“[T]his Court finds that the exceptions to discharge under §523(a) only apply to individuals in Subchapter V.”
- Spring, et al. v. Davidson and Blok Industries, Inc. (In re Davidson; In re Blok Industries, Inc.; Jointly Administered), Adv. No. 23-3005, Doc. 87, at 15 (Bankr., N.D. Fla., decided February 14, 2025).
Facts
- “While the pre-petition Debtor may have consented to waiver of the automatic stay in favor of [secured creditor], . . . other creditors did not”; and
- “The automatic stay is designed to protect both debtors and creditors alike.”
In re DJK Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 24-60126, Doc. 196, at 13 (Bankr., S.D. Ill., February 13, 2025).
In re DJK Enterprises
“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.
- Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).
Facts
The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.
Before 1998, (i) all student loans from for-profit lenders were dischargeable in bankruptcy, but (ii) student loans backed by the federal government or from non-profits were dischargeable in only these circumstances:
The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.
And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
The intersection of state escrow laws and federal bankruptcy laws can create confusion and surprise for contracting parties.
The Problem & Four Examples
The problem creating such confusion and surprise is this. State escrow laws:
- are, typically, defined by the common law;
- lack precise details; and
- are often applied in bankruptcy to the detriment of the party who believes a valid escrow exists.
Here are four examples of the escrow / bankruptcy problem.
Two-years prospective relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay is a remedy granted for serial bankruptcy filings, under § 362(d)(4)(B), in In re Karpuleon, Case No. 24-80647 in Central Illinois Bankruptcy Court (entered 12/6/2024; Doc. 48).
Facts
Here’s what happened.
Debtor files a Chapter 13 petition on August 22, 2024—this is Debtor’s fourth such petition in the past four years.
目前对于陷入困境但仍具备重整价值及重整可行性的企业而言，破产重整是其实现风险出清和企业重生的重要方式。在破产重整中，投资人参与的主要方式包括股权投资、资产投资和债权投资等，其中股权投资为较为重要的投资方式（其基本流程如下图），本文将结合实践，从投资人视角，浅析破产重整中股权投资的机遇和风险防范，以期为投资人参与重整投资提供帮助。
图1：破产重整中股权投资基本流程图
一、重整投资的机遇
现阶段，重整投资作为“新一轮招商引资”处于重要机遇期。以上市公司重整为例，2023年7月底的数据显示其中超90%的产业投资人和财务投资人账面呈现浮盈[1]；2024年以来，截至11月，有44家上市公司被申请重整及预重整，较前一年同期增加超四成[2]。由此可见，破产重整蕴含着较多投资机会，其在目前政策环境、价值发掘、成本控制和业务整合等方面均展现出投资“机遇”。
The opinion is Samson v. The LCF Group, Inc. (In re Bridger Steele, Inc.), Adv. No. 2:24-ap-2003 in the Montana Bankruptcy Court (decided September 30, 2024; Doc. 10).
Background
Debtor is a fabricator and seller of metal roofing and siding products.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.