In the Bankruptcy Court case of In Re Rensin[1], a debtor filed for personal bankruptcy almost sixteen years after creating a Cook Islands Trust in which he was the settlor and beneficiary. At the time of creating the trust, the debtor had no creditor issues and funded the trust with monies he received from the sale of a business, totaling $9 million.

Read Business Law Update to stay up-to-date on legal issues that impact public and private companies on a local, regional and global basis. Articles in this issue include:

Mergers & Acquisitions

Commercial Contracts

Small Businesses

Government Contracts

On January 7, 2020, the presidential campaign of Senator Elizabeth Warren released a plan to overhaul the consumer bankruptcy system in the United States. The plan would repeal means testing and other provisions of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. It would also implement enhanced protections for consumer debtors who file for bankruptcy.

Privacy issues implicate several Bankruptcy Code sections and Bankruptcy Rules. The debtor must also comply with non-bankruptcy rules concerning privacy to the extent that such rules are not inconsistent with the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 959(b).

Clients sometimes ask whether filing bankruptcy can protect them from Federal Trade Commission scrutiny. The saga of Joseph Rensin and his company BlueHippo provides an opportunity to review the limited protection bankruptcy provides from the FTC.

In an agricultural lien contest between three creditors of a bankrupt commercial farm, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of a bank that provided debtor-in-possession financing, holding that the locale of the farm products determined the applicable lien law and that bank’s lien was superior to the liens of two nurseries that supplied trees and shrubs because the latter were either unperfected or unenforceable.

A federal bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Florida has ruled that the owner of a computer-financing scheme cannot hide behind a bankruptcy filing to shield himself from complying with a contempt order that required him to pay $13.4 million for violating an FTC order.

Several high profile bankruptcies have occurred in recent years. Most would consider a bankruptcy proceeding a last resort. But some, seeking to expunge a debt, have contemplated that bankruptcy may be a safe way to avoid the long-arm of the law. The Federal Trade Commission, however, has taken great steps to ensure that an FTC judgment firmly stays on a wrongdoer’s balance sheet.

On December 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the operator of a computer-financing scheme cannot use his bankruptcy to discharge a $13.4 million judgment entered in 2016 for violating a 2008 FTC order.

The fact that an entity to be acquired is going through a bankruptcy process does not change the filing requirements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (“HSR”). However, if the entity is going through a bankruptcy under Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §363(b)), the HSR process is governed by a 15-day waiting period, as opposed to the 30-day waiting period that applies to transactions that are not occurring under Section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.