When the Sum of the Parts are More than the Whole: How Fully Secured Creditors Can Be Preferred in Bankruptcy

The bankruptcy system seeks to provide debtors with relief from overwhelming debt, while ensuring a fair and equitable distribution to creditors. Though the filing of a bankruptcy petition stays most debt collection efforts and repayment outside of the bankruptcy system, payments made prior to the bankruptcy filing may diminish funds available to distribute to creditors during the bankruptcy case. In order to prevent pre-petition transfers from impacting post-petition distribution within the bankruptcy system, the Bankruptcy Code provides the bankruptcy trustee with the power to avoid various pre-petition transfers and to recover those transfers from the recipient. With regard to one of those potential transfers—preferential transfers—courts regularly find that transfers to fully secured creditors cannot be avoided. However, this conventional wisdom fails to consider how other sections of the Code that allow such creditors to recover additional payments in bankruptcy causes a benefit to those creditors at the expense of others. This article seeks to resolve the lack of congruity between these sections to protect the purposes behind recovery of preferential pre-petition transfers.

Judicial Selection in a Hyper-Politicized Democracy

I am grateful to the Stetson Law Review for providing me this opportunity to comment on Judge Mark Klingensmith’s recent, thought-provoking article on judicial...

On Measuring Damages Where a Contract Breach Benefits the Promisee: Response to Mark Giancaspro, Quantifying Damages in Cases of Advantageous Breach: The Curious Case...

As someone who has regularly taught both contracts and remedies for the past decade and a half, I read with great interest...

Should the Florida Courts Adopt the Federal Twombly Standard For Motions to Dismiss?

For half a century, plaintiffs in federal court facing motions to dismiss dutifully cited the familiar Conley v. Gibson mantra that the motion must...

Exploring Non-prosecutorial Justice Alternatives in America

Restorative justice has become an increasingly popular topic in the national conversation. No longer just a niche legal concept, restorative justice has gained...

Live Critique of Oral Arguments: Response to Amanda L. Sholtis, Say What?: A How-To Guide on Providing Formative Assessment to Law Students Through Live...

Live critique is a process through which a teacher reviews a student’s work for the first time “live” with the student and provides feedback. Stetson Law Review recently published Say What?: A How-To Guide on Providing Formative Assessment to Law Students Through Live Critique by Professor Amanda L. Sholtis, which focuses on the use of live critique to give feedback to students on written law school assignments, such as memorandums of law or exam answers. This response will offer some reflections on Professor Sholtis’ article and also will discuss how providing feedback to students immediately after they present oral arguments is another useful example of the live-critique method in legal education.

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Great and Powerful Oz*: SCOTUS and Title VII

As a law student, the Stetson Law Review published my first law review article. As a licensed attorney reviewing that article, I have some responses to the topic of my Comment, Title VII employment discrimination based on sex, especially since oral arguments were recently heard at the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with three separate but overlapping cases. First, this Response discusses the legal arguments made by the LGB plaintiffs in the cases against the legal arguments I presented in my previous article. Then, the Response reviews the oral argument heard at SCOTUS for the LGB plaintiffs and provides responses to some points made by the Justices. Finally, this Response examines the future, by discussing not only the possible outcomes from the SCOTUS case but also how that decision can impact already viable legal theories LGB plaintiffs use in employment discrimination cases.