Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message

×

News & Education

Back to Creditors Rights Round-up

Filter by:

Error In UCC Termination Statement May Cost Lenders $1.5 Billion

When they terminated the wrong financing statement in filings with the Delaware Secretary of State, a group of secured lenders learned the hard way that proofreading matters. As a result, under a recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the lenders may be forced to turn over $1.5 billion to the unsecured creditors in the General Motors bankruptcy case.

Pre-bankruptcy, a group of lenders, represented by JPMorgan, made two separate loans to GM. Both loans were secured. Before filing bankruptcy, GM repaid the first loan. In connection with the repayment, the attorneys for GM prepared a closing checklist, escrow agreement, and UCC termination statements. Under these documents, which JPMorgan and its attorneys reviewed and approved, the escrow agent would hold the termination statements – statements releasing the lenders’ interest in the collateral for the loan – and file them after the closing. Inadvertently, the escrow agreement and closing checklist provided for the termination of one of the main financing statements relating to the second loan. The erroneous termination statement was filed, but no one discovered the error until after GM filed bankruptcy.

Once in bankruptcy, GM obtained “debtor-in-possession” financing and used $1.5 billion of it to pay the balance due on the second loan. The bankruptcy court authorized GM to make the payment, assuming the lenders were fully secured – i.e., assuming the value of the collateral for the loan was at least $1.5 billion. After GM made the payment, the mistaken filing of the termination statement relating to the second loan came to light. Potentially, the value of the collateral for the loan was now insufficient to cover the $1.5 billion loan payment. The unsecured creditors sued the lender group for return of the unsecured portion of the $1.5 billion payment.

The bankruptcy court was sympathetic to the lenders. There was no question that they never intended to terminate any of the financing statements that related to the second loan. GM, its attorneys, the lenders, and their attorneys all agreed on that. Moreover, the Uniform Commercial Code provides that a secured lender must “authorize” termination of a financing statement, or the termination is not effective. As the bankruptcy court saw it, JPMorgan never authorized the mistaken filing of the termination statement relating to the second loan.

The appellate court was not so understanding. Under the UCC, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, it makes no difference whether a secured creditor “subjectively intends or otherwise understands the effect of the plain terms of its own filing.” As far as authorizing the filing, JPMorgan and its attorneys reviewed the check list, the escrow agreement, the termination statements, and then assented to the closing. That was authorization enough. The Court admonished: “a secured party . . . ought to review the [termination] statement carefully and understand which security interests it is releasing and why . . . If parties could be relieved from the legal consequences of their mistaken filings, they would have little incentive to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in their UCC filings.”

The Second Circuit has certainly provided that incentive.


About the Author

David is former co-chair of the Debtor/Creditor Remedies Section of the Hennepin County Bar Association.  He has been named a “Super Lawyer” by Minnesota Law & Politics magazine and has achieved an “AV Preeminent” Martindale Hubbell® Rated Attorney:  the highest level of professional excellence, as determined by his peers.

Contact David by email or phone at (612) 305-1494.

Disclaimer

One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations

Madison

Two East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions

Minneapolis

2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions


Get to know us

DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., including its affiliate DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C., is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Leadership
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us

Partners

We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia.

Awards

Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018

NOTICE

While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.