Help Center

Committees Committee


Post date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

First enacted during the Great Depression, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA)[1] in part sought to protect the suppliers of fruits and vegetables who had been left unpaid when purchasers went bankrupt.

Post date: Tuesday, October 23, 2018

It is been over a year since the unusual involuntary bankruptcy case of In re Scandia Seafood (New York) Inc. was tried on a motion by the assignee in an assignment for the benefit of creditors (ABC) to dismiss, and for sanctions against the petitioning creditors and their counsel.[1] What made the case unusual was that it con

Post date: Thursday, August 09, 2018

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits the discharge of debts “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.”[1] Two decades ago, the Supreme Court clarified that “[t]he word ‘willful’ modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate

Post date: Thursday, August 09, 2018

A struggling real estate developer decided to do some asset-planning and transferred his partial interest in two properties to his wife as tenancy-by-the-entirety.[1] Three years later, he filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed the two properties as exempt under 11 U.S.C.

Post date: Thursday, August 09, 2018

At what point does the policy of bankruptcy, a discharge that strongly favors the honest-but-unfortunate individual debtor, yield to creditor protections from fraudulent debtor behavior? This is a question the Supreme Court recently considered in its decision in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling.[1]

Post date: Wednesday, June 20, 2018

The Bernie Madoff investment scandal unleashed a slew of lawsuits, and at first glance, SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG[1] may seem like just another drop in the bucket. However, this case is notable for its expression of the Second Circuit’s rather extraordinary view of “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction.

Post date: Friday, April 27, 2018

Editor's Note: Don is the Communications Manager for the Mediation Committee, and recipient of this year's Committee Leader of the Year for his work in 2017. We thank Don for his continued efforts and support!


Post date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Section 101(54) defines “transfer” to mean “each mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with[] (i) property; or (ii) an interest in property.”[1] But is a deposit or wire transfer into a debtor’s bank account a “transfer” within the meaning of § 101(54)?

Post date: Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Bankruptcy trustees have tested the limits of the § 546(e) safe harbor since its enactment. In case after case, the courts, with few exceptions, have expanded those limits — that is, perhaps, until now. On Monday, Nov. 6, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Merit Management Group LP v.


Tue, 2017-06-06

In Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., No. 13-11305 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), arising from the SEC enforcement action against Stanford International Bank, Ltd., pending in the U.S. District Court for the N.D. Tex., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the issue of whether trade creditors who fully perform in the ordinary course at market rates provide reasonably equivalent value to a Ponzi scheme, under the Bankruptcy Code and fraudulent transfer law in Texas (and beyond).

Tue, 2016-11-29

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.

Mon, 2016-09-19

Guest speaker, James Lodoen, Esq., a partner at Linquist & Vennum, PLLP in Minneapolis, discusses Finn v. Alliance Bank (S. Ct. Minn. 2015), Kelley v. Opportunity Finance, LLC, et al. (In re Petters Company, Inc., et al.) (Bankr. D. Minn. May 31, 2016), and the Ponzi-scheme presumption.

Tue, 2016-05-31

The Commission recommended that section 550 be amended to permit the trustee to name an alleged subsequent transferee as a defendant in the original complaint to avoid any transfer under Bankruptcy Code sections 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, or 553(b), and to recover such property under section 550, rather than filing an avoidance action prior to filing a recovery action, as the Code currently requires.

Fri, 2016-04-15

People and Assets on the Move Overseas: What You Need to Know to Hold Everything Still and Seize the Assets

Tue, 2016-01-19

The Chapter 11 Commission Report recommended that the burden of proof for appointing a Chapter 11 Trustee under 1104(a) be changed from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence. The Commissioners determined that the existing more stringent standard has a chilling effect on parties-in-interest seeking the appointment of a Trustee, that the benefits of having a Trustee in appropriate cases outweigh the risks of abuse and unnecessary distractions that a lower standard could bring, and that adopting a preponderance of the evidence standard would resolve a split among the courts on this issue.

Thu, 2015-11-12

During this call, Geoffrey L. Berman discussed the ABI’s Commission Report to Study the Reform of Chapter 11, particularly its recommendations related to In Pari Delicto. In addition, the committee’s leadership discussed the various projects and presentations the committee is working on in the coming months.

Sat, 2015-04-18

Advanced Defenses to Avoidance Actions: Understanding Them Can Make All The Difference