Every now and then, a bankruptcy ruling elicits an “Oh, no!” response from just about everyone.

And then, subsequent case law starts rejecting and/or chipping-away at that “On, no!” ruling.

We have such an “Oh, no!” situation going on right now on a Subchapter V debt-limit issue.

New Rejecting/Chipping-Away Opinion

I’m reading a U.S. circuit court’s recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). I’m startled by that and blurt out (to myself), “Who cites Stern anymore?!” and “Is Stern still a thing?!” and “I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!”

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.

What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law:

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.

Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. happened on December 4, 2023. Here is a link to the official transcript of such arguments.

My Impression

I’ve read that transcript—and still don’t know what the Court is going to do.

But based on the comments/questions of the justices (which are summarized and compiled below), I do have one impression:

Desperate people do desperate things. And desperation leads even good people astray.

So it is in the world of financial stress. Desperate people do desperate things: like providing sloppy financial statements to creditors, failing to assure that all collateral proceeds go to the proper place, and fudging on the truth here-and-there.

We hear a lot these days about bankruptcy venue abuse via corporate-entity manipulation shortly before bankruptcy filing.

Here’s the latest opinion on that subject—which allows Debtor’s choice of venue to stand, based on a newly-created entity:

Is an involuntary bankruptcy, filed by an owner/creditor of the Debtor, filed in good faith or in bad faith?

That’s the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on which it denied certiorari on October 30, 2023 (Wortley v. Juranitch, Case No. 23-211).

Here’s the gist of the case.

The U.S. Trustee is on a crusade to eradicate every type of third-party release from all Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans—no matter what the facts or circumstances might be.

It’s a policy based on the idea that, if the Bankruptcy Code doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize something, then that something cannot be done . . . ever . . . under any circumstances . . . no matter what . . . period . . . end of story.

We now have another manifestation of that bright-line and unyielding position. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Court rejects the U.S. Trustee’s objection.