On October 14, 2022, the U.S.

In previous alerts in this series, we have discussed how transformative DAOs can be for corporate formation and tax status. We have discussed how determining a DAO’s classification—whether a DAO is a legal entity and, if so, what type—is vital before any legal proceeding.

Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.

Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.

Background

Many years ago, back when mediation is a rarity in bankruptcy disputes, I asked an old-timer this question:

Why is the bankruptcy system a lagging adopter of mediation?”

A Surprising Answer

The old-timer gave this surprising answer:

“At the time of the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment, the bankruptcy judge was viewed as a mediator in the judge’s own court.”

The old-timer added this.  When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted:

The Insolvency and Companies Court has recognised Chapter 11 Proceedings in the US in respect of the manufacturer of controversial surgical mesh products which have generated a significant number of claims worldwide. The British Claimants have had their claims stayed as a result of this recognition.

Re Astora Women’s Health LLC [2022] EWHC 2412 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

The Bankruptcy Protector

The recent decision of the Ninth Circuit in In re Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC contains a few important takeaways with respect to the treatment of executory contracts and unexpired leases under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Third Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to disqualify the plaintiff’s law firm in a large adversary proceeding, holding that it had not abused its discretion because the plaintiff law firm (W) had “complied with” American Bar Association Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2). In re Maxus Energy Corp., 2022 WL 4113656, *4 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2022). According to the court, a lawyer (B) who “moved from” the defendant’s law firm “to the [plaintiff’s] firm” was not cause for W (the new firm) to be disqualified.

Yen Sum and Hugo Bowkett, Latham & Watkins LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Introduction

David Wallace and Jack Isaacs, Latham & Watkins LLP

This is an extract from the third edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here.

Introduction