The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida created a three-factor test to help determine the ownership interests of social media accounts. The court in In re Vital Pharm[1] found that (1) documented property interests, (2) control over access, and (3) use, each play a role in establishing ownership over social media accounts.

In Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors. Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that a security interest includes a lender’s right to force the borrower’s account debtors to remit payments directly to the lender, regardless of whether an event of default exists. Further, the court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not provide a distinction between a security interest and an assignment.

In In re KarcreditLLC [1], the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana was faced with two lenders with claims to one original stock certificate as collateral.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

The Uniform Commercial Code was established to provide predictability and conformity in commercial transactions. Certain states have adopted nonstandard UCC provisions, which create an unreliable and unpredictable market for secured creditors. In addition, statutory liens, which are liens arising under federal and state statute, may disrupt the priority of secured creditors’ interest in a debtor’s assets. In re First River Energy, L.L.C. (986 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.

When is a loan not a loan? The SDNY Bankruptcy Court in In Re: Live Primary, LLC[1] held that a $6 million start-up loan was actually an equity contribution after analyzing the terms of the transaction and the intent of the parties. The court recharacterized the loan as equity given the alleged loan functioned as an equity investment would be expected to function.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.