Can a bankruptcy trustee recover a fraudulent transfer made six, eight, ten years ago? Bankruptcy courts around the country are answering that question with a resounding “yes”, so long as the IRS holds an unsecured claim against the debtor. If more courts arrive at this conclusion, creditors face the risk that trustees will step into the shoes of the IRS to borrow its ten-year statute of limitations for the recovery of fraudulent transfers.

Remington Outdoor Company, Inc., along with twelve of its affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10684). Headquartered in Madison, North Carolina, Remington is well-known as one of America’s largest and oldest firearms manufacturers.

Our February 22 post reported that the Franchise Services of North America, Inc. decision of Bankruptcy Judge Edward Ellington of the Southern District of Mississippi dismissing a Chapter 11 petition because a holder of “golden share” stock had not approved the petition as required by the debtor’s charter was going directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on an expedited basis. It is the first case concerning the merits of contractual or structural bankruptcy-remoteness in my memory to reach a Court of Appeals since the adoption of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978.

Fraudulent conveyance litigation arising from failed leveraged buyout transactions is frequently pursued in bankruptcy proceedings as the sole source of recovery for creditors. Targets of these actions typically include those parties who received the proceeds generated by the LBO, including the debtor’s former shareholders.

On March 8, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluded a lengthy “claims estimation” trial to determine the appropriate final settlement price for a resolution of lawsuits filed on behalf of investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) created by Lehman Brothers Holdings prior to its bankruptcy in September 2008. The judge determined that the final settlement value of this particular set of claims was $2.38 billion – down from the $37 billion initially demanded, and the $11.4 billion sought by the plaintiffs in this claims estimation trial.

In a noteworthy decision, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit overturned a dismissal of a bankruptcy case, which the lower court had dismissed based on its belief that the landlord debtor was receiving rental income from a marijuana dispensary. The decision is significant because it holds that a bankruptcy cannot be dismissed simply because of the mere presence of a marijuana business or related proceeds in the case.

Is your guaranty restricted or continuing? A continuing guaranty gives rise to divisible individual transactions, while a restricted guaranty—one that concerns a contemplated and specified extension of credit—arises upon execution of the guaranty. In bankruptcy, as in life, timing is everything. A debtor’s liability under a prepetition guaranty agreement for a post-petition advance of credit may depend on the distinction between restricted and continuing, and the distinction may be subtle.

This post reviews some concepts concerning executory contracts. The ground covered will be familiar to insolvency experts and should be insightful for readers who don’t specialize in U.S. bankruptcy law.

Schedule of claims – What is it all about? Once bankruptcy proceedings have been opened over a debtor, the bankruptcy administration must prepare an inventory to determine the extent of the bankruptcy estate. By means of public notice, the creditors and debtors of the bankrupt are requested to come forward (so-called call for claims). Within one month, the creditors must file their claims or other demands against the bankrupt with the bankruptcy administration. Subsequently, the bankruptcy administration draws up a list of claims.

In JPMCC 2007-C1 Grasslawn Lodging, LLC v. Transwest Resort Props. Inc., et al. (In re Transwest Resort Props. Inc.), Case No. 16-16221, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1947 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018), the Ninth Circuit was the first Circuit court to decide a significant split in the lower courts between the “per plan” or “per debtor” impaired accepting class requirement to confirmation.