Section 548 of the bankruptcy code authorizes a trustee, debtor, or other appropriate party to avoid actual and constructive fraudulent transfers that occurred prepetition. In order to prove that a transfer was an actual fraudulent transfer, the trustee (or another appropriate plaintiff) must prove that the debtor made the transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any entity to which to debtor was or became…indebted.” 11 U.S.C. §548(a)(1)(A).

Chart Comparing Exemptions

The specific bankruptcy and nonbankruptcy (Minnesota law and nonbankruptcy federal law) exemptions vary in scope and dollar amount. The following table summarizes and compares the two sets of exemptions. The statutory language of the exemption has been paraphrased in this chart. The actual statutory language as well as case law must be reviewed when analyzing a debtor’s claim for a particular exemption.

Revised August 2024

. . . In such circumstances, sealing the indictment “would undermine the purpose of having a statute of limitations at all.”

Introduction

A powerful tool afforded to a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") is the power to recover pre-bankruptcy transfers that are avoidable under federal bankruptcy law (or sometimes state law) because they were either made with the intent to defraud creditors or are constructively fraudulent because the debtor-transferor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange and was insolvent at the time, or was rendered insolvent as a consequence of the transfer.

You can’t make this stuff up. The legal issues are pedestrian. But the facts behind those issues are incredible!

Litigation History

Here’s the boring stuff first.

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C. (Case No. 23-425). Here’s the procedural background:

A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 plan.

Ken Baird, Katharina Crinson, Guilhem Bremond, Michael Broeders, Charlotte Ausema, Jan-Philip Wilde, Ana López, Silvia Angós, Mark Liscio and Samantha Braunstein, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer

This is an extract from the 2024 edition of GRR's the Americas Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

Here’s the latest opinion on a controversial question: In re Franco’s Paving LLC, Case No. 23-20069, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court, (decided 10/5/2023; Doc. 74).

The Question & Answer

Voter apathy is a problem in Subchapter V cases. That apathy is in the form of creditors failing or refusing to vote on a Subchapter V plan. The In re Franco’s opinion addresses this apathy problem head-on.

A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 11, 12, or 13 plan.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.