Atlanta Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

As any creditor or collections professional is certainly aware, collecting from can be a difficult process. It seems as though policy makers, public opinion and the news media are always on the side of the person who defaults on a payment rather than the party who actually suffers the loss when the owed money is not paid.

This week the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case base to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals after ruling that a person can bring a suit in federal court against a debt collector for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The debt collector had been attempting to recover a debt that the consumer had taken out for a student loan.

Across the United States, more than eight million merchants are able to accept via Mastercard and Visa. This payment method is vital for many businesses and is made possible by a system of banks and payment processors, such as the Atlanta based payment processing company that now finds itself engaged in litigation with one of these merchants who benefit from this service.

The security of consumers' accounts and credit card information is, of course, one of the top priorities of the banks and payment processing companies. In order to maintain this security these companies investigate potentially fraudulent transactions, and require that merchants abide by certain data retention practices to keep customer information safe. This appears to be at the heart of this dispute.

It is difficult enough to keep a small business afloat in these tough economic times, even when all you have to worry about is selling enough products and services to cover your costs. But when a commercial dispute ends up in court, the business may be at risk of being liable for extensive monetary damages. When facing this type of situation it is important to work with a law firm that not only understands the law but also understands your business.

A Georgia contractor, who also owns a small flea market testified at a trial recently in which the Louis Vuitton company is seeking millions of dollars in damages against flea market owner for allegedly allowing trademark infringement to occur at the market. The $55 million dollar claim is on stark contrast to the $20,000 that the Georgia man claimed his flea market made in a recent year.

Commercial and business lawsuits often involve disputes between two separate businesses. Alleged business torts or breaches of contracts can pit one company against another in court. But it is also not uncommon for a dispute to arise within a single company. It seems that whenever there is more than a single person who has a financial interest in a company, there is a distinct possibility of a disagreement within the company.

An Atlanta man was recently granted a temporary restraining order against his business partner in order to stop an emergency meeting of the holding company's board. The underlying lawsuit in this matter involves allegations by the Atlanta partner that his business partner had misused funds their business had borrowed to renovate a boutique hotel.

For most banks their preferred business model is to make loans and have borrowers repay the principal and interest in accordance with the original lending agreement. But unfortunately the lingering effects of the housing crisis in Georgia and across the nation have left banks with difficult choices. Because few banks want to be in the business of owning or selling homes, they may choose to try to facilitate a loan modification that will allow for as much recovery as possible.

Most people employed in the lending and banking industry have likely seen the story that has appeared in the news in the last few days about the man who very nearly lost his house after one of his payments was 80 cents short. From the headlines a casual reader would be led to believe that this man had been regularly making all of his payments until one day he accidently paid 80 cents too little, at which point the bank sent immediately sent in the black helicopters to throw the man forcibly from his house. Of course it did not transpire quite like that.

As the economic recovery in Atlanta and across Georgia fails to overwhelm, many banks still find themselves struggling. Many of their customers that were formerly credit-worthy are now unable to make payments and banks are attempting to recover as much of their assets as possible through loan-workouts and other tactics.

Numerous banks in Georgia have entered into consent orders with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The consent orders, entered into most recently by two community banks, do not require the banks to admit or deny any wrongdoing, but do require the banks to make modifications to their operations.

Just 78 seconds before a federal District Court judge could rule to deny a delay to pursue a settlement between SEC regulators and Citigroup, a federal Circuit Court of Appeals made public its ruling to grant the delay. The two parties sought the delay to appeal the denial of the settlement in this securities litigation, a denial which the District judge had premised on the settlement's absence of a requirement that the bank admit to any wrongdoing.

The underlying issue that gave rise to the settlement was related to charges that the bank had sold $1 billion of mortgage backed securities that it allegedly knew to be risky, so much so that that bank is accused of actually betting against the repayments of the debt at the same time that it was selling it to investors. The transactions are thought to have resulted in more than $700 million in losses.

Having a beer and wine retail license can be vital to the viability of a supermarket or convenience store in Georgia. When customers are planning to have some friends over to watch a Falcons game, they likely do not want to have to go to separate stores to pick up chips and a six-pack. But too often the approval and denial of retail and liquor licenses are a more arbitrary process than one would hope for.

About 60 miles east of Atlanta in Morgan County, one convenience store is taking their fight to court, arguing that the denial of their retail alcoholic beverage license was improper. The business owner argues that the county's process does not provide ascertainable standards by which their application could be judged.