For a creditor, filing a proof of claim is the foundation of recovery in bankruptcy. It is the official statement to the court of how much you are owed and why. In many cases it is required before a creditor can receive any distribution from the estate. Yet filing a […]
Bankruptcy cases move quickly and creditors who fail to monitor developments often lose critical rights. From asset sales and executory contracts to lien enforcement and debtor motions, each stage can affect how much you recover. For landlords, lessors, vendors, banks, credit unions, and private lenders, knowing what to watch for […]
When a business files for bankruptcy, one of the first questions creditors ask is whether their claims will survive the process. The answer depends on the scope of the bankruptcy discharge. While debtors often view the discharge as their “fresh start,” for creditors it is the dividing line between debts […]
When a company files for bankruptcy, there is almost never enough money to satisfy everyone. Creditors of all types such as banks, landlords, lessors, vendors, and taxing authorities submit claims against the estate. Because resources are limited, the bankruptcy system must decide not only who gets paid, but in what […]
When a business files for bankruptcy, creditors expect to recover only a fraction of what they are owed. Yet the surprise for many creditors is not simply the loss of future payments, but the demand to return payments already received. These lawsuits, commonly called preference actions, are among the most […]
When a business or individual is experiencing financial distress, creditors often worry that assets may be moved out of reach before debts can be collected. Bankruptcy law provides tools to address this concern through the doctrine of fraudulent transfers. These laws are designed to ensure that assets are not hidden, […]
There are two primary types of fraudulent transfers contemplated under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”)—actual fraudulent transfers and constructive fraudulent transfers. When a debtor makes a transfer with “actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud” a creditor—that is, “actual fraud” under Fla. Stat. 726.105(1)(a)—insolvency of the debtor is largely irrelevant.
The state of Florida prohibits banks from using their own stock as collateral for extensions of credit. These prohibitions are known as anti-tying regulations. Tying is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the purchase of a different product or service. The purpose of […]
Simply put, Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“FUFTA”) is a “powerful remedy.” See Brandon C. Meadow’s in-depth blog, Are Florida’s Fraudulent Transfer Claims Subject to Equitable Tolling? But what good is this powerful remedy if creditors do not understand what exactly it can do for them in light of misconduct by debtors? This blog post seeks to show creditors what rights and options they have for unwinding transfers and obtaining payback against those who assets were fraudulently transferred to.
In a perfect world, all loans would be performing, and the lead bank and participant would share in the profits of a loan participation with minimal risk of loss. In the real world, a promising participation loan easily becomes a problem loan, and the lead bank and participant bank can find themselves embroiled in litigation against each other. Such litigation puts a substantial strain on the lead bank’s resources to enforce the loan documents against the defaulted debtor, at a time when the parties should be sharing resources for loss mitigation. One common reason a participant may sue a lead bank after borrower default is based upon the participant’s assessment of collectability. If the participant determines that the collateral is worthless or the borrower is otherwise judgment-proof, the participant may look to the lead bank to recover its share of participation in the failed loan.