The U.S. Department of Justice's Trustee Program is expected to promulgate new disclosure rules this month for law firms regarding the fees they charge debtors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

Professional fees in these cases have ballooned in recent years, leaving many creditors wondering how debtors' attorneys can bill such exorbitant costs to firms that are already in financial straits. Among the rules expected to be proposed by the Trustee Program are provisions that would require firms to disclose rate increases and justify them as cases go on, as well as measures that require firms to prove that their rates are aligned with other members of their industry.

The actual debtor's cost for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing has long been criticized but was thrown into the public eye in the wake of the liquidation of Lehman Brothers. Court filings in March of this year revealed that the holding company paid a whopping $1.6 billion to lawyers, accountants, advisers and other professionals over the course of their case.

An American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) Commission has found that the current Bankruptcy Code, enacted in 1978, is in need of modernization.

In a conference call this week, ABI examined the progress of their Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 and discussed the ways in which the 1978 Code is outdated. Such issues were identified by practitioners and academics who participated in the five public hearings held by the Commission throughout 2012.

"The community recognizes that the Bankruptcy Code is strong and durable and works, but, as I've often said, it's somewhat like using a typewriter," said Commission Member Richard Levin of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. "It could be improved, it could be more efficient and more balanced in many ways, while providing the kinds of protections that creditors and debtors alike need to preserve jobs and preserve value."

A deal was reached to ameliorate the effects of the United States going over the so-called "fiscal cliff" on January 1, but few seem satisfied with the legislation.

The bill, dubbed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, initially passed through the Senate in the early hours of 2013 by an overwhelming 89-8 vote. It faced a less certain future in the House of Representatives, but the bill eventually overcame a Republican party split to successfully emerge from the lower chamber in a 257-167 vote.

Even the legislation's supporters framed it as a stopgap measure that did what was necessary to neutralize the cliff's automatic spending cuts and tax increases, which took effect on January 1, but did little more than that. "There's more work to do to reduce our deficits, and I'm willing to do it," said President Barack Obama. "But tonight's agreement ensures that, going forward, we will continue to reduce the deficit through a combination of new spending cuts and new revenues from the wealthiest Americans."

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Act will reduce the country's deficit by $737 billion, mainly due to a tax increase on individuals earning more than $400,000 a year and households earning $450,000. While the bill also makes $107 billion worth of spending cuts, Republican leaders promised substantially greater reductions in the future, while trying to shift the blame to the White House when possible. "With the revenue piece settled, Washington must now turn to solving the rest of the fiscal cliff—the out-of-control spending that has led to record debt and deficits under President Obama," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI).

The current version of a bill in the Virginia House of Delegates, HB 2198, would require commercial credit reporting agencies to identify their sources of "negative information" when they provide a copy of a report to its subject. This would mean that Virginia buyers would know the identities of the sellers that shared any of their negative payment history with a commercial credit reporting agency should they choose to dispute the information on their report.

However, according to the office of Delegate Michael Watson (R-James City/York Counties), the bill's chief patron, and other industry sources, an amendment to the bill that would eliminate this requirement is forthcoming. The text of such an amendment has yet to be made public.

Still, the bill would also require agencies to provide Virginia businesses access to a free annual credit report and would allow the subject of a commercial report to dispute parts of their report that they believe are inaccurate. After receiving the subject's complaint, the commercial credit reporting agency would have 30 days to either delete the statement or include a note in the report saying that the subject of the report has disputed a particular piece of information.