In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court judgment holding a bank and its principal in contempt and sanctioning them for violating a bankruptcy discharge injunction, based on the findings in a parallel state court proceeding.

In so ruling, the Eighth Circuit held that the state court judgment did not preclude the bankruptcy court’s ability to enforce its own orders.

The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida recently rejected a company’s argument that a purchase and sale agreement for the company’s future receivables constituted a “loan” that was unenforceable under New York usury law, because payment to the purchaser of the future receivables was not absolutely guaranteed, but instead contingent, and thus, not a loan subject to the law of usury.

The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.

In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a debtor who successfully challenges — as opposed to a debtor who defends — an award of attorney’s fees and costs for violations of the automatic stay under § 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code is entitled to an award of appellate fees and costs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s complaint alleging that a collection letter violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq., by failing to meaningfully convey the name of his creditor, as required.

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently held that a mortgagee may enforce a mortgage against a mortgagor who signed, initialed, and acknowledged the mortgage even though the body of the mortgage agreement does not identify the mortgagor by name.

In so ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio allowed a mortgagee to use parole evidence to determine the mortgage signatory’s intent where there is an ambiguity.

自己破産というのは、借金を返すことがもう絶対にできないということを裁判所に理解してもらい、法律上で、借金をなくしてもらうことができるやり方です。生活する中で、最低限必要な財産以外のものは、何もかも失うことになります。 日本の国民であるならば、誰もが自己破産ができるのです。

本来、債務は自分で返済すべきですが、どうにも返済の見込みが立たないときには、債務整理を考えてみるべきです。 一般的に債務整理が必要かどうか判断するタイミングというのは、毎月の返済が収入の３割以上に及ぶ場合が妥当な時期のようです。任意整理で弁護士等を訪れるのはこのタイミングが一番多いです。予定していた日に返済が行われないと、貸した側から次の日には支払いに関しての連絡がくるでしょう。

次の支払い予定日を聞かれるのでそこで約束すれば、あとでしつこく電話がかかってくることもありません。

しかし、もしその期日に約束を果たさないと、また催促の連絡がきて、やがて訴訟に発展する可能性もあります。

どうあがいても返済不能な状態に陥ったら、任意整理、個人再生、自己破産といった債務手続きをするという手があります。

どういった形で債務者が借金を整理するかによって債務整理には４つの方法があります。

Whether liquidated damages (LDs) can be claimed after termination is a question which comes up regularly. It is very relevant in the current climate where contracts are often terminated following contractor insolvency. If I were devising a construction law exam paper, this classic question would undoubtedly appear.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a mortgage loan with a post-plan maturity date was not discharged in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy because the plan did not “provide for” the debt and modify the repayment terms of the mortgage.

The Eleventh Circuit also held that the debt was not discharged because discharge would violate 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)’s anti-modification provision for mortgages secured by the debtor’s principal residence.