




























































































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
University of Florida (UF) Levin College of Law notes and outlines. Law school course outlines.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 119
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!





























































































CHAPTER 2 F 0E 0 State Law Debt Collection A. Collection Remedies A.1.Introduction to Judgment Collection
A.10.if judgment creditor’s lien is later it loses A.11.if earlier, it wins
A.21.we look to 15 USC Sec 1673, Secretary of Labor said, if 25%... (page 61) A.i. if 25% or more of an individuals disposable earnings were withheld pursuant to a garnishment for support, and the support garnishment has priority in accordance with State law, the CCPA does not permit the withholding of any additional amounts...
the acquiring company. The bonds or other paper issued for leveraged buyouts are commonly considered not to be investment grade because of the significant risks involved.
B.vii. Bay Plastics received no reasonably equivalent value for the security interest in all of its assets that it gave to BT in exchange for BT’s funding their stock sale B.viii. Not reasonably equivalent, 3.95 million loan less the 3.5 million to shareholders, 450 grand is not same as 3.95 million obligation
A.66.if the value of the security interest given by the corporation does not exceed the shareholders’ equity as shown on the balance sheet, there is usually no substantial harm to creditors A.67.the vice of an LBO lies in the fact that selling shareholders are paid indirectly with assets from the corporation itself, rather than by the purchasers A.68.the shareholders are paid with a corporate dividend or distribution A.69.enables shareholders to liquidate their equity interests which are otherwise subordinate to general unsecured claims without first paying creditors, which a normal liquidation would require A.70.if the corporations cash flow is not sufficient to service the loan, the bank eventually proceeds to foreclose on the corporation’s assets and sells them at foreclosure prices
C. State Collective Remedies pages 92- A.q. General
D.i. Including a debtor’s contract right to future, contingent property D.j. The estate property is a question of federal law, the court must look to state law when deciding whether a debtor had a legal or equitable interest in the property when he field for bankruptcy D.k. (^) Bankruptcy court looked at the particulars of the plan and noted that when an employee receives a dividend language... said that because the employer had no discretion as to the amount and timing of the bonus that it was part of the estate property; misconstrued the significance of the above fact, employer may have no discretion over the amount of any bonus, both parties agree that employer had full discretion over whether the bonus was played D.l. Case squarely on point F 0E 0 Vogel v. Palmer D.i. Debtor received a bonus from his employer roughly six months after he filed his bankruptcy petition D.ii. Three salient facts that led Vogel court to conclude D.1. for debtor to receive the bonus, the employer had to employ him at time declared bonus D.2. (^) to be eligible for the bonus, the debtor had to satisfactorily perform his job D.3. payment of the bonus was solely at the employer’s discretion D.a. these three are all basically here D.m. Vogel and this case share the same dispositive characteristic: the employer, as of the date the debtor filed could have not paid D.n. Might be different if under Michigan law a worker had enforceable right in bonus dividends before payment D.o. Vogel isn’t binding but its reasoning is consistent with the well established principle that when post petition income is dependent upon the continued services fo the debtor subsequent to the petition the amounts do not constitute property of the estate D.p. The post petition services that a debtor need perform in order to trigger this rule are exceedingly slight D.q. Debtor here had to labor for his employment more than two months after date of filing to be eligible D.r. Trustee argues for appointment, because part is rooted in work done before... D.iii. First, apportionment would be contrary to the plain language of §541, dictates that only legal or equitable interest of the debtor as of commencement of the case D.iv. He had no legal or equitable interest D.v. Second, legislative history D.4. (^) not intended to expand the debtor’s right against others more than they exist at time of commencement of the case D.5. trustee can take no greater rights than the debtor himself had on the day of filing for bankruptcy A.xxii. Information on IS THIS PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE? CERTAIN KEY AREAS OF DISPUTE. A.12. FIRST F 0E 0 disputes about the inclusion of certain expectancies in property of the estate under 541 can be divided into three main categories D.s. First, Sharp v. Dery, involves legal interests that are not enforceable at the date of bankruptcy but may be enforceable at a future time D.t. Question is whether they are sufficiently matured and certain to be included in the estate. D.vi. Subsidiary point F 0E 0 allocation of their value to past or future, when some value arises from services performed by debtor after bankruptcy A.13. SECOND ( dispute created by certain entitlements such as permits or licenses that are non transferable, which may or may not be property D.u. Distinction between property and mere license is same as the constitutional distinction between a right and privilege
D.v. When it can be bought and sold it will likely be property of the estate A.14. THIRD ( problems of restrictions on transferability imposed by K or by law D.w. debtor clearly owns valuable property but debtor may have not legal right to transfer D.x. (^) if such restrictions were valid in bankruptcy, then non transferable property could not pass to the bankruptcy estate D.y. such restrictions are generally not enforceable and Section 541(c)(1) makes may unenforceable D.vii. few key specific restrictions on alienation D.6. spendthrift exception, debtors are often able to keep retirement accounts out D.7. ERISA qualified, the federal law protects it, or else try again with state law A.xxiii. In Re Orkin A.15. (^) Facts D.z. Orkin was sole proprietor of real estate business, established a retirement account and put 271k in there, Under the terms of the plan debtor was the employee, employer and sole participant in the plan, filed for bankruptcy two years later, claimed the plan was not property of the estate under 541(c)(2) A.16. Issue D.aa. Whether the retirement plan of the sole proprietorship was exempt property under 541(c)(2). A.17. Holding D.bb. No A.18. (^) Rule D.cc. A retirement account held by a sole proprietor, that can be terminated by himself, is not excludable from bankruptcy proceedings. A.19. Reasoning D.dd. Applicability of 541(c)(2) D.viii. Section 541(c)(2) validates restrictions upon transfer of a debtor’s beneficial interest in a trust that are enforceable under applicable non bankruptcy law by excluding property from the estate D.ix. Presence of these anti alienation clauses would seem to qualify most retirement plans for 541(c)(2) exclusion if federal law was included within the term applicable non bankruptcy law D.x. Patterson Case D.8. held that applicable non bankruptcy law under 541(c)(2) includes both state spendthrift and federal law including ERISA D.9. result of Patterson is that employee retirement benefits under ERISA qualified pension plans are excluded from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, thus the question is whether debtor’s plan is ERISA qualified. D.ee. ERISA D.xi. Congress enacted ERISA to regulate the operations of employee benefit plans D.xii. (^) Statute imposes various requirements, must include provision prohibiting assignment and alienation of pension benefits D.xiii. Best view that plan is ERISA qualified only when it complies with the requirements of both ERISA and the IRC D.xiv. Trustee asserts two challenges to debtor’s claim D.10. contends that the debtor is employer, employee and sole participant and cannot be an employee as that term is used under ERISA D.11. argues that the Plan’s anti alienation clause is unenforceable under IRC 401(a)(13) D.xv. Kwatcher v. Mass Service