In its Scantling opinion, the Eleventh Circuit held that a Chapter 20 debtor (a chapter 13 debtor who previously filed and concluded a chapter 7 case) could strip off valueless junior liens on her principal residence even thought she was ineligible for a discharge in the chapter 13 case. Full disclosure: our firm, Berger Singerman, represented the appellee, Ms. Scantling.

As wealth preservation for future generations has become a popular topic among clients, estate planning practitioners have changed their tune when advising clients on how distributions should be made to beneficiaries.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Wiand v. Lee clarifies longstanding issues relating to an equity receiver’s standing to pursue clawback claims for the benefit of the receivership estate under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”).  See Wiand v. Lee, 2014 WL 2446084 (11th Cir. Jun.

For attorneys, the phrase “Don’t be a jerk” starts any class on professionalism or ethics. Not taking another attorney’s phone calls and failing to return those calls certainly qualifies as “being a jerk”. It is frankly, quite rude. But while being rude can be aggravating to opposing counsel, is it sanctionable? A Puerto Rican lawyer and her firm found out to the tune of $14,270.60 that it is.

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.