Another bankruptcy trustee catches another hapless college unaware. In Roach v. Skidmore College (In re Dunston), Bankr. S.D. Ga. (Jan 31, 2017), a trustee appears to win the next battle of “bankruptcy estates v. child’s college,” ruling that an insolvent parent who paid the college tuition of an adult child made a fraudulent transfer to the college.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings in 2016 involving issues of bankruptcy law.

Headlines 1. OCC to Consider Fintech Applications for Special Purpose National Bank Charters 2. Federal Banking Agencies Publish Guidance on New Credit Loss Accounting Standard 3. Federal Banking Agencies Issue Final Rule on Extended Exam Cycles 4. Division of Banks Amends Foreclosure Prevention and ATM/EFT Rules 5. Other Developments: Marijuana Guidance and Bank Fraud

1. OCC to Consider Fintech Applications for Special Purpose National Bank Charters

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code gives debtors access to powerful rights and remedies that are not available under non-bankruptcy law. As a balance to these extraordinary powers however, a debtor may lose some or all control over its own affairs under certain circumstances. One of the rights that the debtor “puts into play” when it files bankruptcy is the attorney-client privilege (the Privilege).

Copyrighting their names, “signing” with red thumbprints – we’ve seen some unusual court filings from unique individuals. But one person has apparently gone too far.

It can be incredibly frustrating for a lender when a borrower defaults on a loan and asserts frivolous defenses in response. A group of individuals who call themselves “sovereign citizens” or “sovereign freemen” often makes lawsuits quite tedious by refusing to recognize the authority of the courts or the government, or claiming that the loan is invalid because it is based on “vapor money.”

In an August 2016 decision in the Aéropostale bankruptcy case,¹ the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that allegations of insider trading did not justify equitable subordination and were not “cause” to deny a credit bid. The decision helps bridge the gap between the treatment of insider trading allegations in bankruptcy court and their treatment everywhere else.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2016)

In 1571, Parliament enacted a law, sometimes known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, creating one of the greatest means of creditor protection – the proscription of fraudulent transfers.

In the November/December 2014 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a decision handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware addressing the meaning of “unreasonably small capital” in the context of constructively fraudulent transfer avoidance litigation. In Whyte ex rel. SemGroup Litig. Trust v.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down two rulings thus far in 2016 (October 2015 Term) involving issues of bankruptcy law. In the first, Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 194 L. Ed. 2d 655, 2016 BL 154812 (2016), the Court addressed the scope of section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which bars the discharge of any debt of an individual debtor for money, property, services, or credit to the extent obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition."