Rochelle's Daily Wire

The Second Circuit split with the Fourth and Fifth Circuits by holding that the increase in fees for the U.S. Trustee system was unconstitutional because it was not imposed simultaneously in the two states with bankruptcy administrators.

Dissenters in the Fourth and Fifth Circuits evidently believe that the dual U.S. Trustee/Bankruptcy Administrator system is unconstitutional.

California district judge sides with the dissenter in the Fifth Circuit in saying that the parallel systems of U.S. Trustees and Bankruptcy Administrators violates the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution.

The Third Circuit found loopholes in the purchase agreement permitting the buyer to assert an administrative claim, even though the breakup fee was disallowed.

The Fifth Circuit and now the Court of Claims found no constitutional flaw in the 2017 increase in fees paid by chapter 11 debtors to the U.S. Trustee system.

Dissenter in the Fifth Circuit believes that having both U.S. Trustees and bankruptcy administrators violates the Uniformity Clause.

Eleventh Circuit joins the majority of circuits by holding that unforeseen, changed circumstances are not required to modify a chapter 13 plan.

On an issue with no appellate authority, a Delaware district judge rules that federal income taxes are administrative claims if filing occurs before the year’s end.

If a chapter 13 plan isn’t confirmed, the debtor’s counsel is paid.

Florida judge largely agrees with a Delaware judge by holding that the increase in fees for the U.S. Trustee program is neither impermissibly retroactive nor unconstitutional, mostly speaking.