In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.

We have previously discussed the growing list of judicial decisions addressing the appropriate remedy for overpayment of U.S. Trustee (“UST”) quarterly fees. In U.S. Tr. Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP (In re Mosaic Mgmt. Grp., Inc.), No. 20-12547, 2023 WL 4144557 (11th Cir.

In a unanimous decision handed down on Feb. 22, 2023, the Supreme Court reinforced one of the Bankruptcy Code’s important creditor protections. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), the Court confirmed, in an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, that the Bankruptcy Code bars the discharge by individual debtors of debts fraudulently obtained by the debtor’s agent or business partner.

As the focus on ESG issues intensifies in the financial markets, we have seen institutional investors demand more in these areas, in terms of both disclosures and concrete targets, from banks and funds. Meanwhile, emerging regulations, and reforms designed to help meet climate change targets and to enhance corporate governance, sustainability and environmental and social responsibility are underway. How will refinancings and restructurings of the significant amount of corporate debt coming out of COVID be affected by such winds of change?

So you have a freezing order against a start-up company, now what? Can that start-up use the assets which are the subject of your order, or any of its other assets, to continue to pursue its risky business, or must it stay idle and wait for the inevitable?