The Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis of Systemic Reforms, Fiscal Sustainability, and the Future of Federal Insolvency Proceedings

Feb 12, 2026

The enactment of the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025, designated as Public Law 119-76, represents a critical pivot in the structural management of the United States bankruptcy system.1 Historically, the federal bankruptcy apparatus has operated on a mandate of self-sufficiency, wherein the costs of judicial oversight, administrative processing, and fiduciary duties are borne by the participants rather than the general taxpayer.3 By the mid-2020s, however, this model faced severe strain due to several decades of stagnant compensation for Chapter 7 trustees, the expiration of temporary funding mechanisms, and the pending lapse of essential bankruptcy judgeships. Senate Bill 3424, introduced during the 119th Congress, directly addressed these vulnerabilities through a bipartisan framework intended to stabilize the financial foundation of the courts while ensuring the continued efficiency of the liquidation and reorganization processes.5

Legislative Chronology and Institutional Context

The progression of Senate Bill 3424 through the 119th Congress was marked by an unusual level of consensus, reflecting a broad recognition of the administrative crisis facing the bankruptcy courts.8 Introduced on December 10, 2025, by Senator Christopher A. Coons, the legislation received immediate support from original cosponsors across the political spectrum, including Senators Lindsey Graham, Cory A. Booker, and Marsha Blackburn.10 This bipartisan alignment was essential for the bill’s rapid advancement; it was considered and passed by the Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent on the very day of its introduction, a rarity for complex financial legislation.5

The House of Representatives received the measure on December 11, 2025, where it was held at the desk until the following month.2 On January 12, 2026, at approximately 3:47 pm, Representative Ben Cline moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, triggering a forty-minute debate that highlighted the legislative intent to preserve the "fresh start" promise of the bankruptcy code without increasing the burden on indigent filers.5 The House passed the bill by voice vote at 3:54 pm, and it was presented to the President on February 3, 2026.2 President Trump signed the measure into law on February 6, 2026, codifying significant adjustments to Title 11 and Title 28 of the United States Code.1

Milestone Chronology of Senate Bill 3424

Date	Time (ET)	Chamber/Entity	Action Description	Legislative Status
December 10, 2025	N/A	Senate	Introduced by Sen. Coons; read twice; passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent (CR S8629-8630).	Passed Senate
December 11, 2025	11:23 am	House	Received in the House.	Received in House
December 11, 2025	11:29 am	House	Held at the desk in the House.	Held at Desk
January 12, 2026	3:47 pm	House	Considered under suspension of rules; 40-minute debate initiated by Rep. Cline (CR H626-628).	Floor Debate
January 12, 2026	3:54 pm	House	Passed by voice vote; motion to reconsider laid on the table.	Passed House
February 3, 2026	3:47 pm	Executive	Presented to the President of the United States.	Enrolled
February 6, 2026	N/A	Executive	Signed into law by the President; became Public Law No: 119-76.	Became Law

2

Reforming Chapter 7 Trustee Compensation: The Economic Imperative

A primary driver of the 2025 Act was the long-overdue adjustment of compensation for Chapter 7 panel trustees.3 These individuals serve as the front-line administrators of the bankruptcy system, tasked with reviewing debtor schedules, liquidating non-exempt assets, and identifying potential fraud or abuse.3 In approximately 90% of Chapter 7 cases—often termed "no-asset" cases—the trustee’s compensation had remained fixed at a total of $60 per case since 1994.3 This flat fee, consisting of a $45 statutory payment and a $15 surcharge, had been severely eroded by inflation, leading to a recruitment and retention crisis within the professional trustee pool.12

Congressional findings in the text of S. 3424 noted that the $60 payment established in 1994 would be equivalent to more than $125 in 2025 when adjusted for the Consumer Price Index.3 The stagnation of this fee created a twofold crisis: a professional drain as experienced attorneys and accountants left the panel, and a systemic risk where trustees might under-investigate complex cases due to the lack of financial viability.9 The 2025 Act sought to remedy this by doubling the total per-case compensation to $120.3

Modification of Trustee Compensation Framework

Provision	Statutory Basis (Pre-2025)	New Statutory Basis (S. 3424)	Percentage Increase
Base Fee	$45.00 (11 U.S.C. 330(b)(1))	$105.00	133.3%
Surcharge	$15.00 (11 U.S.C. 330(b)(2))	$15.00	0.0%
Total Per-Case	$60.00	$120.00	100.0%

