In practice, it is not uncommon for bankruptcy debtors to file suit against creditors or debt collectors for stay and discharge injunction violations. Often, they will do so before making any meaningful attempt to communicate with the creditor or debt collector to request that they stop their improper collection efforts.

Since the end of the first quarter of 2020, bankruptcy professionals have been planning for a substantial increase in business bankruptcies. The newest statistics tell us that the wait is over. These bankruptcy filings follow the sustained economic contraction rooted in the COVID pandemic. But it would be too simplistic to say that COVID is the sole cause of this trend. Most of the businesses that have filed faced other challenges, such as heavy debt burdens, deteriorating markets or strategic missteps.

In a precedential decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held this week that a creditor had the ability to bring post-bankruptcy claims against a debtor if the bankruptcy trustee abandoned those claims. SeeIn re Wilton Armetale, Inc., 2020 WL 4460000 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2020). Artesanias was a creditor of Wilton, and obtained a judgment of around $900,000 against it. Artesanias eventually learned that another creditor, North Mill, had plotted with Wilton and a law firm, Leisawitz Heller, to plunder Wilton’s assets.

In an appeal of a bankruptcy court’s decision, a district court judge recently addressed the treatment of the “straddle year” for federal income tax under the Bankruptcy Code, which “does not appear to have been decided by any appellate court.” In re Affirmative Ins. Holdings Inc. United States v. Beskrone, No. 15-12136-CSS, 2020 WL 4287375, at *1 (D. Del. July 27, 2020).

Late last month, Senators Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced Senate Bill 4321 (S-4321), titled “Continuing Small Business Recovery and Paycheck Protection Program Act” (Bankruptcy Access Bill), which, if enacted, would permit businesses in bankruptcy to qualify for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota

In Kotalik v. A.W. Chesterton Co., several defendants filed motions to enforce the plaintiffs’ compliance with disclosure requirements of North Dakota’s Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Transparency Act. Counsel for the defendants as well as plaintiffs moved the court for a hearing on the issue. Lastly, plaintiffs’ counsel moved for a certification of a question to the North Dakota Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Trust Transparency Act.

As U.S.-based companies file for bankruptcy at record rates, international suppliers of products to those companies are feeling the pinch. Payments for past due invoices often are not paid promptly unless the supplier is a “critical vendor” to the filing entity. The financial impact to suppliers, however, may go far beyond mere non-payment. Suppliers may actually find themselves facing lawsuits seeking the return of payments they’ve already received. Fortunately, three steps suppliers can take now can help should they find themselves facing such a suit and needing legal assistance.

Introduction

Receiverships are a flexible, court-supervised tool that can help troubled companies and individuals with business debts avoid a lengthy bankruptcy proceedings. A receiver acts much like a bankruptcy trustee by assuming responsibility for the property or assets of an entity or individual owing business debts. A receiver can assist companies in their return to profitability by quickly liquidating assets and restructuring debt efficiently. Receivers can also be useful to preserve property, enforce judgments, and dissolve insolvent businesses.

Executive Summary