On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided Cantero, reaffirming and elaborating on the Barnett Bank preemption standard, and remanding the case to the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Cantero addressed whether a New York law requiring the payment of at least 2% per annum interest on mortgage escrow deposits was preempted by federal law as to national banks. The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit erred when it failed to apply the preemption standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, which was incorporated by Congress into the Dodd-Frank Act. The Court rejected the lower court’s holding “that federal law preempts any state law that ‘purports to exercise control over a federally granted banking power,’ regardless of ‘the magnitude of its effects.’” The Court also rejected the approach argued by the petitioners, explaining it would “yank the preemption standard to the opposite extreme, and would preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws that apply to both state and national banks.”

Alexandra Steinberg Barrage, a partner with Troutman Pepper, was quoted in the June 18, 2024 IFLR article, “Ex-FDIC Executive Targets Bridging Legal and Business at Troutman.”

Speaking to IFLR about her move, she said: “I was attracted to Troutman because of its existing platform of bank and non-bank clients. The firm is committed…

Troutman Pepper partner James Stevens spoke at the annual Georgia Bankers Association meeting alongside Jonathan Hightower, a partner at Fenimore Kay Harrison. Their discussion focused on how, after a challenging year in 2023, many banks are seeking opportunities to regain forward momentum. During the session, James and Jonathan explored various growth opportunities for banks, including the resurgence of community bank mergers and acquisitions, strategies for nontraditional deposit growth, compensation and retention tactics, and leadership succession planning. Additionally, they addressed ways to mitigate emerging risks amidst heightened expectations from regulators and other stakeholders.

In bankruptcy cases, preference actions are often asserted under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to reclaim funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense, the new value defense, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense, there are other less traditional defenses that a knowledgeable creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.

In the complex landscape of bankruptcy proceedings, the motion to sell assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code marks a pivotal moment that demands attention from creditors and other stakeholders. This legal mechanism allows a debtor to offload assets, potentially offering a fresh start under new ownership while aiming to maximize returns for creditors. Contrary to what some creditors might believe, their active involvement in this process is crucial. It’s not just about observing from the sidelines; stakeholders have a vested interest in ensuring the process unfolds in a way that protects their rights and maximizes their potential recovery.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has recently issued a final rule amending its regulations governing the use of official FDIC signs and insured depository institutions’ (IDIs) advertising statements. The new rule took effect on April 1, 2024, with an extended compliance date of January 1, 2025. The extended compliance date is intended to provide sufficient time for financial institutions to put in place processes, systems, and technological updates to implement the new regulatory requirements.

Under Section 341 of Title 11 of the U.S. Code, the U.S. Trustee convenes a meeting of a debtor’s creditors, known as the 341 Meeting. This meeting serves to examine the debtor’s financial position and verify the facts stated in the bankruptcy filing. While not mandatory, creditors can use this opportunity to ask questions about the debtor’s financials and the bankruptcy case, providing them with insights into potential claim treatments and the debtor’s bankruptcy plan.