Harvard Law School Corporate Bankruptcy Roundtable.
Just a cross-posting note: Jonathan Lipson and I comment on the U.S. Supreme Court's Jevic decision at the Harvard Law School Corporate Bankruptcy Roundtable.
Hard to believe it has been over a year since a creditor representative opposing H.R. 870 characterized chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy as "the Wild West" in Congressional testimony. Whatever uncertainties bankruptcy law contains (and, sure, they are not trivial), our symposium reveals that the true legal wilderness in government debt restructuring lies beyond the boundaries of title 11.
The full story offers plenty of caveats and risks for creditors - including that this approach could be considerably less protective of creditors' interests than bankruptcy - so do read the whole thing. Although the piece does not expressly mention the Executive Branch, prior Credit Slips posts (such as here) have illustrated the potential combination of the Administration's use of soft powers to promote restructuring efforts formally initiated by Puerto Rico - again, potentially without the creditor protections normally associated with bankruptcy and without other pieces of financial reform that many have advocated.
Chapter 11's ability to empower true reorganization has received much criticism of late in light of an increasingly held assumption that most Chapter 11 cases end in a 363 sale of the debtor's assets. Around this time last year, the American Bankruptcy Institute and the University of Illinois College of Law co-hosted a symposium dedicated to discussing secured creditors’ rights and role in modern Chapter 11. Papers from the symposium (including by Slips contributors) very recently became available here.
I was lucky enough to moderate a couple of the symposium panels. As I was listening to the discussion, I noticed that what I was hearing about secured creditors and 363 sales did not match what I had observed in my study of how religious organizations (mainly smaller churches) currently use Chapter 11. To accompany the release of the symposium papers, I wrote a short piece describing how secured creditors influenced religious organizations' Chapter 11 cases in ways that did not lead to widespread sales, but rather, plans and settlements.
Anyone who has ever litigated a valuation issue knows that valuation is more art than science. Experts often arrive at widely divergent valuations. Yet, these valuations are of the same company, for the same time period, based on the same data, and often invoke the same model. How then can the valuations be so different and, more importantly, which expert is right? Valuations of course can vary for a number of reasons, including different assumptions and inputs, and sometimes because of the methodology itself. But as one of my very astute students in Corporate Finance recently pointed out, valuations also likely differ because of the legal position (he actually used the term "self-interest") of the party employing the expert and offering the particular valuation into evidence.
Culminating a two-year appeals process, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just ruled that the statement filed to terminate a financing statement perfecting a security interest was effective. Yes, the parties intended to terminate a different financing statement, but that doesn't change the outcome under the facts of this dispute (these facts have been the subject of several prior Credit Slips posts; see here and here and here).
Today's per curiam decision cites the Restatement (Third) of Agency for the proposition that "Actual authority . . . is created by a principal's manifestation to an agent that the agent take action on the principal's behalf." And, says the panel, that's what happened. Again, full (and fairly brief) opinion is here.
Pencil image courtesy of Shutterstock
For years, pundits have declared that many law schools were on the verge of closing. In particular, low-ranked, stand-alone law schools operating in competitive marketplaces were repeatedly highlighted as being at the highest risk of closing. And with enrollment plummeting at law schools around the country, many were wondering which law school would be the first to keel over. Thomas Jefferson School of Law was often highlighted as a particularly likely candidate. But instead of closing, Thomas Jefferson recently restructured $127 million in bond debt, writing down $87 million and having the interest rate on its remaining $40 million reduced to 2%. In exchange, the school handed over the only significant asset it had on its balance sheet—its new law school building. But the building was promptly leased back to the school and Thomas Jefferson remains open for business. This ignited my curiousity and I decided to investigate.
A look at Thomas Jefferson’s audited financial statements helps make sense of the school’s restructuring and what it implies for other law schools.
