Under § 727(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, a court shall not grant a debtor’s discharge if “the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case.” To prevail under § 727(a)(3) an objecting party must establish that the debtor has failed to maintain or preserve records.

Bogra is a company that is active within the funeral industry. As a result of serious financial problems, an administrator (bewindvoerder) was appointed on 28 June 2017. On the same date Bogra was declared bankrupt (30 June 2017), the employment agreements of Bogra’s employees were terminated. Funico acquired (part of) Bogra’s assets on 18 July 2017 due to an asset transaction. Effective 19 July 2017, Bogra’s activities were continued by Bogra Uitvaartkisten.

The Eleventh Circuit has revisited the question of when a debtor may be judicially estopped from pursuing a civil lawsuit due to his or her failure to disclose the claims forming the basis of the lawsuit in their bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine intended to protect courts against parties who seek to manipulate the judicial process by changing their legal positions to suit the exigencies of the moment.

Crusade against dormant companies: make sure you file your annual accounts on time!

Introduction

On 5 September 2017, the Dutch legislator published an amended bill on pre-insolvency proceedings in the Netherlands1 for consultation purposes.2 The Bill contains a proposal for an amendment to the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) which enables a company in financial difficulties to propose a composition outside insolvency proceedings to its creditors and shareholders, to restructure problematic debts.

Last year, Burr & Forman lawyers won a decisive victory in the Eleventh Circuit, in the case of In re Failla, 838 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2016). In Failla, the Eleventh Circuit held that a debtor who files a statement of intention to “surrender” his or her house in bankruptcy may not oppose the secured creditor’s foreclosure proceeding in state court. Failla is a significant victory for secured creditors for two primary reasons. First, the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the meaning of “surrender,” as used in 11 U.S.C.

Signed, sealed, delivered, but am I yours? Apparently not, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, at least in the context of allowed administrative expense claims under Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.1 The Third Circuit recently considered and ruled in a case as to when goods are deemed “received” for the purposes of determining whether a creditor may recover the value of the goods as an allowed administrative expense claim under the Bankruptcy Code.

The recast Insolvency Regulation of 20 May 2015 embodies a further step towards the harmonisation of European Union insolvency law. The main provisions are set to apply to insolvency proceedings as of 26 June 2017.

The key changes relate to a broader scope, the “centre of main interests” (COMI) concept, secondary proceedings, group insolvencies and the introduction of insolvency registers. Overall, the new elements will increase the chance of a positive outcome in complex cross-border insolvencies and offer better cooperation and transparency.

In a recent case1 out of the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”), a secured creditor moved to dismiss a debtor’s bankruptcy case “for cause” based on the debtor’s bad faith filing.2 The debtor owned certain commercial real estate in south Florida (the “Commercial Property”) and leased space to various tenants, one of which had recently applied for both state and federal licenses to sell medical marijuana.3 The secured creditor had a first-position mortgage on the Commercial Property.4 After a decade-long lending relationship soured, the debtor initiated a len

In a 5-3 decision written by Justice Stephen G.