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.

Southeastern Grocers, LLC, along with twenty-six (26) 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. 18-10700). Southeastern, headquartered in Jacksonville, FL, is one of the largest supermarket operators in the United States, and operates under the Winn/Dixie, BI-LO, Harveys and Fresco y Mas trademarks.

A Chapter 9 bankruptcy offers protection to a financially-distressed municipality so that it may develop a plan for addressing its debts. A product of the Great Depression, bankruptcy protection for municipalities was first enacted in 1934. However, the Supreme Court held the act unconstitutional as an improper interference with the sovereignty of states. See Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 298 U.S. 513 (1936). Congress subsequently passed a revised Municipal Bankruptcy Act in 1937, which was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court. See United States v.

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.

The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1]  These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e).  Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .

On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in U.S. Bank National Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Management LLC v.