Almost two weeks ago now, the Delaware Supreme Court handed down its decision over J.P. Morgan's mistaken termination statement in the General Motors bankruptcy. (Note to Google Chrome users like me -- the link may not work; try a different web browser.) I think they got it right, but to understand why, one obviously needs to know the facts. Melissa Jacoby has blogged about the case (especially) here and here. As Melissa explains in more detail in the former post, the case revolves a mistaken Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) filing by JPMorgan Chase.
To really stylize the facts, there were two loans from JPMorgan Chase to General Motors. Let's call them Loan A and Loan B. Both loans were secured. Loan A was being paid off. Acting on behalf of JPMorgan Chase, lawyers for General Motors were instructed to file a termination statement in the UCC records. Because of a slip-up in the paperwork, termination statements were filed for both Loan A and Loan B. At the time General Motors entered bankruptcy, Loan B was still outstanding in the amount of $1.5 billion, meaning that if the termination statement is effective JPMorgan Chase would be unsecured in the General Motors bankruptcy.
In a long story in today's edition, the New York Times is reporting a bubble in often deceptive and abusive subprime auto lending on unaffordable terms, including very high rates of interest. Although not quite the threat to the overall economy that the subprime mortgage bubble created eight or nine years ago, this apparent new bubble in lending for used vehicles has some similar features (targeting vulnerable consumers, lax underwriting, securitization, investors seeking high returns) and is causing significant pain for low income and unsophisticated borrowers. A few regulators are mentioned in the story, but oversight so far seems to have been lax.
To what extent does secured credit law protect creditors from the consequences of mistaken actions made on their behalf? I wrote about this issue in March 2013. As discussed in that post, the bankruptcy court issued both a decision on the merits and a certification for a direct appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
The 2nd Circuit has now certified the following question to the Delaware Supreme Court:
Under UCC Article 9, as adopted into Delaware law by Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, art. 9, for a UCC-3 termination statement to effectively extinguish the perfected nature of a UCC-1 financing statement, is it enough that the secured lender review and knowingly approve for filing a UCC-3 purporting to extinguish the perfected security interest, or must the secured lender intend to terminate the particular security interest that is listed on the UCC-3?
The 2nd Circuit decision is here. (The date of oral argument on the cover page should say March 2014, not March 2013).
File folder photo courtesy of Shutterstock
The American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) Commission on Chapter 11 Reform has been considering how to improve the chapter 11 process. Among the thorniest issues the ABI Commission has faced is how to fairly balance the interests of secured creditors with the rights of other stakeholders in the chapter 11 process. To better understand the issues and especially to illuminate whether secured creditors can assert constitutional limits on chapter 11 reform, the ABI and the University of Illinois College of Law co-sponsored a symposium in early April at the offices of Kirkland & Ellis.
The presentations now are all available for streamning over the Internet at the low, low price of free. The papers will be published in the University of Illinois Law Review.
Last week, Professor Lynn LoPucki called me up and asked a good question. Why hasn’t Bitcoin fallen apart because of the operation of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? It is a really good question. With Lynn’s permission, I am writing up a blog post about our conversation, but it was Lynn who first identified the issue.
As many readers will know, all 50 states have enacted the UCC with only minor variations. Article 9 governs security interests in personal property – that is, movable and intangible property as opposed to land and buildings. The bank that gave you a car loan has an Article 9 security interest in the automobile serving as collateral for the loan, and the bank providing operating capital for your corner bakery similarly may have an Article 9 security interest in the inventory, equipment, and accounts at the store. Article 9 is one of those laws that only specialists tend to know, but it plays an important role in the flow of commerce.
CapOne's taken a lot of flack today over its apparent desire to check what's in your wallet by visiting you at home and at work. The LA Times story got even bigger when it made it to Twitter and great (and lots of bad, see previous sentence) puns started rolling in.
The company answer seems to be that language from a security agreement for snowmobiles got "mixed in" with the credit card language (and no one over there is reading their 6-page contracts). They are now "considering creating two separate agreements given this language doesn’t apply to our general cardholder base."
