A Chapter 9 bankruptcy offers protection to a financially-distressed municipality so that it may develop a plan for addressing its debts. A product of the Great Depression, bankruptcy protection for municipalities was first enacted in 1934. However, the Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional as an improper interference with the sovereignty of states. See Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 298 U.S. 513 (1936). Congress subsequently passed a revised Municipal Bankruptcy Act in 1937, which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. See United States v.

Farmers attempting to reorganize under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code may propose selling land as a means of generating cash to pay creditors. This sale creates a large capital gains tax, as the cost basis for the land is likely low. That capital gains tax has priority over general unsecured creditors, and the farmer needs to pay that capital gains tax in full to get a Chapter 12 plan confirmed.

Would Handle Liquidation of Failing Financial Firms and Limit the Use of Orderly Liquidation Funds as Established in the Dodd-Frank Act

On February 27, 2018, a unanimous Supreme Court held in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. (link here) that an otherwise-avoidable transfer is not subject to the safe harbor in Section 546(e) (which provides, in relevant part, a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution” or that “is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . .

Various business formations and financial transactions utilize alternative entity forms, such as limited liability companies (“LLC”), limited partnerships, master limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships—you get the idea. In turn, commercial borrowers may offer—and lenders may request—interests in such entities as collateral. This blog post focuses on LLC membership interests (“LLC Interests”) as collateral.

In January 2018, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) introduced a bill that would require corporate debtors to file for bankruptcy protection in the district in which their principal assets or principal place of business is located.

Nearly every year, there are changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 2017 was no exception, and new rules went into effect on December 1, 2017. Creditors should be aware of the new timeframe for filing claims and new relief that can be sought in Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 plans. Below is a summary of some of the new rule changes.

Rule 3002—Filing a Proof of Claim or Interest

On May 10, 2016, the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (the “Act”) was passed by the Missouri General Assembly as SB 578. The proposed Act provides a complete statutory structure for the appointment of receivers and the administration of receiverships within the state.

Currently, Missouri law regarding receiverships is largely based on case law, in addition to very limited statutory authority. As a result, receivership law can be somewhat confusing and inconsistently applied.

I recently wrote about a decision from a federal district court in Alabama that sidestepped the Eleventh Circuit’s Crawford^[1]decision by finding that the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) were in irreconcilable conflict, and the FDCPA gave way to the Code on the question of whether the mere act of filing a proof of claim on a stale debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy violated the FDCPA.^[2]

In the case of Isaac, et al. v. RMB, Inc., et al., No. 14-11560 (11th Cir. March 17, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld summary judgment in favor of a debt collector based on the affirmative defense of bona fide error.  The case presents a good opportunity to see what type of evidence is needed to prevail on the defense.