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.
This was first published in the LexisNexis Insolvency Law Bulletin (Vol. 21, No. 5 & 6).
This article is co-authored by Justin Ward of Litigation Capital Management and Marcel Fernandes of 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers.
(This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal, Vol. 33 – March 2021)
A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. In this article we discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. To mitigate these risks, we provide guidance on litigation strategy for liquidators.
Background
The plaintiff was the primary trading entity within a larger group of companies which operated a development and construction business.
The liquidation of the group was complex, with a significant number of claims identified as requiring investigation. Further, ASIC’s allegations of serious misconduct resulted in a significant amount of the liquidator’s time being allocated to assisting ASIC with its investigation.
Problem
This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)
The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].
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.