This is the second 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 second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]
Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition
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
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:
2018年以来，选择以庭外重组方式化解债务风险的大型民营企业逐渐变多，同时在实践中，为了固化庭外债务重组协议之效力，越来越多企业根据自身需要，寻求以庭外重组与庭内重组相结合的、综合性化解债务危机的路径。在这样的现实背景下，对庭外债务重组与庭内重组程序的衔接及组合运用进行研究便显得十分必要了。本文将结合我国相关政策规定和案例实践，探讨庭外债务重组与庭内重组程序衔接的合理性、可行性以及两者进行衔接的模式。
一、庭外重组与庭内重组程序的现实需求
庭外重组与庭内重组（包括破产重整和破产和解）均为化解债务风险的路径。庭内重组通过破产法规定及司法权力介入等形式，赋予了重整计划或和解协议“多数决”的强制约束力，以及解封解押等的强制执行力。但庭外重组实质是债务人与主要债权人私下自愿协商，或者在中立第三人主持下达成债务调整合意的过程，达成的合意不具有司法强制执行力。
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.