You can't make a bank account where there is no possible chance a transaction can be reversed. That's what you're asking for.
(Crypto doesn't do this. You can be taken to court and they don't care that it's decentralized and immutable and all that. That's much of the point of his writing.)
If account has insufficient funds to do a reversal the bank is not always obliged to step in, only in a few specific circumstances. Avoiding such circumstances is possible.
There's an example in the article. If the account is owned by a company and it goes bankrupt, the account no longer contains money even though your computer says it does. So if anyone reverses a deposit quickly enough your computer is going to let it through and you're paying for it.
Your example is interesting but I don't see how a bank can be held liable if the bankruptcy wasn't communicated to it properly, is there any proof it's a real thing?
The example in the article is different if I read it right: bankruptcy was already known to all parties, account frozen, but the debtor asked court if some operations can be resumed except for chargebacks.
(Crypto doesn't do this. You can be taken to court and they don't care that it's decentralized and immutable and all that. That's much of the point of his writing.)