What is Lender Liability?

Lender liability laws determine how lenders should treat borrowers and what happens as a result of a lender’s misconduct. In the old days, only lenders were the plaintiff and borrowers the defendant in breach of loan agreement litigation. More recently, however, borrowers make claims against lenders. Since the 2009 recession, lenders have been dealing with borrower litigation cases. Most disputes involve claimed breaches of loan agreements, whether from fraud, misrepresentation, negligence or bad faith. Other cases involving lenders may include claims the lender inappropriately sold collateral at a substantially reduced price after loan defaults, bankruptcy or other foreclosure related disputes

Earlier lender liability cases argued in favor of the lender’s fiduciary responsibilities to the borrower. Since then, lenders have made strong cases against alleged duties to borrowers.

Expert Witness with Lender Liability Experience

Whether your firm is representing either a lender or a borrower, Thomas Neches can provide the final expert witness testimony to support your argument. With years of experience providing expert witness testimony in breach of contract cases, we understand the complexities and financial implications involved in lender agreements.

Representative Lender Liability Engagements

SideCase NumberCase NameAttorneyLaw FirmTestify
PlnSOC 81367First Interstate Bank of California v. Fred Gledhill Chevrolet, Inc.Jack I. SametBuchalter, Nemer, Fields & YoungerDepo / Trial
Def80 148 0350 93DFiserv of San Diego, Inc. v. First Interstate Bank, Ltd.Neil M. SunkinFirst Interstate Bank Of California
OthSB 92-16083In Re Glen Ivy Resorts, Inc.Leonard SiegelWilner, Klein & Siegel
Def94-361 SPK (BTM) (JFS)Pioneer Mortgage Liquidating Corporation v. San Diego Trust & Savings BankMartha O. AndersonPost Kirby Noonan & SweatDepo / Trial
DefC 669 834Michael LaPorta v. First Interstate Bank of CaliforniaSherrill JohnsonFirst Interstate Bank of California
PlnBC211347Linda M. Attalla v. Household Finance Corporation, et al.Joshua H. HaffnerHaffner & Hardiman
Def99 C 6884Fred M. McDonald, et al. v. Washington Mutual BankTheodore T. EidukasJenner & Block
Pln670773Household Commercial of California, Inc. v. Jay H. Shidler, et al.David M. ChernekHeller Ehrman White & Mcauliffe
PlnCV12-07S83-JFWFarmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PAMichael LeightLaw Offices of Michael Leight

 

Key Lender Liability Representative Engagement

Pioneer Liquidating Corporation v. San Diego Trust & Savings Bank (David J. Noonan, Steven W. Sanchez — Post Kirby Noonan & Sweat). Mr. Neches testified as an expert in United States District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of the defendant bank in this fraudulent transfer matter. Pioneer Liquidating Corporation, the successor in bankruptcy of consolidated entities known as Pioneer Mortgage, alleged that the defendant bank knew or should have known that Pioneer Mortgage engaged in a massive “check-kiting” scheme. PLC claimed that the bank’s practice of providing provisional credit to Pioneer Mortgage by honoring checks written on uncollected funds created a series of short-term loans, resulting in 473 individual fraudulent transfers totaling $71 million. Mr. Neches testified that there was no “kite” because there were sufficient funds in other Pioneer Mortgage accounts to cover allegedly “kited” checks, all of which were honored by the payor banks in the normal course of collection. He testified also that the computer database and algorithms prepared by PLC to prove the dates and amounts of claimed fraudulent transfers were unreliable. Result: the trial ended with a hung jury after seven days of deliberation. Subsequently the Court ruled in favor of the bank, granting defendant’s Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The matter was appealed and subsequently settled.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THOMAS NECHES DIRECTLY AT 213.624.8150.

CONTACT US