Stephen M. Parham

 

Stephen M. Parham

|

Results

Share This:

In an article published in the Daily Report’s In-House Georgia section on May 7, 2018, Bloom Parham Managing Partner Steve Parham provides insight into best practices for businesses hiring outside counsel. Parham writes that companies both large and small should make careful considerations before engaging outside counsel, such as making comprehensive engagement management and exit process plans, to ensure the relationship begins and remains on the right track. For the full article, you may click here.


In a recent article published in Construction Executive, Bloom Parham Managing Partner Steve Parham and Counsel Troy Covington provide insight regarding how to handle bankruptcy for an owner of a real estate company or a contractor. Parham and Covington write that the Bankruptcy Code determines how a project will move forward following a bankruptcy. The code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. Then, a debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. In many states the law provides that if the debtor files bankruptcy, the contractor does not have to commence an action against the debtor and instead may bring an action directly against the property owner. For the full article, you may click here.


Represented a homeowner in his effort to obtain a set-back variance from the City of Atlanta for his Morningside home. The Zoning Board’s 4-0 vote in favor of the variance allows the homeowner to construct his new home on an unusually-sized corner lot, despite opposition from the neighborhood association and the Neighborhood Planning Unit.


Successfully obtained summary judgment in client’s favor in a suit by a national Bank seeking to collect the balance due on a defaulted commercial loan. After foreclosing on the subject collateral property, the Bank failed to confirm the foreclosure sale but still filed suit against our client, the loan’s guarantor, for the deficiency balance remaining after the sale – approximately $800,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees. The Bank argued that our client’s guaranty was sufficient under the HWA Properties line of cases  to allow the bank to sue without confirmation. Bloom Sugarman moved for summary judgment on the Complaint and argued that the guaranty in question did not rise to the level of HWA Properties and that confirmation was a condition precedent to the Bank being able to recover against our client. After reviewing the briefing and hearing oral argument, Judge McBurney sided with Bloom Sugarman and granted our summary judgment motion thereby relieving our client of any possible remaining liability in this matter.


Defeated local utility’s motion for summary judgment in inverse condemnation and trespass case in which Bloom Sugarman’s client is alleging that the utility buried its electrical conduit and facilities on the client’s property outside the scope of the utility’s recorded easement. This matter will now proceed to a jury trial this summer where our client will be allowed to present evidence in its favor.


After successfully intervening in a lawsuit brought by a client’s competitor against a local county commission seeking to enforce a watershed protection zoning ordinance, Bloom Sugarman successfully argued that a prior preliminary injunction levied against its client in that lawsuit should be vacated in its entirety because the evidentiary hearing was conducted without proper notice. The injunction had shut down our client’s operations entirely for almost eight months and was threatening to put it out of business permanently due to the economic losses it sustained during the injunction period. The Court agreed with Bloom Sugarman’s arguments and vacated its own Order, allowing our client’s business operations to resume pending the outcome of the full trial scheduled for later this year.


Successfully obtained emergency TRO for client in order to stop the foreclosure sale of and/or to conduct the non-judicial foreclosure sale of client’s property. The controversy involves the validity of two Security Deeds as a result of a commercial real estate transaction. The TRO will allow for the courts time to issue a declaratory judgment or decree on the issue to eliminate the uncertainly and controversy and appropriately determine the rights and liability of the parties.