The California Residential Mortgage Lenders Act (CRMLA) regulates the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans in California. The CRMLA requires that any person engaged in the business of making or servicing residential mortgage loans within California do so only under the authority of a license under the CRMLA. A party applying pursuant to the provisions of the CRMLA may obtain a license as a servicer, lender, or both. However, the following entities are exempt from these licensing requirements:
In March, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit correctly reviewed a bankruptcy court’s ruling for clear legal error rather than employing the de novo “arm’s length” standard used in the Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits. In U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-509, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), the United States Supreme Court ruled on whether the bankruptcy court properly determined in confirming a plan that the sole impaired accepting creditor was not a “non-statutory” insider. Had this creditor been such an insider, the chapter 11 plan should not have been confirmed.
The California Residential Mortgage Lenders Act (CRMLA) was enacted by the California legislature as an alternative to existing licensing laws related to lenders under the Real Estate Law and the California Finance Lenders Law (CFLL), The purpose of the CRMLA was to provide mortgage bankers with a licensing law for the specific purpose of regulating the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans. The CRMLA directly authorizes and regulates mortgage banking activities, unlike the Real Estate Law and the CFLL. A party applying pursuant to the provisions of the CRMLA may obtain a license as a servicer, lender, or both.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit decided JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props. Inc., et al. (In re Transwest Resort Props. Inc.), Case No. 16-16221, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1947 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)(“In re Transwest“). Prior to this case, there was a significant split in the lower courts between the “per plan” or “per debtor” impaired accepting class requirement to the confirmation of chapter 11 plans of reorganization. The Ninth Circuit was the first Circuit court to render a decision on this issue.
On May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes into effect. The GDPR is a piece of legislation passed by European lawmakers to create a uniform data privacy law across all member states of the European Union (EU).
At the end of February, the United States Supreme Court decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., a decision with perhaps far-reaching implications affecting a broad range of business transactions, especially leveraged stock deals. The Court’s decision in affirming a 2016 decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, effectively overruled conflicting decisions from the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits.
A recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case decided in March 2018, considered a question of first impression. The case, PSM Holding Corp. v. National Farm Financial Corporation et al, (15-55026, March 7, 2018) (“PSM” and “National Farm”) considered whether a judgment creditor, who seizes a judgment debtor’s company pursuant to a judgment that is subsequently reversed on appeal, may recover in restitution for losses suffered while it was in possession of the seized company. The district court that heard the case answered affirmatively and awarded PSM Holding Corp. over $1.1 million in restitution. The parties then filed five appeals and cross-appeals.
In the late ’90s, Many states, including California, passed the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), which allowed public and private sectors to use both electronic and digital signatures. California had already enacted a law that regulated the use of “digital signatures” for government transactions. Until Assembly bill 2296 in 2016 expediently solved the problem allowing California government agencies to use electronic records, the laws conflicted.
If they meet the necessary requirements, creditors may obtain relief from the automatic stay by filing a motion under § 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which initiates a contested matter before the bankruptcy court. Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition and commencement of a bankruptcy thereby, these automatic stay provisions enjoin most types of collection activities and other creditor actions against the debtor and its assets.
On April 9, 2018, significant changes were made to SB 1235 (Steve Glazer, D-Sacramento), which was introduced in the California State Senate on February 15th. If passed in its original form, the language of the Bill would have required disclosure of interest rates and imposed other regulations for commercial loans.