I wonder if that means that they'll also revisit the part of the credit card agreements that takes a security interest in anything you buy from Best Buy, Big Lots, Jordan's Furniture, Neiman Marcus/Bergdorf Goodman, or Saks? (I should note, your clothes are only in danger if you have a Saks "retail" card; if your card is a Platinum or World card not only is your interest rate likely lower but it seems your stuff is also safe).
My friend, Frank Venis, sent me a link to a Planet Money/NPR story that 42.1% of home purchases are now in cash. I have been meaning to write up a quick post on the story since the story appeared, but my day job kept interfering.
Cross-campus colleagues and I have posted a paper that studies intersections between mortgage foreclosure, chapters of bankruptcy, and other variables, using the Center for Community Capital's unique panel dataset of lower-income homeowners. An excerpt from the abstract:
We analyze 4,280 lower-income homeowners in the United States who were more than 90 days late paying their 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. Two dozen organizations serviced these mortgages and initiated foreclosure between 2003 and 2012. We identify wide variation between mortgage servicers in their likelihood of bringing the property to auction. We also show that when homeowners in foreclosure filed for bankruptcy, foreclosure auctions were 70% less likely. Chapters 7 and 13 both reduce the hazard of auction, but the effect is five times greater for Chapter 13, which contains enhanced tools to preserve homeownership. Bankruptcy’s effects are strongest in states that permit power-of-sale foreclosure or withdraw homeowners’ right-of-redemption at the time of auction.
Bear in mind that most homeowners in foreclosure in this sample did not file for bankruptcy. Among the 8% or so who did, the majority filed chapter 13. For even more context, please read the paper - brevity is among its virtues, and exhibits take credit for page length. A later version will ultimately appear in Housing Policy Debate.
Ribbon house image courtesy of Shutterstock.
FAC UT ARDEAT, begins The Flamethrowers by Rachel Kushner. It means "made to burn," the narrator learns (from that "gasbag . . . Chesil Jones"). Whether your preferred hurry-up 363 sale metaphor involves flames, ice, or a wagon full of rotting salmon, Ted Janger and I have just posted a draft of an article reframing the problems with pre-plan going-concern sales, and reallocating the risk associated with such sales. The abstract:
Financially-distressed companies can melt like ice cubes. In Chrysler’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the finding that the debtor was losing $100,000,000 per day justified the hurry-up sale of the company to Fiat. This assertion -- that the firm is a rapidly wasting asset -- is frequently offered, and accepted, in support of quick sales under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. This raises a policy question: is this speed and streamlined process a “bug” or “feature?” Do these hurry-up going-concern sales create a speed premium and maximize value for the bankruptcy estate, or do they facilitate collusive deals between incumbent managers, senior creditors and potential purchasers? The answer is, “a little bit of both.” It is, therefore, crucial to distinguish between sales where the court and parties have good information about the value of the company and the costs of delay, from those in which melting ice cube leverage is used to exploit information asymmetries and to lock-in a favored deal. To accomplish this sorting and reduce transactional leverage, we seek to allocate the increased risks of foregone process to the beneficiaries of the sale. We propose that a reserve – the Ice Cube Bond – be set aside at the time of sale to preserve any potential disputes about valuation and priority for resolution after the sale has closed. This approach retains expedited section 363 sales as a useful way to quiet title in complex assets and preserve value, while preserving the opportunities for negotiation and adjudication contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code.
Perhaps Ice Cube Bonds is the long weekend reading material you were hoping would come your way? We'd value your feedback.
Match image courtesy of Shutterstock.
Move over, two ships Peerless. Even in legal regimes that prioritize substance over form, errors in the execution of formalities can produce significant consequences and the risk of transactional failure. And even chapter 11 cases featuring quick asset sales can generate litigation over such formalities for years to come. A recent example illustrates both points.
