Your business receives payment for goods or services that your business provided to a customer (“XYZ Inc.”). Your business is paid from the customer’s corporate account. You know that the payment came from XYZ Inc.’s corporate account because the check or credit card used for payment is in the name of XYZ Inc. However, three years later, you receive a letter from the “trustee” of XYZ Inc., now a debtor in bankruptcy, demanding payment of the money your business received for having provided goods or services to XYZ Inc.

Last week, I posted about how Peer-to-Peer lending may be facing some headwinds.

Before a losing party forges ahead with an appeal of an order or judgment from a bankruptcy court located in the Eleventh Circuit (or any other circuit for that matter), such party would do well to consider whether it has standing to prosecute an appeal in the first instance.

When seeking approval of a settlement in a bankruptcy case, the usual vehicle for approval is the filing of a motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 and a subsequent hearing. While Rule 9019 and case law require certain factual and legal thresholds be established to gain the approval, the Rule does not specifically require an evidentiary hearing on motions to approve settlements.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Ullrich v. Welt(In re NICA Holdings, Inc.), Case No. 14-14685, 2015 WL 9241140 (11th Cir. Dec. 17, 2015) demonstrates the importance of carefully selecting legal regimes when deciding to place a company in an insolvency proceeding, such as an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”), a bankruptcy proceeding, or possibly both with one as an alternative.

If Party A files an involuntary bankruptcy case against Party B that is contested by Party B, and if Party A fails to convince a bankruptcy court that Party B should be a debtor in such involuntary bankruptcy case, the general rule is that Party A must pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Party B in successfully obtaining dismissal of the involuntary filing.

In a judgment dated 26 / 03 / 2015, ref. no. IX ZR 302 / 13, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) held that a provisional insolvency administrator is personally liable for monies paid into the escrow account in the event of claims of unjust enrichment being made due to the payments having no proper basis in law.

The ruling related to the following situation:

Mit Urteil vom 26. März 2015, AZ IX ZR 302 / 13, entschied der BGH, dass ein vorläufiger Insolvenzver- walter für Zahlungen auf das Voll- rechtstreuhandkonto persönlich haf- tet, wenn Bereicherungsansprüche wegen rechtsgrundloser Zahlungen geltend gemacht werden.

Dieser Entscheidung lag folgender Sachverhalt zu Grunde:

Report contents:

All too often, after a debtor receives his or her discharge in bankruptcy and after the case has been closed, a creditor whose debt has been discharged does something which may appear to constitute an effort to collect that debt.  This may range from the sending of an informational account statement by the mortgagee on a home surrendered in the bankruptcy, filing a proof of claim in a subsequent bankruptcy case, to filing of a lawsuit to collect the discharged debt.