Deal lawyers often seek to insure an outcome using multiple approaches simultaneously; this is colloquially labeled a “belt and suspenders” approach. Ohio’s Sixth Appellate District recently reminded us of the danger of over lawyering in an effort to secure a legal position. Read More ›
Internal Revenue Service liens attach to all a taxpayer’s “property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.” 26 U.S.C. Section 6321. A taxpayer’s “property” is determined by relevant state law, but federal law determines lien priority. Read More ›
When does a modification to or extension of a commercial loan constitute the act of opening a “new account”? This question is now more than one of semantics. Effective May 11th of 2018, the new Beneficial Owner Rule under the Bank Secrecy Act will become effective. Read More ›
Ohio Revised Code Section 1336.07 is Ohio’s codification of the “Remedies” section of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). The first and primary remedy listed in O.R.C. Section 1336.07 (and the UFTA) is “avoidance of the transfer” that is improper under the statute. Read More ›
On April 17, 2018, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (the “NY AG”) launched the “Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative” (the “Initiative”), a fact-finding inquiry into the policies and practices of platforms used by consumers to trade virtual currencies like bitcoin and ether. Read More ›
Guarantor was the spouse of a business owner. Spouse’s business opened a deposit account and a disbursement account at Bank 1. Later, Bank1 extended to Spouse’s business a commercial revolving loan with a borrowing limit of $135,000; that loan provided overdraft protection by funding the disbursement account if the business’ account balance went below zero. To obtain the $135,000 loan, Spouse and Guarantor executed an unlimited commercial guaranty.  Bank1 and Spouse executed multiple extensions of both the $135,000 commercial revolving loan.
 Guarantor was an officer of Spouse’s business but did not have an ownership interest in that business. Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S. C. 1691 et seq., issues apparently were not implicated in the guarantees at issue. Read More ›
Defendant is a mother who received the news all parents of teenagers everywhere desire and fear: Congratulations, your daughter is admitted to college; but given the costs, she will need a loan to attend. According to Plaintiff’s complaint: Read More ›
An Ohio residential loan and mortgage were made and recorded in 2008. After default, a foreclosure case was started, but not completed – it was dismissed without prejudice. Read More ›
Many entrepreneurs and existing companies exploring opportunities in the fintech space often experience the daunting hurdles, or uncertainties, imposed by state-level regulations. Under traditional regulatory programs, the licensing process can take months and consume tens of thousands of dollars in fees, compliance costs, and legal expenses. Some startups, with thin capital reserves, face the Hobson’s Choice of blatant non-compliance or simply avoiding innovating in this important space all together. Either way, the state’s consumers and businesses are ultimately disadvantaged. The State of Arizona recognized this common problem and very recently passed legislation to safely encourage such worthwhile business innovation. Read More ›
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) appears to be taking steps to eliminate some of the ambiguity surrounding the status of ICOs as money services businesses (MSBs). Read More ›
Ask the Blogger
Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.
William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.