On March 1, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued and certified a judgment for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision grants summary judgment in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, adversary proceeding 09-00504, in the GM bankruptcy. The decision already has received in-depth summaries, at least in some law firm bulletins. If the Second Circuit accepts a direct appeal, I aspire to watch the oral arguments, but hope it will be easier to find a seat in the courtroom than in NML v. Argentina.
A Credit Slips commenter recently asked that blog posts explain (or at least spell out) acronyms and specialist terminology. This inspired me to report back on a corporate bankruptcy terminology set that University of North Carolina Law students collaboratively produced last year (technically, a wiki) in business bankruptcy, an advanced transition-to-the-profession seminar. In both comments and emails, Credit Slips readers helped me expand the list of terms (and also offered great ideas for practical writing projects). So thanks again for your contributions, and thanks also to the Spring 2012 seminar alumni - some of whom are practicing bankruptcy law or clerking for bankruptcy courts right now, or headed there soon - who tackled the collaborative vocabulary project, and the entire seminar and its experimental elements, with such great spirit and a 100% perfect attendance record! So, some observations.
The legal side of what we do requires comprehending dense statutory texts. Law students, however, arrive in our courses after a first year of law school heavily devoted to case law. When I was teaching corporate law, a student once came up after class with a question about preparing for the final exam. She earnestly explained that she understood "the law" -- it was just the statute she could not understand. Could I recommend a book that explained the statute? The law apparently was what was in the cases in the textbook, with the statute being some sort of aid to understanding the law. No wonder they put those statutes in books called statutory supplements!
In reaction to what I see as an overemphasis on court decisions in many other law school courses, my courses unashamedly emphasize the statutes we cover. For example, is a spouse is an "insider" under the Bankruptcy Code? Here is a hint for my students this upcoming semester -- the answer does not depend on your gut instinct: "relative" is a defined term. Thus, I was initially appalled on Friday when I got an advertisement from Aspen, a law textbook publisher (including of my own textbook on empirical methods in law), asking if I felt guilty about the amount of statutory material I assigned. If so, the new LoPucki and Warren statutory supplement for Bankruptcy Law and Article 9 (of the Uniform Commercial Code) was now available as a VisiLaw marked version that would make "inaccessible statutes accessible." No, I did not feel guilty about assigning too much statutory material -- if anything I wanted to assign more. This new development just seemed like another sign of the pending zombie apocalypse.
My initial reaction, however, was more "ready, fire, aim" than considered judgment. As I learned more about the product, I've decided it is worth a try. At the least, I wanted to write something here to get reactions from practitioners.
A prior post addressed a proposed amendment to Article 9's official comments stating that the date of an Article 9 filing relates back to the initial filing date even if the debtor did NOT authorize the filing at that time. This post returns to that topic for two reasons. First, although it is risky to generalize, I sense that bankruptcy judges may still be unaware of this proposed amendment. This is relevant because bankruptcy judges often are on the "front lines" of Article 9 interpretation. Second, I have heard, indirectly, that at least some people want this amendment to lend approval to some lenders' current practice to routinely file without authorization during the loan application process. In other words, the loan is likely to be given within a few days, so no harm no foul. Maybe I misheard or misunderstood?
A few times I have caught Storage Wars, a television show on A&E. When storage units customers do not pay their fees, the contents are auctioned off by the storage unit company. The show follows professional treasure hunters who bid at these auctions. The catch is that the treasure hunters are purchasing the unit without full knowledge of the unit's contents. With all the drama of finding out what was behind door number three on Let's Make a Deal, viewers get to watch these treasure hunters paw through the storage unit's contents and try to profit by finding items of real value. Every now and then, an item of tremendous value might be uncovered. A few days ago, I started wondering how this was legal.
A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of giving priority to an Article 9 financing statement only from the date on which the debtor actually authorizes the filing, and a proposed official comment contrary to this position. My colleague Lissa Broome has just posted on SSRN an article she has written about another dimension of the issue: when secured parties file financing statements with an indication of collateral that is far broader than what the debtor authorized in the security agreement. She discusses recent cases that do not deter this activity as well as potential implications, including the chilling effect on future lending transactions.
