The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
The Bankruptcy Protector
Almost two years ago, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) was enacted. While the provisions regarding the new Subchapter V reorganization received the most press (streamlined chapter 11 for businesses with debts of no more than $7,500,000), the SBRA also included other important changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Among these additional changes was an increase in the venue threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) to $25,000.00 as follows:
The Bankruptcy Protector
In 2017, Congress enacted an amendment imposing a sharp increase in quarterly fees owed to the United States Trustee program by many chapter 11 debtors. Expectedly, the constitutionality of that decision has been challenged on several grounds, and there is considerable disagreement among the circuits.
The Bankruptcy Protector
“It’s expensive to be me / Looking this good don’t come for free.” —Erika Jayne, “XXpen$ive”
Real Housewives of Beverly Hills cast member Erika Girardi, more commonly known as Erika Jayne, is the latest example of just how powerful (and expensive) an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding can be.
The Bankruptcy Protector
In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that calls into question the long-held Barton doctrine following the dismissal of a bankruptcy case and thus the jurisdiction of that court. In Tufts v. Hay, No. 19-11496 --- F.3d ----, 2020 WL 6144563 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020), the court considered where a litigant may bring suit against counsel appointed by a bankruptcy court after the bankruptcy case was dismissed.
2020年の初めに新型コロナウイルス感染症（COVID-19）パンデミックが広がり始めてから、その拡散を抑えるために全米の州知事が事業の閉鎖を命じる行政命令を出しました。多くの事業主が、事業閉鎖期間の賃料の支払義務から逃れるための救済手段を探ろうとして賃貸借契約書、特にその不可抗力(force majeure)条項を調べました。事業体やその弁護士は、今まで経験したことのない性質のパンデミックと相次ぐ事業閉鎖を目の当たりにしていますが、そのような重要事項の指針となる判例はわずかしかありませんでした。しかし、イリノイ州J.B.プリツカー知事がCOVID-19危機の対応策として、レストランに対して同施設で食事をする客に料理を出す(on-premises consumption)ことを禁じる行政命令を出した結果1、 Hitz Restaurant Group事件において、イリノイ州北部地区連邦破産裁判所は、近時、賃貸借契約書に含まれる不可抗力条項に基づき、テナント（賃借人）‐債務者の賃料支払義務は一部免除されると判示しました。