Skip to main content

%1

Session Description
Congress granted creditors a right to an accelerated recovery of their claims through FRBP 3001. This rule is the foundation for selling a bankruptcy claim but, until recently, the integrity and liquidity of the claims market was challenged by an absence of the typical features of modern capital markets. Few creditors were able to identify potential purchasers, conduct price discovery and maximize competition for their claims. Online marketplaces developed, making a global market and rapid price discovery easily accessible, and allowing unrestricted competitive pressures to inform bid/ask price disclosure and immediately actionable supply and demand. Although the market has undergone a significant transformation, a number of recent cases have tested the rules and procedures of bankruptcy courts, clerks and claim administrators to properly manage the tens of millions of claims, and hundreds of billions of dollars owed annually to creditors who enjoy a right to liquidity.
Learning Outcomes
• Understanding of the background/context for FRBP 3001
• Understanding of historical market characteristics and functionality
• Understanding of the emergence of online marketplaces
• Discussion of recent cases and the impediments to improved market functionality
• Discussion of opportunities for further market development and improvement
Target Audience
Creditor
Suggested Speakers
Brian
Davidoff
bdavidoff@greenbergglusker.com
Matthew
Sedigh
matt@x-claim.com
Andrew
Glantz
andrew@x-claim.com
First Name
Brian
Last Name
Davidoff
Email
bdavidoff@greenbergglusker.com
Firm
Greenberg Glusker LLP

What Is a “Bona Fide Dispute”?

Two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code turn on the existence of a “bona fide dispute.” An involuntary petition may not be filed by an alleged creditor against the alleged debtor if the creditor’s claim is “the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount.”[1] A trustee may sell property free and clear of an interest that is “in bona fide dispute.”[2] These disparate statutory provisions share a unique phrase.

Finality in Bankruptcy Appeals: Ritzen and Its Aftermath

In Ritzen Grp. Inc. v. Jackson Masonry LLC,[1] the U.S. Supreme Court definitively established that an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code § 362(d) is a final order that may be — and must be — immediately appealed. In the years following Ritzen, almost every circuit court has had an opportunity to ring in on finality issues. This article surveys notable circuit court opinions applying Ritzen in contexts ranging from discovery motions to claim objections.

Co-Chairs’ Corner

We are excited to report that the Bankruptcy Litigation Committee was very active in 2023, with 2024 looking just as good, if not better. The committee now has more than 1,100 members — over 200 more than we had just three years ago. It is its members that make this committee so vibrant, and we just wanted to say thank you to everyone who helped make 2023 great.

Here is a quick review of last year — and a preview of what is to come.

S. 3601

Submitted by jhartgen@abi.org on

A bill to amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to require the Financial Stability Oversight Council to consider alternative approaches before determining that a U.S. nonbank financial company shall be supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes.

ABI Tags

S. 3554, the “Financial Artificial Intelligence Risk Reduction Act” (“FAIRR Act”)

Submitted by jhartgen@abi.org on

To amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to provide the Financial Stability Oversight Council with duties regarding artificial intelligence in the financial sector, and for other purposes.

ABI Tags

S. 3549, the "Predatory Lending Elimination Act"

Submitted by jhartgen@abi.org on

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to extend the consumer credit protections provided to members of the Armed Forces and their dependents under title 10, United States Code, to all consumers.

ABI Tags