Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Griffin, a futures commission merchant, went bankrupt in 1998 after one of its customers, Park, sustained trading losses of several million dollars and neither Park nor Griffin had enough capital to cover the obligations. The Bankruptcy Court first relied on admissions by the controlling Griffin partners that they failed to block a wire transfer, allowing segregated customer funds to be used to help cover Park’s (and thus Griffin’s) losses. On remand, the court reversed itself and held that the trustee failed to establish that the partners actually caused the loss of customer funds and failed to establish damages. The district court affirmed, applying the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code to a series of transactions that was initiated by the margin call that caused Griffin’s downfall. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that there is no reason why the transactions at issue (which involved banks in England, Canada, France, and Germany, but not Illinois) would be governed by Illinois law. The Bankruptcy Court’s first decision appropriately relied on the partners’ admission that they failed in their obligation to protect customer funds, which was enough to hold them liable for the entire value of the wire transfer.

Investors joined together to buy property. To finance the purchase, they formed a distinct limited liability company, IPA, to negotiate and execute a loan on their behalf with Morgan Stanley. Okun was manager of IPA, which was not allowed to hold an ownership interest in any of the investors. Morgan Stanley sold the loan to an Okun-controlled entity, Lender, LLC, and agreed to offset the purchase price by the amount of funds available in escrow, reserve, and impound accounts, in which it held a security interest and which were, under the terms of the loan, required to reimburse investors for maintenance, taxes, and other property-related expenses. Lender LLC never reestablished the accounts, depriving the Investors of $1,361,184.63. Abandoning their suit against Lender, LLC, the investors claimed that Morgan Stanley breached their loan agreement and committed conversion. The district court granted summary judgment for Morgan Stanley. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Morgan Stanley was not barred by the Note, the Mortgage, or the RSA from assigning its interest in the escrow accounts to Okun or structuring a sale of the loan as it wished; it committed neither breach of contract nor conversion.

Defendant was convicted of armed bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months, in part because of previous convictions for the same crime. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding exclusion of a defense witness on the ground that he was an alibi witness and the defense had not given the prosecution the notice required before trial by FRCP 12.1(a). The proposed testimony, that defendant was calm at his employment as a personal trainer two hours after the robbery, would have no probative value. The court also rejected a challenge to the photo array shown the bank manager, whom the robber had confronted after forcing entry shortly after the bank had closed. The array was suggestive, but any error was harmless. There was no doubt that the dust mask found outside the bank was the robber’s, and DNA found on the dust mask matched defendant’s DNA; all of the bank employees gave a description that matched defendant.

Sheneman and his son purchased distressed properties, then flipped the properties by operating an elaborate mortgage fraud scheme that convinced unwitting buyers to purchase properties they could neither afford nor rent out after purchasing. Mortgage lenders were duped into financing the purchases through misrepresentations about the buyers and their financial stability. Four buyers with few assets and no experience in the real estate market purchased 60 homes. Most of the homes were eventually foreclosed upon. The buyers and lenders each suffered significant losses. Sheneman was convicted of four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to application of sentencing enhancements for use of sophisticated means and for losses of more than one million dollars.

Between 2004 and 2008, Brown ran an elaborate scheme that tricked lenders into issuing fraudulent mortgage loans in Chicago and Las Vegas. Brown recruited or directed dozens of individuals: lawyers, accountants, loan officers, bank employees, realtors, home builders, and nominee buyers. Of his accomplices, 32 people were criminally charged. The Chicago scheme resulted in about 150 fraudulent loans, totaling more than $95 million in proceeds from victim lenders. The Las Vegas scheme resulted in approximately 33 fraudulent loans totaling about $16 million. Brown entered guilty pleas and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment for the Las Vegas scheme and 240 months’ imprisonment for the Chicago scheme, to run concurrently. The district court also imposed a restitution amount of more than $32.2 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Brown’s sentence, rejecting a challenge to the loss calculation. The court remanded the 66-month sentence and $7.1 restitution order against another participant in the Chicago scheme because the court incorrectly determined the number of victims.

In 1997 Javier unlawfully entered the U.S.; he married in 2001. In 2007 the bank hired wife. Husband, attempting to start a business, could not open a bank account without a social security number. He obtained an individual tax identification number. Wife named him a joint owner on her account and helped use his ITIN to open accounts of his own. The business failed. Husband returned to Mexico to deal with his citizenship. Wife revealed the situation to her supervisor, requesting time off to help husband obtain citizenship. The supervisor agreed and called the bank security officer, who was concerned that the accounts might implicate bank fraud laws. During a meeting, the security officer became angry and berated wife. Wife refused to attend another meeting without her attorney The bank terminated her employment and reported her activity to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a consortium of area banks. Wife sued, claiming blacklisting, defamation, emotional distress, and employment discrimination, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted the bank summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any discrimination was not based on race or national origin, but on an unprotected classification, husband’s status as an alien lacking permission to be in the country.

BMD was a subcontractor for Industrial, a subcontractor for Walbridge, the general contractor for construction of a factory near Indianapolis. Fidelity was surety for Industrial’s obligations to BMD. The project proceeded for about a year before the manufacturer declared bankruptcy. Walbridge failed to pay Industrial, Industrial failed to pay BMD, and Fidelity refused to pay BMD, which sued Fidelity on the bond. Their subcontract conditioned Industrial's duty to pay on its own receipt of payment. The district court held that the pay-if-paid clause required Industrial to pay BMD only if Industrial received payment from Walbridge, rejecting an argument that it controlled only the timing of Industrial's obligation. The court held that pay-if-paid clauses are valid under public policy and that Fidelity could assert all defenses of its principal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The subcontract expressly provides that Industrial's receipt of payment is a condition precedent to its obligation; it could have stated that BMD assumed the risk of the owner’s insolvency, but additional language was not necessary. Pay-if-paid clauses are valid under Indiana law and, under surety law, Fidelity may assert all defenses of its principal. Industrial was never obligated to pay BMD; BMD may not recover on the bond.

Capital One retained a collection agency, which sent plaintiff, its debtor, a dunning letter with notice of her debt validation rights. Plaintiff claims that the content as a whole over-shadowed the debt validation notice, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692g. The district court dismissed, stating that language like "act now" is only puffery and that placement of the notice on the back of the letter complies with the Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's rejection of a request to conduct a consumer survey to prove that the letter was confusing.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g), requires that electronically printed receipts not display more than the last 5 digits of the card number, but does not define "card number." A Shell card designates nine digits as the "account number" and five as the "card number" and has 14 digits embossed on the front and 18 digits encoded on the magnetic stripe. Shell printed receipts at its gas pumps with the last four digits of the account number. Plaintiffs contend that it should have printed the final four numbers that are electronically encoded on the magnetic stripe, which the industry calls the "primary account number." Plaintiffs did not claim risk of identity theft or any actual injury, but sought a penalty of $100 per card user for willful failure to comply. The district court denied Shell summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Shell did not willfully violate the Act.

As part of a retention package, the bank purchased a split dollar life policy for plaintiff's trust with cash value of more than $662,000. The bank paid part of the premiums and had a senior interest in the policy to the extent of those premiums. To safeguard this interest, the trust assigned the policy to the bank as collateral. The bank paid $421,890 of the premiums. The trust interest was about $240,000. In 2009, the bank failed and was placed under FDIC receivership. The Insurer surrendered the entire cash value of the policy to the FDIC. The trustee demanded return of the value of the policy; the insurer refused. The trustee first contacted the FDIC receiver after expiration of the 90-day period for claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(13)(D), although he received notice 12 days before expiration of the period. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It would be possible for a claim to arise so close to the bar date as to deprive a claimant of due process, but this case did not present that situation.