A husband and wife ran a successful childcare business in a retail center. They opened another location at a similar shopping center and increased their debt load in order to expand. After a few months, the location began to turn a profit. A liquor store then moved into the space next to the new childcare center, and the business plummeted. The couple could no longer service the debt and were unable to pay rent. The landlord evicted them and sued them for a breach of the long-term lease.
The couple came to The Wall Law Office for help. They considered countersuing the landlord for interference with their business by allowing a liquor store to open next to the childcare center. After discussing legal and business practical options, the couple decided to avoid litigation. After reviewing all options, they realized bankruptcy would be the appropriate means to carry on their successful business without the ongoing burden and risk of litigation.
A garment merchant with limited English language skills supported himself and his family by operating a small clothing store. The merchant received a large order that required him to ship a substantial amount of inventory overseas. The order was paid for with a credit card and shipped after confirmation. Shortly after shipping the goods, the bank determined the credit card was stolen and reversed the fund transfer to the merchant. Now, with no inventory and no cash to pay his suppliers, the merchant filed for bankruptcy protection and would have been granted his discharge.
However, the credit card processing company accused the merchant of being a conspirator and sought to have adjudicated as nondischargeable the debts owed. Having just declared bankruptcy, the merchant attempted to represent himself until the eve of the trial. The merchant realized he was unable to properly defend himself, and Mr. Wall began an aggressive representation of the merchant by demanding that the plaintiff support the fraud allegations. In addition, Mr. Wall showed the plaintiff the evidence of the merchant’s diligence before shipping the inventory. After reviewing Mr. Wall’s pretrial statement of the case, the plaintiff dismissed the case.
A start-up company had potentially valuable intellectual property but lacked the funds to introduce the technology to any of its markets. The start-up company found a potential acquirer who made a modest bridge loan. However, the start-up company’s shareholders did not approve the acquirer’s onerous terms for funding.
Still hoping to acquire the start-up company’s intellectual property with no regard for the shareholders, the spurned suitor filed an involuntary bankruptcy against the start-up company. Mr. Wall aggressively represented the start-up company, deposing the acquiring company’s personnel. Mr. Wall showed the court evidence that the acquirer had inappropriately taken a two-party dispute to bankruptcy court in bad faith. The bankruptcy court awarded the start-up company its incurred attorneys’ fees and set a future hearing on damages. Ultimately, the acquirer made a series of payments to settle with the start-up company. Today, the start-up company has come closer to realizing the true value of its intellectual property by locating additional funding and exploring new markets.