Secured Claim

The Trap of Merchant Cash Advances and Financing

09/22/22

If you have a business, you have no doubt received advertisements for “merchant cash advances,” “merchant loans” or “merchant financing,” whether or not those specific terms are used.  If in doubt, just do a search for those terms and you will get a couple pages of sponsored ads (but be warned the big brother of the internet will flood you with ads after that).  Based on cases I have now, and calls I have received, business has picked up considerably for those

[more]

When Does a Judgment Lien and FiFa Attach to Real Property in Georgia?

02/17/22

In Georgia, does a judgment lien attach to real property as of the date the judgment was entered or as of the date and time the writ of fieri facias on that judgment is properly recorded in the county records, as required under Georgia law?  The Supreme Court of Georgia answered this question in Synovus Bank v. Kelley, No.

[more]

Mette Kurth: 2nd Circuit Reverses Course on Cramdown Interest Rates

12/12/17

On her The Bottom Line 11 blog, Fox partner Mette Kurth examined a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in In re MPM Silicones (the Momentive case). The court followed the lead of the Sixth Circuit in establishing a two-step approach to setting the cramdown interest rate on debtor payments for secured claims:

[more]

Lessons from Chapter 13 – When is 8% Not Really 8%

01/23/15

In ruling on a very unfortunate situation (more on that below), Judge Shannon issued an opinion on July 24, 2014 in the Aro bankruptcy, holding that a state court decision concerning the validity of a lien cannot be challenged in Bankruptcy Court.  In the opinion in this case issued on January 22, 2015 (the “Opinion”), Judge Shannon analyzed the value of the lien and applicable interest rates.  The Opinion is available here.

[more]

Decision in WL Homes, LLC Explores the Powers of an Agent of Both a Parent and Its Subsidiary

06/07/11

Summary

In an 21 page opinion published May 25, 2011, Judge Shannon ruled that, “the fact that an agent may represent more than one principal does not alter the well-established doctrine that an agent with authority is capable of binding its principal.” Opinion at *2-3. Judge Shannon’s opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).
 

Background

[more]