The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court’s final order implementing the district court’s order directing turnover of assets to the bankruptcy estate was valid, because it resolved a core proceeding. The appellants contended that it was a non-core proceeding and thus required a district court order to be final. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Appellants: Jordan Law P.C., Terrence M Jordan

(7th Cir. July 27, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order finding that the debtor’s prepetition transfer of a farm to the defendant was a fraudulent transfer subject to avoidance. The debtor transferred the farm in exchange for the defendant’s agreement to abandon litigation he had brought against the debtor. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the farm. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Defendant: Pro Se

Attorney for Trustee: Brenda L. Zeddun

(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016)

In April 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was signed into law, representing the most extensive revisions to the bankruptcy code in 35 years. The BAPCPA was the product of more than a decade of legislative efforts. Its stated purpose was to curb perceived consumer abuse of the bankruptcy system. At the time of its enactment, many bankruptcy practitioners, judges and others questioned whether such a drastic change to the law was necessary and expressed concern about the impact the BAPCPA would have on consumers and the system as a whole.

In 2020, commercial chapter 11 bankruptcy filings climbed to their highest levels in recent years, as COVID-19 disruption sparked sharp declines in GDP and volatile stock market swings. Notably, the pandemic accelerated the restructurings of some companies that were already on the precipice of financial distress, particularly in the retail, energy, travel and hospitality sectors.

Setoff is a doctrine based as much on practical considerations as on equitable ones.

Must a foreign debtor's insolvency representative obtain permission from a United States bankruptcy court before exercising the debtor's rights as shareholder to remove and replace directors and officers of a US corporation? The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit recently held not, provided that the representative does not require judicial assistance to exercise these rights.1

On March 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., case docket no. 127 S.Ct. 1199 (2007), that federal bankruptcy law does not preclude an unsecured creditor from obtaining attorney’s fees authorized by a valid prepetition contract and incurred in postpetition litigation. In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s ruling in Fobian v. Western Farm Credit Bank (In re Fobian), 951 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.

13 ноября 2015 года был подписан Закон РК «О внесении изменений и дополнений в некоторые законодательные акты Республики Казахстан по вопросам реабилитации и банкротства» (далее – «Закон»), положения которого введены в действие 29 ноября 2015 года. Закон предусматривает поправки в Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РК, Налоговый кодекс РК, Закон РК «О реабилитации и банкротстве» и Закон РК «Об исполнительном производстве и статусе судебных исполнителей».