A study on using round-number offers and precise-number offers in negotiations reaches these two conclusions:
Here’s the latest opinion on a controversial question: In re Franco’s Paving LLC, Case No. 23-20069, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court, (decided 10/5/2023; Doc. 74).
The Question & Answer
Voter apathy is a problem in Subchapter V cases. That apathy is in the form of creditors failing or refusing to vote on a Subchapter V plan. The In re Franco’s opinion addresses this apathy problem head-on.
Recent expressions of concern about courts mandating mediation reminded me of a mandated mediation process that worked well: the City of Detroit bankruptcy.
An illustration of the success of mandated mediation in the Detroit case is this line:
The Bankruptcy Judge“put an end to the public bickering over the water deal by ordering the parties into confidential mediation.”
In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question:
The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time! The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors have been preserved.” [Fn. 2]
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has followed a long and relatively straight road for the absolute priority rule. And the rule has shown staying power, along that road.
The opinion is In re Legarde, Case No. 22-12184, Eastern Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court (issued September 14, 2023; Doc. 112).
Facts
Debtor claims Creditor raped her.
Then, Debtor posts stuff about Creditor on the internet.
So, Creditor sues Debtor for defamation, alleging willful and malicious conduct.
Bankruptcy Developments
“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”
The continuing effort in Congress to extend Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit recently hit a snag. The result: the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility expired on June 21, 2024, and the Subchapter V debt limit is now reduced to an inflation-adjusted $3,024,725.[i]
Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?
The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]
Facts
Debtor is an automotive repair shop.
Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.
A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.
The Problem
Here’s the problem: