In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act, which created subchapter V within chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Congress’ intent was to create a more cost-efficient and streamlined restructuring process for small businesses by modifying certain provisions of chapter 11 for debtors with claims below a specific debt cap. In particular, because creditors typically have smaller claims against these small businesses, the new subchapter takes into account the likelihood that there will be no or minimal meaningful creditor participation.

Publicly, Diamond Finance Co. (“Diamond”) provided car loans to individuals with less-than-stellar credit. While Diamond did have “some actual business,” its purpose “quickly became a front to lure unsuspecting investors.”

The Fifth Circuit recently ruled that a debtor can sell a preferential transfer action under Bankruptcy Code section 363 to a purchaser that is not a representative of the bankruptcy estate. Briar Cap. Working Fund Cap., L.L.C. v. Remmert (In re S. Coast Supply Co.), No. 22-20536, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (5th Cir. Jan. 22, 2024).

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox recently found that three Illinois attorneys violated their ethical obligations by failing to return their client’s phone calls. She thus ordered the attorneys to return half of their already-court-approved, and paid, flat fee.

In In re: Dennis Molnar, 19-bk-09525, 2024 WL 190919 (Jan. 17, 2024 N.D, Ill.), the debtor filed a petition seeking relief under chapter 13. Originally, three attorneys from the same firm represented the debtor. The attorneys appeared pursuant to a “no look,” flat-fee program for chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys.

In 2023, the economies of some nations stagnated, but developing economies particularly struggled. As a new year commences, some of these countries will continue their efforts at restructuring their debts—a process that has been going on for years.

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

This article originally appeared on Law360.

The uptick in bankruptcy cases will mean more work for insolvency professionals who specialize in asset tracing. Some of the most interesting work will arise in cases where companies engaged in significant fraud.

Each bankruptcy cycle has these cases. In 2001, Enron Corp. filed for bankruptcy. In 2008, there was Bernie Madoff. The latest example is FTX Trading Ltd.

After years of litigation involving state, federal, Irish, and (to a lesser extent) Swiss law; transfers of numerous assets, including Ireland’s priciest-personal residence; a jury trial; and extensive post-trial briefing, the Second Circuit made short shrift of a former real estate mogul and his ex-wife’s appeal of a judgment rendered against them for fraudulent conveyances.