When the debtor's signature was eliminated as a requirement for a valid financing statement in Revised Article 9, the drafters justified the change by technology: medium neutrality and facilitating paperless filing. Functionally, though, the implications go far beyond technology when you combine this change with the opportunity to file all-asset financing statements AND the broadest possible reading of the first to file or perfect rule discussed a few weeks ago.
On January 1, 2011, Larry files a UCC-1 financing statement against David indicating David's equipment as collateral. At this point, David doesn't even know Larry, has not given him a security interest, and has not authorized this filing. On February 1, 2012, David meets and borrows money from Larry and signs a security agreement listing equipment as collateral (which, under UCC 9-509, automatically authorizes the filing of a financing statement against equipment). What is the relevant date for determining Larry's priority? The language of Article 9 itself strongly implies that February 1, 2012 is the relevant date. UCC 9-509 makes clear that financing statements are not valid unless authorized by the debtor - a pretty minimal burden to cloud the debtor's title. But a little-discussed 2010 amendment to the official comments of Article 9 says otherwise: to the drafters, if the filing is later authorized, Larry gets the benefit of the 1/1/2011 filing date for purposes of the "first-to-file-or-perfect" rule and other priority rules or competitions.
The most relevant portion of the new paragraph (an addition to comment 4 to 9-322) reads as follows:
UNC's Center for Community Capital has posted a new analysis of 19.5 million mortgage loans originated between 2000 and 2008 finding that mandatory down payments of 10% would lock out nearly 40% of all creditworthy borrowers while a 20% down payment would exclude 60%. The study finds a significantly higher exclusion rate for African American and Latino borrowers. The authors (Roberto Quercia of UNC, Lei Ding of Wayne State University, & Carolina Reid from the Center for Responsible Lending) do find valuable default-reduction benefits of other forms of strong underwriting as the Dodd-Frank Act already requires (through the "QM" and "QRM" classifications), but signal caution about the significant access costs of government-mandated down payment levels that government regulators may be currently considering.
Just a word of gratitude to readers for providing great responses to the prior call for corporate bankruptcy lingo. Thanks to your help, UNC Law's advanced business bankruptcy students are collaboratively examining such terms through a wiki and this will help them make an even smoother transition into the professional world. If any new lingo comes to mind, don't hesitate to pass it along!
At the end of a lively session yesterday at Duke Law School featuring Professor Stephen Ware of University of Kansas Law School, there was a brief discussion of whether shorter foreclosure timelines and clearer rules would promote more workouts of delinquent mortgages. The aforementioned paper about bankrupt homeowners suggests that the opposite might actually be the case: among homeowners in bankruptcy, longer foreclosure timelines in their home states were associated with a lower probability of foreclosure initiation while shorter timelines were associated with a higher probability of foreclosure initiation.
Previously I mentioned this new paper on homeowners in bankruptcy in the American Bankruptcy Law Journal. The central goal of the paper was to investigate what makes homeowners more or less likely to have mortgage troubles as they head into bankruptcy. One of the notable findings is that, across all the models, credit access had a significant effect on keeping mortgages current and avoiding foreclosure initiation (specifics listed pp. 302-304). But why?
This is a newly published paper in the American Bankruptcy Law Journal that I was lucky to work on with Daniel McCue and Eric Belsky at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Using previously unexamined data in the 2007 Consumer Bankruptcy Project, we study what makes homeowners more or less likely to have mortgage troubles as they head into bankruptcy. Although much can be said about the econometric analysis, for now I wanted to mention quickly that the paper includes descriptive details about bankrupt homeowners (debtor-reported) such as numbers of missed mortgage payments, use of adjustable rate mortgages, mortgage broker use, mobile homes, and refinancing or home equity lines of credit. So please check it out!
