Here’s a due process question that’s percolating before the U.S. Supreme Court and a related mediation issue:

This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]

Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity

This is the third in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this third article is on how the evolution of the old bankruptcy referees into today’s bankruptcy courts shows why special masters are needed in complex bankruptcy cases—and should not have been prohibited.[Fn. 1]

The Evolution of Bankruptcy

This is the second in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]

Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition

This is the first in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this first article is on how special masters are already utilized, effectively, by federal district courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (titled, “Masters”).[Fn. 1]

Special Masters in Federal Courts

–A Brief History

A helpful analysis of statute of limitations issues for fraudulent transfer claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee under § 544(a)&(b) is provided in a recent Circuit opinion.

• The opinion is Lewis v. Takacs (In re Stone Pine Investment Banking, LLC), Case No. 21-1423, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (decided 12/19/2023).

Overview

You can’t make this stuff up. The legal issues are pedestrian. But the facts behind those issues are incredible!

Litigation History

Here’s the boring stuff first.

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C. (Case No. 23-425). Here’s the procedural background:

Oral arguments happened on January 9, 2024, at the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S.Trustee v. Hammons.Here is a link to the transcript of those arguments.

The Hammons question is this:

2023 is the year that the need for a uniform state law on assignments for benefit of creditors became obvious.

And a Drafting Committee at the Uniform Law Commission began working in 2023 to create such a law.

Here are some of the reasons why the need became obvious.

Background and Purpose

2023 has been a good year for developing the law of Subchapter V through court rulings and opinions. Here are some of the highs and lows of that development.

Working as Intended

If 2023 shows us anything, it’s this: Subchapter V is working as intended.

Subchapter V has developed into the efficient and effective tool for business reorganization it was intended to be. That’s true, whether the reorganization is in the form of continued operations or liquidation. Such a tool did not exist before Subchapter V.