James J. Ficenec

Under bankruptcy law, payments received by creditors within 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing are presumed to be a “preference” and are subject to claw back by the bankruptcy trustee.  For example, in one matter, the bankruptcy trustee sought to recover approximately $80,000 in payments received by the client within 90 days before the bankruptcy filing.  We were able to demonstrate that the some of the payments were not preferential payments and that other payments were otherwise exempt from the claw back.  The matter was resolved without a trial.

Represented a lender taking possession of equipment and inventory as security for a defaulted loan.  Immediately before the lender could take possession of the security, the borrower filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy that appeared to have been filed only for purposes of delay and not for purposes of a legitimate reorganization.  By promptly filing a motion with the court and obtaining an order for the motion to be heard on shortened time, we were able to obtain an order dismissing the bankruptcy only 19 days after borrower filed the bankruptcy petition.

Jim was contacted by a Marin County homeowner who had just lost a jury trial with former contractors and was facing a judgment in excess of $500,000.  Jim reviewed the trial records and identified three key areas that appeared to be viable grounds for appeal.  He filed the appeal, briefed and argued the case, and won on all three issue, reversing the judgment.

A very successful product distributor needed assistance in ensuring compliance with California’s wage and hour laws.  Newmeyer Dillion helped the business transition to a system that helped the business document its compliance, improve its management systems, while at the same time improving employee morale.  Newmeyer Dillion then performed a detailed analysis of unique issues affecting executive level staff to make sure the business was fully informed when making key business decisions.

A real estate developer agreed to sell a rare undeveloped parcel in San Francisco subject to all easements of record.  The buyer, who prepared the purchase agreement, discovered an easement that the seller thought had been removed.  The buyer claimed a right to purchase the property at a lower value.  Jim represented the developer at trial, prevailed and obtain a judgment in the seller’s favor for the attorney’s fees incurred in litigating the case.