3

The Act specifically amends Section 330(b)(1) of Title 11 to raise the base payment to $105.4 While this doubling of the fee is significant, the legislation carefully maintains the existing filing fee structure for Chapter 7 debtors, which remains at $335.9 Instead of passing the cost directly to the debtor, the Act rebalances the internal distribution of the filing fee to prioritize trustee payment and system stability.9

Structural Mechanics of Fee Distribution and Fiscal Impact

The financial mechanics of the Act rely on a precise allocation of the fees collected under Section 1930(a)(1)(A) of Title 28. By converting previously percentage-based allocations into fixed dollar amounts, the Act provides a more predictable revenue stream for the various components of the bankruptcy infrastructure.4 This ensures that the U.S. Trustee System remains self-funded even if filing volumes fluctuate in a volatile economic landscape.4

Distribution of Chapter 7 Filing Fees Post-Reform

After the initial $105 is paid to the trustee under Section 330(b)(1), the remainder of the $335 filing fee is distributed according to a new formula designed to balance court operational costs, deficit reduction, and program oversight.4

Fund Designation	Statutory Reference	Specific Dollar Allocation
Treasury Special Fund	28 U.S.C. 1931	$63.51
Deficit Reduction Act Fund	28 U.S.C. 1931 note	$25.00
U.S. Trustee System Fund	28 U.S.C. 589a	$51.49

4

The Act also amends 28 U.S.C. 589a(b)(1)(A) to replace the previous "40.46 percent" allocation with the fixed $51.49 amount, a technical change that simplifies Treasury accounting and provides a more stable baseline for the U.S. Trustee System Fund’s annual budget.4 This shift is critical for maintaining the program's ability to supervise cases without drawing on general tax revenues, a central tenet of modern federal bankruptcy policy.3

Impact on the General Fund and Taxpayers

While the bankruptcy system is designed to be self-funding, the 2025 Act provides a direct benefit to the General Fund of the Treasury. The Act mandates that $5.4 million of the fees collected under Section 1930(a)(6) of Title 28—primarily from Chapter 11 quarterly fees—be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury for each of the fiscal years 2026 through 2031.4 This $27 million cumulative transfer represents a significant fiscal contribution, effectively using the bankruptcy system to offset general government expenditures.4

The Chapter 11 Dimension: Extensions and Corporate Responsibility

While Chapter 7 reforms focused on individual compensation, the Act’s provisions regarding Chapter 11 address the broader funding needs of the national bankruptcy system.14 Large corporate reorganizations under Chapter 11 generate significant supervisory burdens for the U.S. Trustee Program, ranging from the appointment of creditors' committees to the oversight of disclosure statements and plans of reorganization.14 To offset these costs, the system has historically relied on quarterly fees paid by Chapter 11 debtors based on their total disbursements.14

The Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 extends the duration of these quarterly fees for an additional five years, effectively requiring companies in reorganization to continue contributing to the system for up to 10 years after their plan is confirmed.1 This extension provides a guaranteed revenue stream for the U.S. Trustee System Fund through 2031, ensuring that the oversight of complex corporate cases is not compromised by funding lapses.14

Chapter 11 Quarterly Fee Adjustments and Corporate Impact

The Act also modestly increases the maximum quarterly fees for cases with very large disbursements. This ensures that the largest corporate filers, which consume the most administrative resources, contribute a proportionate share to the system’s maintenance.2

Disbursement Tier (Quarterly)	Fee Calculation Formula	Maximum Quarterly Fee
Below $1,000,000	The greater of 0.4% or $250	Not Applicable
Exceeding $1,000,000	0.8% of total disbursements	$281,250

14

The increase in the cap from $250,000 to $281,250 represents a targeted user fee on entities whose cases generate substantial supervisory burdens.9 For a large corporate group with multiple affiliates—such as those seen in recent retail or energy bankruptcies—this extension can represent a significant long-term financial obligation.17 However, the 2020 precursor to this Act had previously simplified the fee structure to reduce the burden on smaller Chapter 11 debtors, and the 2025 Act maintains those more equitable sliding scales while focusing the largest fees on the highest-disbursement cases.17

Preservation of Judicial Capacity: Temporary Judgeship Extensions

A third critical pillar of S. 3424 is the extension of temporary bankruptcy judgeships across various judicial districts.1 These positions are typically created to handle temporary surges in caseloads but must be reauthorized periodically by Congress to avoid vacancies that could disrupt the administration of justice.14 The 2025 Act extends these judgeships from their previous five-year terms to ten-year terms, providing much-needed stability to the federal bench.1

