Recent expressions of concern about courts mandating mediation reminded me of a mandated mediation process that worked well: the City of Detroit bankruptcy.

An illustration of the success of mandated mediation in the Detroit case is this line:

The Bankruptcy Judge“put an end to the public bickering over the water deal by ordering the parties into confidential mediation.”

In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question:

The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time! The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors have been preserved.” [Fn. 2]

Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has followed a long and relatively straight road for the absolute priority rule. And the rule has shown staying power, along that road.

The opinion is In re Legarde, Case No. 22-12184, Eastern Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court (issued September 14, 2023; Doc. 112).

Facts

Debtor claims Creditor raped her.

Then, Debtor posts stuff about Creditor on the internet.

So, Creditor sues Debtor for defamation, alleging willful and malicious conduct.

Bankruptcy Developments

“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

This isn’t going to end well.

Looks like our bankruptcy system in these United States is about to take a big hit—to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (projected to be around $350 million). And those responsible for creating the debacle are going to skate.

Here’s how.

U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons

Here’s a Bankruptcy Court opinion addressing a no-discharge claim under § 1141(d)(3) against an individual debtor who proposes a liquidating Subchapter V plan:

• RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido (In re Lucido), Adv. No. 21-4031, Northern California Bankruptcy Court (issued 9/13/2023, Doc. 113).

The Issue

What rate of interest should a debtor pay under a bankruptcy plan?

Question

Once a Subchapter V debtor is removed from possession under § 1185(a), what happens next?

The answer to this question seems to have evolved over the few years of Subchapter V’s existence:

• from a low-power position for debtor, early-on;
• to a high-power position for debtor, in a re-thought view; and
• then back to the low-power position for debtor, when problems of the re-thought view become evident.

I’ll try to explain.

Early Answer