The Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued an opinion for three Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) suits challenging Commerce’s denials of Section 232 duty exclusions. The APA is the law under which almost all Federal agencies act and sets forth the decision-making authority of agencies. Claims against Customs not made under a more specific statute are generally made under the APA.
What Happened?
Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 4, 2023.
In AssessNet Inc. v. Ferro Estate, the Court set aside an order dismissing the action, finding that the summary judgment motion judge had erred in determining the issue of discoverability of a claim against a trustee in bankruptcy.
Torgersrud v Lightstone is a family law decision where the Court dismissed an appeal from an order setting aside a marriage contract entered into in Quebec in 1988.
Interest rates remain high, and for many markets and asset classes, prices have yet to fall. However, there’s at least one way real estate investors can buy a property at the right price in this cycle: Distressed sales.
“It’s a main mechanism for price correction,” said Matthew Scoville, a New York-based attorney and partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth who has represented both lenders and real estate developers. In many cases, distressed sales allow investors to acquire properties that would otherwise not be available. “Opportunities are the name of the game,” he said.
“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitatethe development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”
- From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).
Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.
My purpose in this multi-part series is to provide observations on the facilitation role.
In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.
In a scholarly, comprehensive and lengthy opinion written by one of the Southern District of New York’s most recently appointed Bankruptcy Judges, the issue of whether the reinstatement of defaulted and accelerated debt requires the payment of default-rate interest and fees was answered in the affirmative, undoubtedly to the delight of lenders everywhere.
“Notwithstanding the court of appeals’ error, this case does not warrant this Court’s review.”
Bankruptcy Judge James J. Tancredi appeared to give a chapter 7 debtor one last chance to avoid being incarcerated.