The necessity of this extension was underscored by a significant rise in bankruptcy filings in the months leading up to the bill’s passage.19 In July 2025, total bankruptcy filings rose by 11.45% year-over-year, with Chapter 11 business reorganizations exploding by over 88% due to high commercial volume and volatile interest rates.19 Districts with high commercial volume, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Delaware, rely heavily on these temporary positions to manage complex multi-affiliate filings.12

Impact on Key Judicial Districts and Regional Practice

The extension applies to 25 temporary judgeships originally modified by the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020, as well as several others created in 2017.4

Judicial District	Impact of S. 3424	Practical Outcome for Practitioners
District of Delaware	7 Temporary Judgeships Extended	Maintenance of the nation's primary hub for corporate reorganizations.
Eastern District of Virginia	Judgeship Term Extended to 10 Years	Reduced administrative bottlenecks and improved trustee responsiveness.
Middle District of North Carolina	Temporary Judgeship Extended	Preserved capacity for local reorganization proceedings.
District of Maryland	Judgeship Term Extended to 10 Years	Enhanced stability for a high-volume consumer and business caseload.
District of Columbia	Judgeship Term Extended to 10 Years	Improved case management and professional trustee retention.

12

By moving from a five-year to a ten-year reauthorization cycle, Congress has reduced the frequency of "judiciary cliffs" where vacancies could disrupt case management and lead to significant backlogs.14 This reform is particularly vital in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which permanently altered filing patterns and increased the complexity of many business cases.17

Motivation and Policy Rationales: The Interconnected System

The motivation behind S. 3424 was essentially corrective rather than transformative. It sought to fix a funding mechanism that had become dysfunctional over three decades of inflationary pressure and legislative neglect.3 The findings section of the bill makes clear that the bankruptcy system is "interconnected," meaning that the fees from various types of cases are necessary to fund the holistic infrastructure of courts, judges, and trustees.3

The Fiduciary Crisis and Government Recovery

Trustees serve as fiduciaries for the Department of Justice, and their work provides tangible benefits to government entities at all levels.3 In 2016 alone, Chapter 7 trustees collected and distributed over $300 billion in assets.13 They return millions of dollars annually to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and the Department of Agriculture.3 Proponents of the bill argued that if these trustees are underpaid, they lack the resources to hire forensic accountants or legal counsel to pursue hidden assets, ultimately resulting in a net loss to the Treasury and private creditors.12

The User-Fee Model in a Bipartisan Era

The bill’s success also stemmed from its adherence to the "user fee" model, which resonates with both political parties for different reasons.9 In an era of heightened fiscal scrutiny, the prospect of a self-sustaining system that requires zero taxpayer funding is highly attractive.3 Conservative lawmakers viewed the increase in Chapter 11 fees as a targeted charge on large entities using specialized court services, while liberal lawmakers supported the increase in trustee pay as a way to ensure the system remains professional and accessible to struggling individuals without raising the filing costs for the poor.9

Stakeholder Impacts and Affected Parties

The ramifications of the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 extend across the legal, financial, and regulatory landscapes. Each group involved in the insolvency process faces a distinct set of changes to their operational and financial expectations.

Chapter 7 Panel Trustees and the Legal Workforce

The most immediate beneficiaries are the approximately 1,000 private trustees who manage Chapter 7 cases.3 The doubling of the no-asset fee is expected to stabilize the trustee pool and attract higher-quality professionals back to the panel.12 With better compensation, trustees are more likely to invest in modernizing their own administrative technologies and continuing legal education, which can lead to faster case resolutions and more thorough asset reviews.12 This fosters a more predictable and professional environment for the attorneys who represent both debtors and creditors.11

Debtors and Consumers: The Cost-Benefit Duality

For the average individual filing for bankruptcy, the Act is designed to be cost-neutral at the point of entry.3 The filing fee remains $335, and the authority of judges to waive fees for indigent filers is preserved.3 However, there is a potential for "downstream effects." Increased trustee pay may lead to more diligent scrutiny of debtor exemptions and asset valuations.12 Legal analysts have noted that a more proactive trustee may be more likely to challenge aggressive exemption claims, requiring debtors and their attorneys to conduct more thorough pre-filing due diligence.12 This "heightened diligence" requirement may increase the time attorneys must spend on each case, potentially leading to higher legal fees even if court fees remain stable.11

