It’s often hard to persuade a bankruptcy court to grant a motion for substantial contribution. Any attorney thinking about making a motion should first ask herself two questions. First, has my work benefitted both my client and other creditors? Second, did my work result in more than an incidental benefit to the bankruptcy estate? If the answer to either question is no, then the attorney should forget about making the motion. The time spent on it will be wasted, and the motion will be denied.
Assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) are rarely used in these United States. That’s for two reasons: (i) some states have no ABC statute and do not recognize the common law of ABCs, and (ii) other states have onerous ABC statutes that no one wants to use.
The State of Illinois is an exception: ABCs are regularly and frequently used there, under the common law of trusts, because the ABC process is an efficient and effective tool for liquidating a failed or failing business. There is no ABC statute in Illinois.
Every now and then we get a bankruptcy opinion declaring a rule with broad application that, (i) may make sense is specific situations, but (ii) is a terrible result for others.
Here’s an Exhibit A opinion for such a proposition: Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, Case No. 21-cv-1027 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, (Doc. 12, issued October 27, 2022).
The Facts
Poor Chicago.
Unlike the result for Chicago’s traffic ticket income in Fulton v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rescue Chicago in City of Chicago v. Mance (Case No. 22-268; Cert. denied, 11/21/2022).[Fn. 1]
We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.
Four decades and several years ago, Congress repeals the Federal Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and replaces it with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, aka the “Bankruptcy Code.”[Fn. 1]
A decade later, Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are still disparaging the new Bankruptcy Code as the “sweeping changes Congress instituted in 1978” and “the radical reforms of 1978.”[Fn. 2]
Another domino has fallen. Earlier this year, we wrote about the challenges facing the crypto industry that resulted in the bankruptcy filings of Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network, and Voyager Digital. We noted that other crypto entities could also end up in chapter 11, and that prediction has proven correct.
Every now and then we get an example of how a process should work.
That’s exactly what we have, regarding confirmation of a contested Subchapter V plan, in the case of In re Lapeer Aviation, Inc., Case No. 21-31500 in the Eastern Michigan Bankruptcy Court.
In an opinion issued October 12, 2022, (Doc. 264), the Lapeer Court declares that, (i) most of the plan confirmation standards are satisfied, but (ii) the plan is deficient under two confirmation standards and, therefore, cannot be confirmed.
During a November 9, 2022, hearing on summary judgment motions in the Hertz bankruptcy, Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath issues the following oral ruling:
The case is Wells v. McCallister, Case No. 21-1448 in the United States Supreme Court.
The question presented is:
- whether a debtor’s homestead exemption, existing on the date of bankruptcy filing, can vanish if the debtor sells the homestead during the bankruptcy and does not promptly reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.
The Petition for writ of certiorari explains: