Integrity Investment Fund is in an early, creditor-driven chapter 11 posture, with no disclosed DIP financing, sale process, or plan path yet and the docket focused on basic case administration, counsel retention, and monitoring of collateral tied to tax certificates and receivables. The case was filed after Byline Bank, the debtor’s senior secured lender, asserted that it was owed about $11.4 million on a matured revolving loan secured by virtually all business assets, primarily tax certificates, and that the petition came the same day as a state-court hearing on Byline’s request to appoint a receiver, according to Byline’s objection to the schedule-extension motionDkt. 12.
Byline’s objection framed the opening dispute: the lender argued that the debtor had not timely filed required schedules, had not sought authority to use cash collateral, had not retained bankruptcy counsel, and had not established a DIP account while some tax certificates allegedly faced February 28, 2026 expiration risk. That objection also sought either denial of more time or conditions requiring turnover of original tax certificates, a sworn accounting of certificate status and expiration dates, cash-collateral authority, counsel retention, and interim adequate-protection measures through the Byline Bank objectionDkt. 12.
The operating reports show a debtor with little ongoing activity and a balance sheet dominated by aged receivables rather than fresh operating cash flow. For March 2026, the debtor reported $13.0 million of accounts receivable, with $13.0 million over 90 days outstanding, $13.38 million of prepetition secured debt, $4.65 million of prepetition unsecured debt, no postpetition payables, and zero reported gross income or net profit/loss in the . The April report continued the same profile: ending cash of about $17,322, minimal receipts and disbursements, no operating income, no asset sales outside the ordinary course, and no postpetition liabilities in the .
The near-term procedural focus is counsel retention. Sarah Rothman Robins disclosed that a $10,000 retainer for Ariel Weissberg and Weissberg and Khanna, Ltd. was funded from her personal account and characterized as a capital contribution to the debtor in the Robins declaration supporting employmentDkt. 42, followed by an amended declaration clarifying that the proposed counsel does not represent Robins individually in the amended Robins declarationDkt. 44. The court continued the employment hearing to May 6, 2026 at 10:45 a.m. before Judge Thorne through the continued employment-hearing noticeDkt. 43, leaving the case still short of a disclosed restructuring transaction or plan and centered on control of collateral, professional retention, and the debtor’s ability to administer assets with very limited cash.
