<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Banks And Banking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/banks-and-banking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:42:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking – Investment Contract – Tort/Negligence – Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim – Lehman Note&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/15/banks-banking-investment-contract-tortnegligence-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-claim-lehman-note/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/15/banks-banking-investment-contract-tortnegligence-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-claim-lehman-note/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:24:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=67919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>North Carolina Department of State Treasurer v. Bank of New York Mellon</em> Whether a note with a term of two years and two days was a “two-year note” within the meaning of the parties’ contract is a factual issue not appropriately resolved on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/11/15/banks-banking-investment-contract-tortnegligence-breach-of-fiduciary-duty-claim-lehman-note/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211;  Tort/Negligence – Business Judgment Rule – Ordinary Negligence – Civil Practice – Motion to Strike – Affirmative Defense – Failure to Mitigate Damages&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/11/banks-banking-tortnegligence-business-judgment-rule-ordinary-negligence-civil-practice-motion-to-strike-affirmative-defense-failure-to/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/11/banks-banking-tortnegligence-business-judgment-rule-ordinary-negligence-civil-practice-motion-to-strike-affirmative-defense-failure-to/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Affirmative Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Judgment Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Failure to Mitigate Damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion to strike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinary Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=67005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Willetts</em>  This court previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on its determination that, should defendants’ actions be determined to fall beyond the scope of the business judgment rule, they will be judged against an ordinary prudent person standard. The court stands by its ruling.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/10/11/banks-banking-tortnegligence-business-judgment-rule-ordinary-negligence-civil-practice-motion-to-strike-affirmative-defense-failure-to/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211; FIRREA – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – First Impression &#8212; FDIC Receivership – Purchase – Tort/Negligence &#8212; Real Property – Breach of Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/23/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/23/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 13:14:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breach of Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDIC Receivership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FIRREA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first impression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purchase]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A.</em> The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&#038;T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/23/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211;  FIRREA – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – First Impression &#8212; FDIC Receivership – Purchase – Tort/Negligence &#8212; Real Property – Breach of Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 21:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breach of Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDIC Receivership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FIRREA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first impression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purchase]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. </em> The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&#038;T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/22/banks-banking-firrea-exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies-first-impression-fdic-receivership-purchase-tortnegligence-real-property-breach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211;  Tort/Negligence – FIRREA – Corporate – Officer &amp; Director Liability – Gross Negligence – Business Judgment Rule&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/26/banks-banking-tortnegligence-firrea-corporate-officer-director-liability-gross-negligence-business-judgment-rule/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/26/banks-banking-tortnegligence-firrea-corporate-officer-director-liability-gross-negligence-business-judgment-rule/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Judgment Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FIRREA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gross Negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Officer & Director Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Willetts</em> Plaintiff alleges that the defendant-officers and directors of Cooperative Bank permitted a lax loan approval process, that state and federal regulators repeatedly warned defendants about risks associated with a high concentration in speculative loans, and that defendants continued to focus on real estate lending after 2007 when they should have known that the real estate market was slowing. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged gross negligence; furthermore, it is too early in this action to determine whether the business judgment rule will protect defendants from claims of ordinary negligence.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/26/banks-banking-tortnegligence-firrea-corporate-officer-director-liability-gross-negligence-business-judgment-rule/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211; Consumer Protection &#8211; Retail Installment Contract &#8211; Repossession &#8211; Notice &#8211; No Preemption&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/banks-banking-consumer-protection-retail-installment-contract-repossession-notice-no-preemption/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/banks-banking-consumer-protection-retail-installment-contract-repossession-notice-no-preemption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Repossession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail Installment Contract]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Epps v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA</em> Federal regulations under the National Banking Act do not preempt a Maryland statute that governs repossession of personal property; Maryland has the right to regulate the notices lenders sent to borrowers before they repossess goods bought on a retail installment contract, and the 4th Circuit vacates dismissal of plaintiff car buyer’s putative class action.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/04/12/banks-banking-consumer-protection-retail-installment-contract-repossession-notice-no-preemption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211; Unfair Trade Practices &#8211; Loan Discount Fee &#8211; No Discount &#8211; Closing Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/07/banks-banking-unfair-trade-practices-loan-discount-fee-no-discount-closing-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/07/banks-banking-unfair-trade-practices-loan-discount-fee-no-discount-closing-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 14:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Closing Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loan Discount Fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No Discount]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Trade Practices]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=57845</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bumpers v. Community Bank of Northern Virginia </em>When defendant charged plaintiffs for something it did not provide - a discount on the loan rate - defendant committed an unfair trade practice.

We affirm summary judgment for plaintiffs on their unfair trade practices claim based on the loan discount fee. We reverse summary judgment for plaintiffs as to the issue of excessive closing fees. On remand, the trial court may consider the question of class certification.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/09/07/banks-banking-unfair-trade-practices-loan-discount-fee-no-discount-closing-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Mortgages &#8211; Duty to Borrowers &#8211; Appraiser&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/real-property-mortgages-duty-to-borrowers-appraiser/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/real-property-mortgages-duty-to-borrowers-appraiser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appraiser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Duty to Borrowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=56230</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Anderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc. </em>The plaintiff-borrowers claim the defendant-bank breached its duty to them by failing to disclose that the developer controlled the loan process, including the selection of an appraiser; however, the bank did not owe the borrowers a duty to disclose any details of the loan process not required to be disclosed under state or federal law or under the terms of the loan agreements.

The bank's motion to dismiss is granted.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/06/15/real-property-mortgages-duty-to-borrowers-appraiser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211; Deed of Trust &#8211; Hypothecation Agreement &#8211; Notes &#8211; Renewal Notes &#8211; Maturity Date &#8211; Future Advances &#8211; Foreclosure&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/18/banks-banking-deed-of-trust-hypothecation-agreement-notes-renewal-notes-maturity-date-future-advances-foreclosure/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/18/banks-banking-deed-of-trust-hypothecation-agreement-notes-renewal-notes-maturity-date-future-advances-foreclosure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dare County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deed of Trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future Advances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hypothecation Agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maturity Date]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=54775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Hall. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0270, 16 pp.) (J. Douglas McCullough, J.) Appealed from Dare County Superior Court. (J. Carlton Cole, J.) N.C. App. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Where the debtor executed a hypothecation agreement authorizing a third party to secure her property for any present or future [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/18/banks-banking-deed-of-trust-hypothecation-agreement-notes-renewal-notes-maturity-date-future-advances-foreclosure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banks &amp; Banking &#8211; Derivative Claims &#8211; Holders Claims &#8211; Special Duty&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/10/banks-banking-derivative-claims-holders-claims-special-duty/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/10/banks-banking-derivative-claims-holders-claims-special-duty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:32:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banks And Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Banks & Banking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Derivative Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holders Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Duty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=54681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Harris v. Wachovia Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0254, 29 pp.) (John Jolly, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: In an issue of first impression, the court rules that an officer of a corporation who has a personal relationship has no special duty to that shareholder; shareholders cannot [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/10/banks-banking-derivative-claims-holders-claims-special-duty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