Corporate Creditors and Reorganizing Businesses

The corporate sector, particularly firms undergoing restructuring, faces the most direct financial impact.9 The extension of quarterly fees for five additional years and the increase in the maximum fee cap represent a non-trivial increase in the cost of reorganization.9 Over five years, this can amount to millions in additional administrative costs for a large corporate group.14 Some industry analysts worry that these fees, while small relative to the total debt, could discourage some firms from filing or push negotiations toward out-of-court workouts that may offer fewer protections for minority creditors.9

Key Debates and Divergent Perspectives

Despite the bill's broad bipartisan support, it was not without its critics, though much of the criticism focused on what the bill failed to include rather than its actual provisions.15

The Exemption Modernization Conflict

A major point of contention highlighted by consumer advocacy groups was the disparity between indexing trustee pay to inflation while leaving debtor exemptions frozen.15 In states like North Carolina, the homestead exemption—the amount of home equity a debtor can keep—has been capped at $35,000 since 2009.15 Legal analysts pointed out that if Congress is willing to acknowledge that a $60 fee from 1994 is insufficient because of inflation, it should logically apply the same reasoning to the exemptions that determine whether a debtor can actually receive a "fresh start".15 The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) has repeatedly flagged this "policy neglect," arguing that the practical value of homestead protection has shrunk to less than 10% of a typical home's value in some markets.15

The "Missed Opportunity" for Reorganization Reform

Another significant debate centered on the expiration of temporary debt limits for Chapter 13 and Subchapter V (Small Business) cases in 2024.15 During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress had temporarily increased the debt ceiling for these more favorable reorganization tracks to $2.75 million and $7.5 million, respectively.15 When these limits lapsed, many middle-income families and small businesses were forced back into more expensive or less effective liquidation frameworks.15 Critics of the 2025 Act argued that while the bill addressed the system's "administrative infrastructure," it missed a critical opportunity to restore these higher debt limits and improve access to relief for the "squeezed" middle class.15

Arguments of Opposing Organizations

While no major organization formally blocked the bill, several groups expressed nuanced concerns that were debated during the legislative process.9

1. Consumer Advocates: Supported the better trustee pay but expressed deep frustration that debtor protections remain frozen. They argued that the bill represents a "one-sided" modernization of the system that benefits administrators over the bankrupt individuals the system is meant to serve.15
2. Corporate Interests: Some groups representing large business debtors argued that extending the quarterly fees for a decade creates a "reorganization tax" that lingers long after a company has technically emerged from bankruptcy, potentially hindering its long-term recovery.9
3. Judicial Critics: A small faction of critics expressed concern that the ten-year extension of temporary judgeships reduces the ability of the judiciary to reallocate resources if filing patterns shift geographically, potentially creating "ghost judgeships" in declining districts.14

Comparative Analysis: Global Precedents and Alternate Models

The United States' approach to bankruptcy administration is unique in its reliance on a centralized federal oversight body and a hybrid funding model.3 Comparing this system to other common law jurisdictions provides context for the reforms enacted in 2025 and highlights potential alternatives that were not chosen by Congress.23

Australia: The Hourly Rate and Percentage Model

In contrast to the U.S. flat-fee model for liquidations, Australia allows trustees to calculate their remuneration using three potential methods: an hourly rate based on time spent, a quoted fixed amount, or a percentage of asset realizations.23 The hourly rate is the most common, reflecting the seniority and experience of the staff.23 While this model avoids the "under-investigation" risk seen in the U.S., it can result in much higher administrative costs that consume the assets available for creditors, as the remuneration must be approved by the court or creditors before payment.23

Canada: The Licensed Insolvency Trustee System

Canada employs Licensed Insolvency Trustees (LITs) who are supervised by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB).22 The Canadian model places a heavy emphasis on debtor-deterrence and equal-sharing principles.24 Unlike the U.S. Trustee, the OSB does not have a direct equivalent in every case but performs oversight functions through licensing and investigations.22 Canada’s system is also bifurcated by the size of the entity, with the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) handling larger entities with liabilities exceeding C$5 million, a threshold that inspired some of the U.S. debates over Subchapter V limits.22

Comparison of International Compensation and Oversight Schemes

Feature	United States (S. 3424)	Australia	Canada
Primary Compensation Structure	Flat Fee of $120 Plus Commission	Hourly Rate or Percentage-Based Fee	Statutory Tariff or Percentage-Based Fee
Regulatory Oversight Body	U.S. Trustee Program (Department of Justice)	Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA)	Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB - Federal Government)
Operational Funding Mechanism	User Fees (Self-Funded)	Creditor Assets and Debtor Fees	Creditor Assets and Debtor Fees
Viability for Small Cases	Subsidized by Revenue from Large Cases	Frequently Deemed Unviable	Regulated by Mandatory Fee Structures
Mechanism for Dispute Resolution	Bankruptcy Court Adjudication	Creditor Vote or Regulatory Review	OSB Investigation and Findings

13

The U.S. reform of 2025 can be seen as an attempt to maintain the "flat fee" simplicity while acknowledging the economic reality that has long been recognized by the hourly or tariff-based models in Australia and Canada.3

Potential Unintended Consequences and Long-Term Effects

While the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 solves immediate fiscal problems, its long-term effects may include shifts in how bankruptcy is practiced in the United States.9

Strategic Behavior and the Shift to Chapter 13

The increased scrutiny by trustees, fueled by better pay and higher expectations, might drive some debtors away from Chapter 7 liquidations and toward Chapter 13 repayment plans.12 In a Chapter 13 case, debtors retain more control over their assets in exchange for a multi-year repayment plan to creditors.15 If trustees become more aggressive in liquidating assets to justify their new $120 fee, the "fresh start" of Chapter 7 may become less attractive to middle-class debtors with some non-exempt property.12

The Risk of Professional Over-Litigation

There is a documented risk that low fixed pay can lead to "under-investigation," but a sudden increase can create skewed incentives in the opposite direction.9 If a trustee believes they can justify their efforts by finding even a small amount of non-exempt property, they may engage in litigation that produces little net benefit for creditors but generates additional commissions for themselves and their counsel.9 This "over-scrutiny" of marginal cases could increase the complexity and duration of simple consumer liquidations, potentially clogging the courts with minor asset disputes.9

Deterrence of Corporate Reorganization

For large businesses, the extension of quarterly fees for a full decade could become a factor in "bankruptcy venue shopping" or the decision to avoid Chapter 11 altogether.9 If a company anticipates that it will remain in a "post-confirmation" state for many years, the cumulative cost of the U.S. Trustee fees could push the firm toward out-of-court restructuring.9 While this might save the company money, it removes the transparency and court-supervised protections that Chapter 11 provides to stakeholders like employees, pensioners, and small vendors.18

Results of Previous Similar Legislation: The 2020 Precedent

The 2025 Act is essentially a successor to the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020, which was signed into law on January 12, 2021.16 Analyzing the results of that earlier legislation provides a roadmap for the expected outcomes of the current reforms.

Performance of the 2020 Act Mechanisms

The 2020 Act established the original Chapter 7 Trustee Fund and simplified the Chapter 11 quarterly fee structure.16 It provided a temporary increase in trustee pay that was intended to be permanent but only lasted for one fiscal year due to technical funding limitations.3

2020 Act Provision	Intended Result	Actual Outcome (2021-2024)
Temporary Judgeship Extension	Preserve judicial capacity	Successfully avoided vacancies during COVID surge.17
Ch 11 Fee Simplification	Make reorganization more efficient	Significant fee reductions for mid-sized debtors.17
Chapter 7 Trustee Fund	Fund pay increases	Inconsistent funding led to pay only for 1 year.3
US Trustee Fund Offset	Ensure self-funding	Program remained self-funded through 2024.20

4

The "failure" of the 2020 Act to provide long-term funding for Chapter 7 trustees was the primary catalyst for the more robust $120 fee and fixed-dollar distribution model enacted in 2025.3 By learning from the "pro-rata share" complications of the previous bill—where trustees only received a raise if a surplus existed—the 2025 Act creates a "first-tier" payment obligation that guarantees the $120 fee regardless of surplus levels.3

Conclusion: A Stabilized Foundation for a Precarious Economy

The Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 succeeded in its primary objective of shoring up the administrative and financial infrastructure of the federal bankruptcy system.3 By doubling the compensation for Chapter 7 trustees, extending the life of the U.S. Trustee System Fund through Chapter 11 fee extensions, and providing a ten-year horizon for temporary judgeships, Congress has ensured that the "engine" of the bankruptcy courts will continue to run without requiring a taxpayer bailout.3

However, the bill is best understood as a maintenance act rather than a reform of the bankruptcy code's underlying social principles.15 It addressed the "how" of bankruptcy administration while largely ignoring the "who" and "why." The failure to address outdated state exemptions and the expiration of higher debt limits for small businesses remains a significant vulnerability in the U.S. insolvency framework.15 As the economy moves further into the late 2020s, the resilience of the system will be tested not just by its funding levels, but by its ability to provide a meaningful fresh start to a population facing a persistent cost-of-living crisis and a rapidly changing housing market.15

Ultimately, S. 3424 reflects a pragmatic, bipartisan realization that a functioning market economy requires an efficient and well-funded mechanism for the orderly resolution of debt.9 By acknowledging that static dollar amounts in law are eventually defeated by inflation, the 119th Congress has set a precedent that may eventually lead to more comprehensive modernization of debtor protections.15 For now, the Act provides the stability necessary for the courts to manage the current surge in insolvency proceedings, ensuring that the federal judiciary remains a reliable arbiter of the "honest but unfortunate" debtor's fresh start.7

Works cited

1. Congressional Bill S. 3424 Signed into Law - The White House, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/02/congressional-bill-s-3424-signed-into-law/
2. S.3424 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424/all-info
3. S.3424 - Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424/text/enr?overview=closed&format=txt
4. S.3424 - Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424/text
5. Actions - S.3424 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424/all-actions
6. S.3424 - Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424
7. The Year Congress Introduced Everything (again) and Passed Almost Nothing | BillTrack50, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.billtrack50.com/info/blog/the-year-congress-introduced-everything-again-and-passed-almost-nothing-again
8. US SB3424 | 2025-2026 | 119th Congress - LegiScan, accessed February 11, 2026, https://legiscan.com/US/bill/SB3424/2025
9. HR 3867 - AI Policy Analysis: PoliScore, accessed February 11, 2026, https://poliscore.us/2026/bill/hr/3867
10. Cosponsors - S.3424 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Bankruptcy ..., accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/3424/cosponsors
11. S. 3424 - 119th Congress (2025-2026) - Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 - Bill Sponsor, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.billsponsor.com/bills/784937/senate-bill-3424-congress-119
12. Roman C., accessed February 11, 2026, https://romanattorney.com/author/roman-c/
13. - BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2017 - Congress.gov, accessed February 11, 2026, https://congress.gov/115/chrg/CHRG-115hhrg32979/CHRG-115hhrg32979.htm
14. S. 3424 - Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 - Policy Brief, accessed February 11, 2026, https://policybrief.co/legislation/s3424-119
15. Legislation: Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2025 — Summary and Commentary | Your North Carolina Bankruptcy Expert, accessed February 11, 2026, https://ncbankruptcyexpert.com/2026/02/09/legislation-bankruptcy-administration-improvement-act-2025-summary-and-commentary
16. BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2020 - Congress.gov, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ325/PLAW-116publ325.pdf
17. Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020 Extends Temporary Judgeships and Amends UST Quarterly Fee Calculation - Bayard, P.A., accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.bayardlaw.com/insights/bankruptcy-administration-improvement-act-of-2020-extends-temporary-judgeships
18. Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics - United States Courts, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics
19. Bankruptcy Filings Rose by 11.45 Percent in July - Resource Center, accessed February 11, 2026, https://resources.aisinfo.com/blog/july-2025-bankruptcy-filings-rose-by-11.45-percent-in-july
20. Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020 Signed Into Law | ABI, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.abi.org/newsroom/press-releases/bankruptcy-administration-improvement-act-of-2020-signed-into-law
21. 2026 Could Be the Year of the 'Busted' LME, Says Adam Shpeen of Davis Polk - Octus, accessed February 11, 2026, https://octus.com/resources/articles/2026-could-be-the-year-of-the-busted-lme-says-adam-shpeen-of-davis-polk/
22. Chapter 11 and CCAA - A Cross-Border Comparison - Blakes, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.blakes.com/getmedia/7baa29c8-99e1-4b14-8a6c-30b3c7ca28b9/Chapter-11-CCAA-Comparison-July2022.pdf
23. Trustee's fees | Australian Financial Security Authority, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.afsa.gov.au/owed-money/creditor-guidance/trustees-fees
24. Time for Reform? a comparison of Canadian and English Preference Laws - SAS Open Journals, accessed February 11, 2026, https://journals.sas.ac.uk/lawreview/article/download/4904/4852/8683
25. Attachment D: Comparison of International Compensation Schemes | Treasury.gov.au, accessed February 11, 2026, https://treasury.gov.au/review/review-of-compensation-for-loss-in-the-financial-services-sector/attachment-d-comparison-of-international-compensation-schemes
26. CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026; Congressional Record Vol. 172, No. 15 (House - Congress.gov, accessed February 11, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/issue-15/house-section/article/H1185-2