As Alan White reported recently, the Uniform Law Commission in the U.S. has named a committee to consider the need for and feasibility of proposing a uniform foreclosure act and to report back to the ULC by early 2012. A letter from the ULC president includes a list of questions that the committee is charged to consider. But what principles will guide their analysis of these questions?
Congress just passed a bill overhauling the US patent system. The most significant change appears to be shift from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system. Now, I am not a patent scholar and am wading into unfamiliar waters by opinining in any way on this shift, but it's rather fascinating to consider from a comparative perspective with security interests in personalty and realty, where first-to-file is generally the rule (with important exceptions like relation back for purchase money security interests and priority by possession or control).
So, as I understand it, a key problem with first-to-invent was that it was rather time-consuming to determine who actually invented something first. Administratively, that seems like a cumbersome system, even if it does help protect original thinking.
At first glance, first-to-file seems like a much easier system administratively, which will speed up the patent process and create more certainty in property rights--and certainty is the major goal of any property title system. It should eliminate litigation over priority of invention. (Put differently, we're going to a pure race system, not even race-notice.) But I suspect that first-to-file will just put more weight on the question of whether A's filing covers the same property as B's filing. If A and B have filed for patents on separate ideas, then there's no competition in rights and no problem. The danger, it would seem, is that first-to-file might encourage prophylactic filings. I'm not sure how easy that is to do, but encouraging a race could undercut the efficiency gains by not having to adjudicate who was first to invent.
Prompted by several comments to one of my earlier posts, I've been thinking about situations where a homeowner files an insurance claim for property damage to her home while she is in default on her mortgage. The general practice, as I understand it, is for insurers to write claim settlement checks out to the mortgagee, rather than the policyholder, in such situations. This practice is based on a clause in most homeowners policies that "If a mortgagee is named in this policy, any loss payable under Coverage A or B will be paid to the mortgagee and you, as interests appear."
All of this makes sense. But, it seems to me that the mortgagee ought to have an obligation to promptly use any insurance proceeds it receives in this manner to fix the underlying property damage. Failing to do so, and holding on to the insurance proceeds as cash collateral, seems to me to potentially constitute a violation of the mortgagee's obligation of good faith. Yet according to the commentators referenced above, this is apparently a common practice (though I would be curious about other readers' experiences).
The BIS folks have just released a literature review about the transmission channels between the financial and real sectors of the economy. This is a pretty comprehensive literature review (which also means that it is a tad dry), but there are interesting bits in their identification of gaps in the literature.
One of the observations in the paper led me to consider a question: is cash-flow based lending or collateral-based lending more susceptible to systemic risk? Which of them serves as a stronger transmission channel for risk between the financial and real sectors? The answer might point the way to better regulation of the financial industry.
And so it begins. We're about to witness the main event in financial institution internecine warefare: investment funds (MBS buyers) vs. banks (MBS sellers).
There have already been some opening skirmishes. The monoline bond insurers (MBIA, Syncora, FGIC, Ambac (and here), CIFG (and here), and--I haven't found any litigation with them on this, but there's gotta be some--ACA) have been litigating against some of the banks whose securitizations they insured for various fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty claims. Many of the Federal Home Loan Banks (Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, maybe others that I don't recall of the top of my head), which slurped up RMBS during the bubble, only to find them toxic, have brought (separate) suits mainly on securities fraud charges, but also on common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. (See here for a totally dated, August 2010 estimation of the liabilities in these suits.)
Then last fall the financial world was shaken by the New York Fed, BlackRock, and PIMCO's demand letter to Bank of New York Mellon and Countrywide. That showed that A-list financial institutions were taking the range of problems with RMBS, from representation and warranty breaches to servicer malfeasance, seriously. (You can see the NY Fed, acting for the Maiden Lane LLCs, as really another representing AIG, essentially the mother of all monolines for these purposes.) But that wasn't litigation proper, just an angry growl, with a threat of litigation if things weren't resolved. (When you see the letterhead for the response, you'll see that BoA/CW is taking this mighty seriously. Despite the typo in that snippy letter, it didn't come cheap. These guys are lawyering up.)
