July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
The Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee's May Tips of the Trade call featured Neil Steinkamp of Stout Risius Ross, LLC, who discussed the ordinary course of business defense in the context of preference analysis.
The topic of the most recent Commercial Fraud Committee call, discussed the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), formerly named the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), which was amended (and retitled) in 2014 for the first time since its creation in 1984. According to the Uniform Law Commission, the amended Act, which strengthens creditor protections by providing remedies for certain transactions by a debtor that are unfair to the debtor’s creditors, addresses a small number of narrowly-defined issues and is not a comprehensive revision of the Act.
Elvis Presley once said, “Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time but it ain’t going away.” As we all know, the legal system in the U.S. is predicated upon truth — the decisions of the fact-finder are based on the veracity of the evidence presented. In Ehrenberg v. Roussos (In re Roussos),[1] the bankruptcy court examined allegations of fraud on the court in connection with a chapter 7 trustee’s efforts to vacate a two-decade-old
It has now been almost two years since Bankruptcy Judge Steven W. Rhodes (ret.) confirmed an adjustment plan for the city of Detroit, the largest chapter 9 case ever filed. According to ABI’s statistics, 11 “municipalities” have filed for chapter 9 protection since Jan.
While the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the two rule sets contain enough significant differences to require a lawyer appearing in bankruptcy court to do a little homework beforehand.
Fraudulent-transfer law is a crucial component of debtor/creditor relationships. In the bankruptcy context, fraudulent intent is an essential element for both a trustee’s clawback power through § 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code[1] and for denial of a discharge through § 727(a)(2). The language of these statutes directly descends from the Statute of Elizabeth, which was written in 1571.[2]
