A Southern District of California judge found factual disputes over GreenSky’s loan disclosures, autopay presentation, and claimed emotional-distress damages.
A California borrower could not turn a lender’s default into a judgment without evidence that the out-of-state credit union deliberately created relevant contacts with California.
The First Department upheld treatment of HAMP-deferred mortgage principal as subsequent recoveries that write up subordinate, but not senior, RMBS certificates.
The Second Department held that FAPA prevented a voluntary discontinuance from resetting an accelerated mortgage debt and dismissed a 2018 foreclosure as untimely.
The Second Department enforced a $2.4 million settlement and held that three merchant agreements were purchases of future receivables rather than criminally usurious loans.
A Northern District of California court allowed a borrower’s promissory-estoppel claim against BMO and its servicer to proceed.
A federal court dismissed a consumer’s electronic-transfer and contract claims against BMO with prejudice while allowing limited amendment of credit-reporting theories.
An unpublished Ninth Circuit decision held that concealing the loss of a company’s dominant customer was actual fraud that made the resulting loan debt nondischargeable.
Khouri v. Trans Union LLC: A Northern District of California court held that routine loan collection did not state credit-reporting or unfair-practices claims.
A Northern District of California judge dismissed with prejudice a securities class action against Snowflake because the investors did not plausibly connect alleged corrective disclosures to their losses.
The Northern District reversed a bankruptcy ruling because the court did not conduct the required equitable excusable-neglect analysis.
The First Department enforced a sophisticated-party nonrecourse clause to dismiss tortious-interference claims arising from a disputed energy-company equity transaction.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Rule 60 relief. The trial court investigated the circumstances, assessed credibility, considered the available Rule 60 grounds, and could find that the record did not establish a void judgment or extraordinary circumstances. The appellate court emphasized its deferential abuse-of-discretion review and declined to substitute its credibility judgment for the trial court’s.
Funko shareholders plausibly alleged fraud where risk disclosures treated existing inventory and technology failures as merely hypothetical future problems.
Hermann v. Veluz-Nepomuceno: The court dismissed all claims against Ong with leave to amend.
The First Department enforced an RMBS no-action clause because HBK’s zero-principal-balance certificates carried no voting rights when it demanded litigation.
The First Department vacated an antisuit injunction because a Delaware action over a later agreement did not threaten fraud or a gross wrong against the foreign court.
The Second Department preserved fraud claims over merchant-cash-advance withdrawals but vacated an injunction because the borrower lacked evidence of likely success and irreparable harm.
The Second Department held that documented reasonable diligence establishes mandatory good cause for a CPLR 306-b extension and that reservice may precede a traverse hearing.
The Ninth Circuit held that the federal LIBOR Act does not invalidate a contract fallback merely because it produces a fixed rather than floating rate.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the roughly $12 million judgment. Trial evidence permitted the jury to find that the borrowers lacked actual or constructive knowledge of their RICO injuries more than four years before filing in April 2020.
Shareholders challenging a tender-offer disclosure did not plausibly connect the alleged omissions to a lower merger price.
A clear delegation clause required an arbitrator, not the court, to decide whether credit-reporting claims fell within a home-equity carveout.
The Second Department held that FAPA made a 2013 foreclosure untimely based on a 2002 acceleration and allowed reconsideration despite an earlier appeal because the statute changed governing law.