This is the first in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this first article is on how special masters are already utilized, effectively, by federal district courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (titled, “Masters”).[Fn. 1]
Special Masters in Federal Courts
–A Brief History
企业发生债务危机拟进行债务重组时，企业的客观情况，包括但不限于企业集团的构成、资产、负债、业务经营等等，是企业自身选定重组方向制定重组方案、政府机关判断企业有无救助价值、债权人判断重组方案是否可行、投资人研判企业有无投资价值及具体投资方向的基本依据，故全面、及时地尽职调查对危机企业极有必要。然而应当注意的是，基于债务重组为目的的尽职调查与传统的收并购、IPO、债权融资等业务所涉尽职调查在尽调的对象、内容、方法等方面存在区别，应基于尽职调查的目的有针对性地设计尽调方案，进而获取对使用人有价值的尽调结果。本文拟对债务重组场景下“尽职调查”的目的、分类、尽调的主要内容及方法、以及尽调中的注意事项进行分析论述。
一、庭外债务重组尽职调查目的概述
尽职调查的目的是指导如何设计尽调方案、采取何种尽调方法、如何进行尽调结果披露的基础。举例来说，在股权收购项目中，收购方需对目标企业进行尽职调查，其目的是了解企业是否具备投资价值、并尽可能的发现可能对投资人收益产生影响的潜在风险；在资产收购项目中，收购方需对收购标的进行尽职调查，其目的是了解资产的客观状态及法律状态，确定收购资产的客观现状、法律权属、法律瑕疵等；而在庭外债务重组中，尽职调查的主要目的是了解企业的客观现状，以便确定如何化解其债务危机问题。
Can the contempt remedy for a creditor’s violations of the discharge injunction in multiple bankruptcy cases throughout the land be imposed in a class action lawsuit?
Here’s a due process question that’s percolating before the U.S. Supreme Court and a related mediation issue:
A helpful analysis of statute of limitations issues for fraudulent transfer claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee under § 544(a)&(b) is provided in a recent Circuit opinion.
- The opinion is Lewis v. Takacs (In re Stone Pine Investment Banking, LLC), Case No. 21-1423, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (decided 12/19/2023).
Overview
You can’t make this stuff up. The legal issues are pedestrian. But the facts behind those issues are incredible!
Litigation History
Here’s the boring stuff first.
On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C. (Case No. 23-425). Here’s the procedural background:
Oral arguments happened on January 9, 2024, at the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S.Trustee v. Hammons.Here is a link to the transcript of those arguments.
The Hammons question is this:
2023 is the year that the need for a uniform state law on assignments for benefit of creditors became obvious.
And a Drafting Committee at the Uniform Law Commission began working in 2023 to create such a law.
Here are some of the reasons why the need became obvious.
Background and Purpose
2023 has been a good year for developing the law of Subchapter V through court rulings and opinions. Here are some of the highs and lows of that development.
Working as Intended
If 2023 shows us anything, it’s this: Subchapter V is working as intended.
Subchapter V has developed into the efficient and effective tool for business reorganization it was intended to be. That’s true, whether the reorganization is in the form of continued operations or liquidation. Such a tool did not exist before Subchapter V.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issues its unanimous Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion. The question in that opinion is: