The Supreme Court transmitted amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to Congress on April 8, 2026. Assuming Congress doesn’t intervene (it won’t), Rules 1007, 2007.1, 3001, 3018, 5009, 9006, 9014, and 9017 get amended, and a brand-new Rule 7043 joins the rulebook. Effective date: December 1, 2026.
Most of this is housekeeping. A few changes are not. Here’s what you need to track.
The Testimony Rules Just Got a Real Framework
This is the headline. New Rule 7043 reads in full:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 43 applies in an adversary proceeding.
One sentence to bookmark. The reason it matters is structural. Before December, FRCP 43 reached adversary proceedings indirectly through Rule 9017, which addressed “evidence” generically. The new architecture splits the function: 7043 covers testimony in adversary proceedings, and amended Rule 9014(d) covers testimony in contested matters. You now have parallel, explicit rules instead of one provision doing double duty.
Rule 9014(d) is the more interesting development because contested matters are where most bankruptcy litigation lives. The new subdivision provides:
(1) In Open Court. A witness’s testimony on a disputed material factual issue must be taken in open court unless a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, these rules, or other rules adopted by the Supreme Court provide otherwise. For cause and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.
(2) Evidence. When resolution of a contested matter relies on facts outside the record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or may hear it wholly or partly on oral testimony or on depositions.
(3) Interpreter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(d) applies in a contested matter.
What changed: the rule expressly requires open court testimony on disputed material facts and explicitly authorizes remote transmission for cause with appropriate safeguards. Post-COVID, lots of courts ran hybrid hearings on standing orders and informal practice. Now there’s a rule.
Notice the standard. Rule 9014(d)(1) says “for cause and with appropriate safeguards.” That is, at minimum, no higher than FRCP 43(a)’s “good cause in compelling circumstances,” and arguably a touch lower. Federal courts under FRCP 43 have generally required something beyond convenience: witness illness, witness in custody elsewhere, legitimate last-minute unavailability, or specialized witnesses where the cost-benefit cuts against in-person attendance for a discrete technical point. Expect bankruptcy judges to land in the same general territory, with maybe a little more flexibility for fact patterns peculiar to bankruptcy (a foreign creditor, a witness scattered after a corporate liquidation, etc.).
The mistake I expect to see: treating the new rule as a general green light for remote testimony. It is not. The default is open court. If you want remote, file a motion, support it with declarations, and propose specific safeguards: oath administration, document handling, identification of anyone in the witness’s room, exhibit protocol. Bankruptcy judges who lived through the rolling Zoom dockets of 2020 and 2021 are particular about this.
Rule 9017 Picks Up Foreign Law
Rule 9017 now reads: “The Federal Rules of Evidence and Fed. R. Civ. P. 44 and 44.1 apply in a bankruptcy case.” The old version pulled in Rule 44 (proving official records). The new version adds Rule 44.1, which governs notice of intent to raise foreign law and how the court determines it.
Bankruptcy courts were already applying Rule 44.1 by analogy in Chapter 15 cases and other cross-border matters. Now the analogy is unnecessary. If you do cross-border work, your foreign-law notice should now cite Rule 9017 directly. Substantively, nothing changes; procedurally, you have a cleaner footnote.
Plan Acceptance Can Travel on the Record
Rule 3018(c)(1) expands how acceptances and rejection-changes can happen. The old rule required ballots. The new rule keeps the ballot default but adds:
(B) As a Statement on the Record. The court may also permit an acceptance—or the change or withdrawal of a rejection—in a statement that is:
(i) part of the record, including an oral statement at the confirmation hearing or a stipulation; and
(ii) made by the creditor or equity security holder—or its attorney or authorized agent.
This is a real change for confirmation hearings. If your client filed a rejection ballot but worked out a deal during the disclosure-statement-to-confirmation gap (or just decided the plan was fine after seeing the trust agreement), you can flip the rejection on the record. No corrected ballot needed.
Two cautions. First, the court has to permit it; don’t assume. Get on the record early in the hearing about your client’s revised position, ideally tied to a written stipulation filed before the hearing. Second, you cannot use this mechanism to flip an acceptance to a rejection. Read the rule carefully. It covers (a) acceptance, and (b) change or withdrawal of a rejection. Going the other direction still requires cause under (a)(3) and is unlikely to fly after the disclosure-statement hearing has run.
Proofs of Claim: Form 410A Is Now in the Rule
Rule 3001(c)(2)(C) now expressly requires, for any claimed security interest in the debtor’s principal residence:
- Form 410A; and
- if there’s an escrow account, an escrow-account statement prepared as of the petition date that is consistent in form with applicable nonbankruptcy law.
Form 410A has been the de facto attachment for residential mortgage claims for over a decade. The new language puts the requirement squarely in the rule rather than inferring it from the form’s instructions. For consumer-creditor counsel this is mostly housekeeping, but the Rule 3001(c)(4) sanctions hook (preclusion of the missing item as evidence in any contested matter or adversary proceeding, plus reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees) is unchanged and waiting. Sloppy compliance is a little more dangerous than it used to be.
Financial-Management Course: The Notice Sequence Got Specific
If you handle consumer cases, watch Rule 5009(b). The clerk now follows a specific two-notice protocol when an individual debtor’s financial-management course certificate is missing. First notice goes out at day 45 post-petition. Second notice goes out at day 90 in Chapter 7 (with a 30-day cure window) or when the trustee files the final report and final account in Chapter 13 (with 60 days to cure). Miss both, and the case closes without discharge.
The practical issue: the clerk’s notice goes to whatever address is on the petition. Update addresses in your tickler system. A missed certificate followed by a closed case is fixable through reopening, but only with the associated motion practice and fees. Easier to just file the certificate.
The Rest
Rule 1007 cleans up the financial-management course filing language and abrogates the orphaned subdivision (c)(4). Rule 9006(b)(3) and (c)(2) update internal cross-references. Rule 2007.1 reorganizes the connections-disclosure list for trustee or examiner elections in Chapter 11, consolidating the entities into a single bulleted list at (b)(3)(A) that other subdivisions cross-reference. None of these will change how you litigate, but the 2007.1 reorganization makes drafting verified statements modestly cleaner.
The headline remains the testimony framework. Calendar December 1, update your hearing-prep checklists for remote-witness motions, and you’ll be ready.