FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Banking Law

[08/02] US v. Stone
Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a mortgage fraud scheme where the defendant alleged a conflict of interest but the court found that the interest was not significant and the court's judgment would not substantially affect the companies involved and because the sentence and restitution order were not an abuse of discretion.

[05/22] Hardwick v. Wilcox
In an action arising out of a series of loans defendant made to plaintiff, to recover usurious interest and prevent defendant from foreclosing on property securing his loans, the trial court's judgment -- that plaintiff's usurious interest payments made over the course of the relationship offset the principal debt, and that plaintiff could recover interest payments he made during the two years prior to the filing of this lawsuit -- is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not waive his usury claim; and 2) the statute of limitations does not bar plaintiff's claim with respect to any loan that was paid off more than two years before this lawsuit was filed.

[05/09] Starr Int'l Co., Inc. v. US
In a suit arising out of a loan from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York under which the federal Government acquired a majority stake in American International Group, Inc. (AIG)'s equity, which the Government eventually converted into common stock and sold, brought by an AIG shareholder alleging that the Government's acquisition of AIG equity and subsequent actions relating to a reverse stock split were unlawful, the Claims Court's judgment that the Government committed an illegal exaction and remand with instructions to dismiss the equity-acquisition claims that seek direct relief is: 1) vacated in part where plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the equity-acquisition claims directly, as those claims belong exclusively to AIG; and 2) affirmed in part as to the denial of direct relief for the reverse-stock-split claims.

[05/03] Berman v. HSBC Bank
In an action brought by a plaintiff who was denied a loan modification by defendant bank, seeking injunctive relief under Civil Code section 2924.12 on the theory that the bank's denial letter was a material violation of section 2923.6(d) in that the letter only provided fifteen days for appeal instead of the thirty days as provided under that statute, the trial court's judgment sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend based on the conclusion that he had not alleged a violation of section 2923.6, is reversed where the denial letter constituted a material violation of section 2923.6 because it substantially misstated the time plaintiff was allowed by the law to appeal defendant's denial of his application for a loan modification.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.