Companies in Chapter 11 must publicly report substantial financial information — indeed, more information should be reported or available publicly in Chapter 11 than outside of Chapter 11. This paper analyzes what information must be publicly reported or disclosed under the securities laws, the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules; what debtors do to minimize public reporting; and what creditors can do to get the public reporting they deserve.

Debtors May Stop Public Reports Under the Securities Laws.

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox recently found that three Illinois attorneys violated their ethical obligations by failing to return their client’s phone calls. She thus ordered the attorneys to return half of their already-court-approved, and paid, flat fee.

In In re: Dennis Molnar, 19-bk-09525, 2024 WL 190919 (Jan. 17, 2024 N.D, Ill.), the debtor filed a petition seeking relief under chapter 13. Originally, three attorneys from the same firm represented the debtor. The attorneys appeared pursuant to a “no look,” flat-fee program for chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys.

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

This article originally appeared on Law360.

The uptick in bankruptcy cases will mean more work for insolvency professionals who specialize in asset tracing. Some of the most interesting work will arise in cases where companies engaged in significant fraud.

Each bankruptcy cycle has these cases. In 2001, Enron Corp. filed for bankruptcy. In 2008, there was Bernie Madoff. The latest example is FTX Trading Ltd.

On December 12, 2023, in the case of In re Envision Healthcare Corp., Case No. 23-90342, Judge Christopher M. López of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas determined that Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code conflicts directly with, and therefore trumps, Section 18-304 of the Delaware LLC Act to prevent the termination of a member’s interests in a Delaware limited liability company arising from such member’s bankruptcy filing.

Summary of Section 18-304 of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (LLC Act)

Creditors face many risks when a company files for bankruptcy. One such risk is preference exposure, which is where the company seeks to claw back funds paid to a creditor before the company files for bankruptcy. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.

The debt purchaser in In re McIntosh argued that because it was enforcing a debt that was not listed correctly on the debtor’s bankruptcy schedules, it was entitled to assume the debt had not been discharged. The U.S.

In a landmark decision,[1] the Delaware Court of Chancery addressed, for the first time, the precise duties that a controlling stockholder owes, and the standard of review that will apply, when a controlling stockholder takes actions to block a board of directors’ desired course of action — such as by removing directors or enacting a bylaw requiring a unanimous vote for board action

Under the Absolute Priority Rule, for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmable, claims of a higher priority must be paid in full in order for lower priority claims to receive any recovery, and all creditors must be paid in full in order for equity interest holders to retain any interest in the debtor, or receive any distribution under the plan. The Absolute Priority Rule is embodied in Section 1129(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.