Mass torts and resulting litigation are a reality of life in these United States.
But one of the truly shocking things about mass tort litigation, in recent times, is this:
- judicial delays override the wishes of mass tort victims for prompt payment of negotiated amounts.
A current example of such delays is the Boy Scouts confirmed bankruptcy plan.
Chronology
Here is a short Chronology of the Boy Scouts bankruptcy plan—and the lapse of more than three years since confirmation without a final resolution:
The Uniform Law Commission (“ULC”) is the same organization that brought us the Uniform Commercial Code, the Uniform Trust Code, and other “Uniform” state laws.
The ULC is now offering a Uniform Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act (the “Uniform ABC Act”).
The new Uniform ABC Act codifies the common law of ABCs. Such common law has its foundation in the law of trusts: i.e., debtor is the trustor, assignee is the trustee, and debtor’s creditors are the beneficiaries.
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:
The UK retail sector faces ongoing challenges from shifts in consumer behaviour and persistent economic pressures. In this light, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 has become a vital mechanism for struggling companies, enabling them to undertake a holistic restructuring, effectively using one process rather than combining the Part 26 scheme technology with the CVA as had been the case prior to the introduction of the restructuring plan.
Introduction
The High Court sanctioned Madagascar Oil Limited’s restructuring plan, exercising cross class cram down. The judgment deals with a few now familiar points: what is the relevant alternative? Can it be a different deal? As well as touching on a few novel ones in an unusual two class only plan: was there in fact an in the money class enabling cross class cram down? Almost a third of the judgment is devoted to international recognition and effectiveness of the plan in Madagascar and Mauritius, an unusually detailed analysis, but required here given the specific facts of the case.