Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs-FDIC and bank’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking to collect on two defaulted loans, even though defendants asserted that language in release in prior settlement agreement between FDIC and defendants with respect to third $157,300 loan between parties covered said loans at issue in instant complaint. Relevant language in release in settlement agreement referred only to $157,300 loan, and although agreement contained language releasing defendants from “any and all liabilities…claims and demands whatsoever,” extrinsic evidence from one defendant indicated that settlement release pertained only to $157,300 loan. Ct. rejected one defendant’s claim that his subjective belief that release covered all three loans was dispositive on issue, where: (1) said belief was contrary to same defendant’s own testimony regarding background of settlement agreement; (2) specific provisions in settlement agreement only referred to $157,300 loan; and (3) specific language in agreement should prevail over general language in agreement when there is a potential conflict in contract language.

General unsecured creditor lacked standing to object to attorney fee petitions submitted to Bankruptcy Trustee by certain law firms, even though creditor argued that work performed by said law firms never had chance of benefiting bankruptcy estate. While Bankruptcy Ct. had approved said fee petitions that arose out of law firm’s pursuit of section 363(n) claim against instant creditor, which purchased debtor’s assets under conditions that Trustee believed had produced lower than market price for said purchase, Bankruptcy Ct. should have dismissed said objection due to creditor’s lack of standing to raise objection given fact that creditor had failed to show that it would have benefited financially if it would have prevailed in said objection. Moreover, record showed that other creditors with higher priority would have received any proceeds had creditor prevailed in its objection.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendant in action seeking to enforce confidentiality clause in settlement agreement that prohibited each party from disclosing terms of settlement and set $10,000 as liquidated damage figure for each breach of confidentiality clause. While plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to $20 million in said damages, where defendant disclosed in its Franchise Disclosure Document amount of settlement and other details of plaintiff’s underlying lawsuit against defendant to 2,000 potential buyers of its franchise, Dist. Ct. could properly find that instant liquidated damage clause was unenforceable under Texas law, where there was no showing that instant disclosure had caused $20 million in loss to plaintiff or that damages to plaintiff were anywhere near average of $10,000 per unauthorized disclosure.