Cases decided recently in Florida and Illinois call into question one legal rule that some might have thought well-settled: a first-perfected security interest in collateral beats a later-perfected lien creditor's interest in that same collateral. Seems simple enough. Except this rule might not be followed in every State.

Many start-up companies backed by venture capital financing, especially those still in the development phase or which otherwise are not cash flow breakeven, at some point may face the prospect of running out of cash. Although many will timely close another round of financing, others may not. This post focuses on options available to companies when investors have decided not to fund and the company needs to consider a wind down.

For a distressed company running low on capital, an investment from insiders may represent a last best hope for survival. Insiders may be willing to risk throwing good money after bad for a chance to save the company even when any third party would stay safely away. Insiders  of a failing company may also have an ulterior motive for making an eleventh hour capital infusion, as they may use their control over a distressed company to enhance their position relative to the company’s other creditors. The line between a good faith rescue and bad faith self-dealing is often a hazy one.

In Castellanos v. Midland Funding, LLC, 15-CV-559 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2016) the United States District Judge John Steele joined with several of his Middle District of Florida colleagues and held that the Bankruptcy Code preempts the FDCPA with respect to filing time-barred proofs of claim.

In Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 15-527 (2d Cir. Jan. 4, 2016), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether a debtor who has been discharged in a bankruptcy can sue in a district court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), as opposed to seeking relief in the bankruptcy court.

In the case of Domistyle, Inc., 14-41463 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2015), the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit affirmed an order of the bankruptcy court requiring a secured creditor to reimburse the trustee for expenses paid to preserve real property subject to the creditor’s lien until the debtor’s eventual surrender of the property to the creditor.

The language of Bankruptcy Code § 501(a) is as broad as it is simple.

What better time than the holiday season to discuss “gifting” in the context of chapter 11 cases.  “Gifting” commonly refers to the situation where a senior creditor pays (or allocates a portion of its collateral for the benefit of) one or more junior claimholders.  Gifting is often employed as a tool to resolve the opposition of a junior class of creditors, who are typically out-of-the-money, to the manner in which the bankruptcy case is being administered.  For instance, creditors’ committees may seek gifts from senior creditors to guarantee a recovery for general unsecured

A decision last month by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire serves as a good reminder that, although helpful, Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n)’s protection for intellectual property licenseesdefinitely has its limits.

On November 23, 2015, in the first appellate decision of its kind, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed a bankruptcy court order to compel chapter 7 debtors to surrender real property by directing the debtors to cease all foreclosure defense. The decision in Failla v. Citibank, N.A. (In re Failla), case no. 15-80328, marks the first decision from a federal appellate court to address the question of whether a bankruptcy court may enter an order directing a debtor to cease defending a mortgage foreclosure suit pending in state court.