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

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:

In this article, we examine (1) the new regime for safeguarding of customer funds applying to UK payment and electronic money institutions, (2) the impact these reforms will have on those firms and (3) in particular, the indirect effect the reforms will have on banks holding safeguarded funds and insolvency practitioners who manage the insolvency of a failed payment or electronic money institution.

“[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.

Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances: