When state legislatures consider a legislative bill, it’s important that they hear from stakeholders who would be affected by that bill.

Important ABC Stakeholders

When faced with a legislative bill on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”), its important that legislatures hear from a variety of stakeholders, including this important group:

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases involving bankruptcy questions:

An assignment for benefit of creditors (an “ABC”) under the common law is an out-of-court tool for liquidating a business debtor’s assets in an efficient and credible manner.

Such a common law tool has been used, effectively and frequently, for many years in such states as Illinois and California.

Despite the out-of-court nature of an ABC under the common law, courts can still be enlisted to resolve discrete issues that may arise. Here is an example of a court’s involvement, within an ABC under the common law, to resolve an issue of compensation for the ABC assignee:

Here’s a curious thing:

• an advisory opinion from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on an issue for which there is no controversy and that is mostly academic.

That’s exactly what we have in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc., Case Nos. 24-2210 & 24-2211 (3rd Cir., decided September 10, 2025)(see first concurring opinion).##

No Controversy

An insolvency practitioner (IP) can pursue a wide range of claims when appointed as the administrator or liquidator of a company. 

These include claims that already existed at the point that the company entered an insolvency process (Pre-existing Company Claims), and ones that arise on insolvency (IP Claims see below).

An IP pursues Pre-existing Company Claims as agent for and in the name of the company, and these types of claims typically include claims for debt, breach of contract, breach of duty or recovery of property.

Assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) and receiverships have been utilized effectively for centuries under the common law, side-by-side as separate and distinct and complementary remedies for liquidating assets.

Differences

Differences between the two are that:

The Insolvency Service (in reply to a letter from R3) has confirmed that it will be reframing its view of the term "creditor". This follows the cases last year of Pindar and Toogood where the court was asked to consider whether a paid secured creditor should have consented to an administration extension and therefore, in the absence of consent, whether the extensions were valid in both cases, the judges confirmed that the consent of paid secured creditors was not required.

“[T]his Court finds that the exceptions to discharge under §523(a) only apply to individuals in Subchapter V.”

• Spring, et al. v. Davidson and Blok Industries, Inc. (In re Davidson; In re Blok Industries, Inc.; Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 23-3005, Doc. 87, at 15 (Bankr., N.D. Fla., decided February 14, 2025).

Facts

• “While the pre-petition Debtor may have consented to waiver of the automatic stay in favor of [secured creditor], . . . other creditors did not”; and
• “The automatic stay is designed to protect both debtors and creditors alike.”

In re DJK Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 24-60126, Doc. 196, at 13 (Bankr., S.D. Ill., February 13, 2025).

In re DJK Enterprises

“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.

• Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).

Facts

The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.