And now we have the first A-list litigation. We have TIAA-CREF, New York Life, and Dexia suing Countrywide (and assorted other defendants). And it alleges invalid chain of title--the mortgage-backed securities are actually non-mortgage backed securities!
Todd Zywicki has written several articles (here and in a fuller version here) on auto title pledge lending that cite default rates on auto title loans are 14-17%, while repossessions occur only in 4%-8% of cases and in 20% of those cases the borrower redeems the car. These numbers are cobbled together from several disparate sources, so they might not all fit together, but from this (and borrower characteristics) Todd concludes there's no basis to claims that auto title lending is predatory.
These numbers long seemed too good to be true to me—they would imply either huge profit margins (which Todd disputes) or huge overhead costs (Todd's explanation). They also seemed highly skewed by the fact they were counting loans rather than borrowers. Title loans are 30-day loans that can be rolled over, but a roll-over counts as a new roll, which effectively inflates the denominator for default rates.
I came across a rather obscure Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions study (actually cited by Todd) that has some numbers from examinations of title lenders, and it seems to tell a somewhat less rosy story about title lending.
It looks like auto dealers are going to get their carve out from the CFPB. I can't think of a policy argument for exempting auto dealers; maybe someone will provide one in the comments. The used car dealer has long been the poster child for sharp dealing. But it's worth reviewing the consumer protection problems with auto dealers, so that we realize what practices are being exempted from potential future regulatory oversight.
A few months ago on Credit Slips Bob Lawless described a situation in which a car repo agent in California took a car with a toddler inside. Bob thought it wasn't breach of the peace, but I think Bob was wrong and he should stick to prognosticating about the bankruptcy filing rate, where he's been dead on. The National Consumer Law Center has issued a new report, Repo Madness, that describes many more harrowing incidents in repossession. The report describes how two repo agents and four auto owners have been killed in the past three years during repossessions, and includes a map showing geographically how many and where particularly troubling incidents have occurred. The report makes an interesting analogy to laws that limited landlords' rights to evict tenants, suggesting that mandating a summary process for repossession (such as replevin) may be a social and economic good. The report is a reminder of the dark side of self-help repossession, which students (and maybe their teachers) tend to find the most fun and entertaining day of Article 9 Secured Transactions classes.
From the San Jose Mercury News, the headline says it all: "Repo man takes San Jose mom's car with 2-year old in back seat" (courtesy of The Consumerist). Now, a short essay from my Secured Credit final exam:
Cletus and Brandine Spuckler are in your law office and tell you the following tale of woe. They had borrowed money from the Burns Finance Company to pay for their 2007 Ford Expedition but have recently fell behind on their payments. Burns Finance Company has a valid, perfected security interest in the 2007 Ford Expedition. One morning, Brandine found that Cletus’s tractor was blocking the driveway when she needed to take two of their kids to preschool. Consequently, Brandine loaded the two kids in the Expedition, got the tractor keys from Cletus, backed the tractor out, then backed out the Expedition, and then returned the tractor to its place on their driveway. She left the Expedition running in the street, with the keys in the ignition and the kids in the backseat. While Brandine went back inside to return the keys to Cletus, an employee of Burns Finance repossessed the automobile, driving off in it with the kids in the back seat. The employee got about three blocks when he saw the kids, and he promptly returned the Expedition to Brandine, who was emotionally distraught having seen a stranger drive off with her kids. Since that time, both Brandine and the two children have been unable to sleep and are emotionally upset. Putting aside the question of any tort claims, do you think the Spucklers have any valid claims under the Uniform Commercial Code?
I based the question on Chapa v. Traciers & Associates, 267 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2008). Still, I thought I was making this up. Who knew?
