Cases for Analysis 2-Negotiable Instruments, Secured Transactions, and Bankruptcy

Cases for Analysis typically involve a short synopsis of a legal case and require you to answer a single question and to provide reasons in support of your answer. Case Studies are more involved with detailed analyses of legal decisions. You may be required to answer more than a single question in this assignment. Requirements: Answers to questions must be submitted in writing using Microsoft Word. Your submissions must be double spaced using Times New Roman font and 12 point type. One inch margins at the top, bottom and both sides of every page. Answers to Cases for Analysis questions are limited to no more than 500 words per answer. Include your name and the name of your professor at the top left of the first page. Assignment: For this assignment, please read and answer the following Cases for Analysis: Cases for Analysis number 2, Chapter 18, page 433. Granite Corp Sent a check to overseas equipment Co. When the check was reported lost, Granite wrote to its bank telling it to stop payment on the check. Granite then sent the money to overseas equipment co. by wire. Thirteen months later, the check turned up, and Granite’s bank paid it. Did the Bank violate its duty to stop payment on the check? Explain. [See: Granite Equip. Leasing Corp. v. Hempstead Bank, 326 N.Y.S.2d 881 (NY)]. Cases for Analysis number 9, Chapter 20, page 489. U.S. Electronics, a Missouri corporation with a place of business in DeKalb County, Georgia, borrowed money from a Missouri bank. The corporation gave the bank a security interest in all of its machinery and equipment. The bank filed a financing statement in Fulton County rather than in DeKalb County, as required by law. U.S. Electronics defaulted on the loan and fell behind on its rent. The corporation’s landlord obtained a judgment against it for past due rent, becoming a lien creditor. The landlord claimed priority over the bank for the proceeds of a sheriff’s sale of the machinery and equipment, arguing that the bank’s security interest was not perfected. Do you agree? Why or why not? [See: United States v. Waterford No. 2 Office Center, 271 S.E.2d 790 (GA).] Cases for Analysis number 7, Chapter 21, page 514. Finding itself in great financial difficulty, Fidelity Mortgage Investors filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition in a New York bankruptcy court. When the petition was filed, the automatic suspension went into effect. Ignoring the suspension, Camelia and Farnale, two of FMI’s creditors, filed suit against FMI in a Mississippi federal court. As a result, FMI was forced to pay out enormous sums of money in its own defense on the Mississippi case. FMI then returned to the bankruptcy court in New York and asked that both Camelia and Farnale be held in contempt of court for ignoring the suspension. Should the New York bankruptcy court hold Camelia and Farnale in contempt? Explain. [See: Fidelity Mortgage Investors v. Camelia Builders, Inc., 550 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir.).]

  Do you need high-quality Custom Essay Writing Services?