Avoidance action is an umbrella term for adversary proceedings that seek to unwind or avoid transactions that occurred before an insolvency filing. These actions are also referred to as “claw-back claims” because, by undoing a transaction, an asset or value is being clawed back into the insolvency estate.

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

Un Juzgado de lo Mercantil aprueba, por primera vez, la modificación de un convenio concursal al amparo de la normativa de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la administración de justicia.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

El Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº10 de Barcelona, del pasado 29 de julio, ha permitido el nombramiento de un administrador antes del concurso para facilitar la venta de la unidad productiva antes de la declaración de concurso. Con ello, se ha permitido una medida equivalente al “pre-pack” anglosajón, favoreciendo una liquidación más eficiente y evitando incrementar el pasivo de la concursada.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.