FDIC-sponsored haircuts have become a hot item in the blogosphere. My wife used to work for the FDIC, and I smile every time I hear the term as I think about the building on F Street with a big barber pole in front of it. Here, the term is not being used in its hirsuted sense but as part of the colorful vernacular that surrounds insolvency work. A "haircut" describes a situation where a creditor is paid less than that to which they are entitled.
The FDIC proposal comes from Representatives Brad Miller and Dennis Moore and would limit the recovery of secured creditors to 80% of the value of their collateral in FDIC takeovers of failed banks. (I can't seem to locate the original text of the proposal on the Internet, but it has been widely reported.) Academic types will remember a similar proposal from Professor Elizabeth Warren back in the 1990s that would have limited recovery to 80% of the collateral's value. While Warren's proposal would have applied to many types of secured lending (at that covered by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the current proposal is limited to failed financial institutions taken over by the FDIC.
The usual criticism has arisen in the usual places, namely that the latest proposal will discourage capital formation in banks. In turn, it is said that banks will lend less. Growth will be deterred. And we'll see even more gruesome scenarios involving the cross-breeding of dogs and cats. All of that might be true--well the dogs-and-cats part is less likely--but these criticisms miss the point. The question is not whether we like capital formation and economic growth but whether the costs are worth the benefits. The costs here come from the moral hazard that is created by asset partitioning.
By way of Underbelly comes this story from the Seattle Times chronicling the many failures at the now defunct WaMu. Among the stories was that a WaMu banker gave O.J. Simpson a second mortgage on his Florida home despite the existence of a huge judgment lien against Simpson arising out of his civil trial for killing his wife and her friend. Why did WaMu think it could collect the second mortgage? According to the news story, Simpson had put a note in the file saying he did not do it, and therefore the judgment was "no good." OK, that's pretty dumb and, for my students who read the blog, would not be a passing answer in my secured credit class.
What the reporter (but hopefully not my students) missed is that the second mortgage was likely collectible anyway. Florida has an unlimited homestead exemption that would prevent enforcement of the judgment lien against the home, assuming it otherwise met the definition of a homestead. Voluntary transfers, like a second mortgage, are not protected by the homestead statute. (If you're wondering why that is, consider how much mortgage lending there would be if the mortgage could not be enforced because of a homestead statute.) A comment on the Daily Weekly blog (hosted by the Seattle Times) picked up on the point about the homestead exemption and the role it should have played in this lending decision.
The "note in the file" story sounds too funny to be true, and in this case, I think it probably is. Florida (and every other state) law is the reason some WaMu Florida banker thought they could enforce the second mortgage. Of course, this is just the legal part of the lending decision. As the Daily Weekly blog story asked, why was WaMu so willing to give Simpson the benefit of the doubt and extend a loan?
This semester, I have been teaching secured credit from Lynn LoPucki and Elizabeth Warren's wonderful textbook. One of the problems from the book was, I believe, inspired by my former colleague at UNLV and current bankruptcy judge, Bruce Markell, who requires his students to draft a security agreement taking a security interest in an object he brought to class. A student's agreement has presented an interpretive issue with the problem, and I told him I would get the input of our readership on Credit Slips. One thing the assignment allowed me to do is to talk about boilerplate. There is nothing necessarily wrong with boilerplate, but we should understand what it is doing when we use it.
The object I brought to class was a baseball signed by the great Lou Brock, a Hall of Fame outfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals. The instructions specifically state that the students are to draft a security agreement taking a security interest in this object--the baseball--and nothing else. If the students comply with the instructions, they get a pass on the assignment, and if not, they get a fail. As Markell always said to me--in the real world there is no such thing as a security agreement that is almost valid.
Credit Slips is pleased to have had the following persons join us as continuing blog authors in the past or as guest bloggers for a week. Their contributions have added new perspectives and ideas to this site, and we thank them for their participation.
PAST REGULAR CONTRIBUTORS
GUEST & OCCASIONAL CONTRIBUTORS
By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.