While bankruptcy is an option for those facing insurmountable debt, it is often difficult for the truly impoverished to obtain access to a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code made filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy more difficult, which increased the cost. Today, many people are just too broke for bankruptcy. While some legal aid programs assist with bankruptcy filings, not all do, and most limit bankruptcy filings to only those people who are in immediate danger of losing property. Otherwise, most programs would be overrun with bankruptcy cases.

Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows the examination of any entity with respect to various topics, including conduct and financial condition of the debtor and any matter that may affect the administration of the estate. Does a subordination agreement that is silent on the use of Rule 2004 prevent the subordinated creditor from taking a Rule 2004 examination of the senior creditor? Yes, says an Illinois bankruptcy court.

Last week, a Ninth Circuit panel held that plaintiffs in five related cases lacked standing to pursue their FCRA claims. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the allegation that a credit report contained misleading information, absent any indication that a consumer tried to engage in or was imminently planning to engage in any transactions for which the alleged misstatements in the credit reports made or would make any material difference, does not constitute a concrete injury.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered a decision confirming the applicability of the Court’s bar date order as it relates to a pension fund’s claim for withdrawal liability filed after the bar date, despite the fact that the withdrawal occurred after the deadline for filing proofs of claim.

What Happened?

HIGHLIGHTS:

The Bottom Line

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The Institutional Limited Partner Association (ILPA) has published recommendations for how “GP-led fund restructurings” should be organised. These transactions occur when a fund sponsor (GP/manager) introduces a secondary purchaser to buy assets out of one of its existing funds, typically into a new fund structure where the same GP is the manager. Such transactions are complex and inevitably throw up conflict issues. Investors regularly complain that GPs are short on transparency and slapdash with timelines when trying to do one of these deals.

It always amazes me when, after more than a half-century of Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) jurisprudence, an issue one thinks would arise quite commonly appears never to have been decided in a reported case. Such an issue was recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an adversary proceeding in the Pettit Oil Co. Chapter 7 case.[1]

The phrase ipso facto is Latin for “by the fact itself.” Ipso facto clauses are sometimes included in lease and purchase contracts, and they assert that if the lessee or purchaser becomes insolvent, or files for bankruptcy protection, then the contract has been breached. In other words, under such a clause the very act of filing for bankruptcy protection constitutes a breach of contract that absolves the other party of any further contract obligations.