In a triumph of substance over form, on August 22, 2013, the Tenth Appellate District Court of Appeals disregarding self-serving labels and further clarified the distinction between a loan and a sale of accounts receivable in Fenway Financial, LLC dba Commission Express v. Greater Columbus Realty, LLC dba Keller Williams Greater Columbus Realty, LLC, No. 12AP-291. To cut to the chase, the Court found that regardless of the buzz words used, leaving the seller of an account receivable with the risk of collectability is a key factor in characterizing a transaction as a loan, not as a sale, and may implicate state loan licensing requirements and other statutes, including provisions dealing with the scope of UCC Article 9.… Continue Reading
In The Henry County Bank v. Stimmels, Inc., et al., 3rd Dist. No. 7-12-19, 2013-Ohio-1607 (Apr. 22, 2013) the Third Appellate District Court rendered a decision that will dismay commercial creditor’s rights attorneys in Ohio in holding that a warrant of attorney to confession judgment R.C. §2323.13 may only be used if the debtor was in default of payment, even where the debt had been accelerated.
The Henry County Bank obtained a cognovit judgment against the defendants, claiming as events of default the defendants’ failures to pay taxes when due and to maintain a stated indebtedness to tangible net worth ratio. After receiving notice of the judgment, the defendants filed a motion under Civil Rule 60(B) to vacate the cognovit judgment. The defendants supported their motion with an affidavit stating that they were not in default of payment, and here is the key: despite having accelerated the debt, the bank stipulated that the defendants were not in default of payment.
The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for relief after a hearing and supplemental briefs, and the defendants filed an appeal. Their sole assignment of error was that the trial court erred in granting judgment on the note without the bank asserting … Continue Reading
We hope you enjoyed the four-part series on energy financing that has run in the Banking & Finance Law Report blog during the past few weeks. We’ve compiled those articles into a resource that’s relevant to anyone involved with lending or borrowing in the energy sector. Be sure to download the Energy Financing eBook, and feel free to forward it to colleagues who also will be interested.… Continue Reading
Bankers and their counsel should note that during its December lame-duck session, the Ohio General Assembly passed the Ohio Legacy Trust Act (Am. Sub. H.B. 479), which will go into effect March 27, 2013. The Act creates borrower-friendly provisions prohibiting the use of so-called “Cherryland” insolvency carve-outs in nonrecourse loan documents which will be of interest to all financial institutions engaged in commercial lending in Ohio.
“Cherryland” insolvency carve-outs are so named for the 2011 Michigan appellate case, Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Cherryland Mall Limited Partnership, in which the court upheld a widely-used provision in non-recourse loan documents that caused the loan at issue to become fully recourse to the guarantor upon the insolvency of the borrower.
The Cherryland Mall decision prompted the Michigan legislature to pass the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act, which became effective in Michigan in March of 2012. In order to legislatively overturn the Cherryland Mall decision, the Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act provides that a post-closing solvency covenant cannot be used as a nonrecourse carve-out or as the basis for any claim or action against a borrower or guarantor on a nonrecourse loan. It also provides that any provision purporting to create such a carveout is … Continue Reading
Recently-enacted legislation makes a number of important changes to the Ohio General Corporation Law and the Ohio Limited Liability Company Act that financial institutions and their executives should consider. The bill will become effective May 4, 2012.
Here are some key points:
Dissenting Shareholder Rights: The bill substantially changes our statutes, which have not been substantively amended since 1970, to make Ohio dissenting shareholder processes similar to those followed in other major commercial states, such as Delaware. The significant provisions are:… Continue Reading