Preference avoidance provisions are a crucial part of the Bankruptcy Code—contained, primarily, in § 547 & § 550.

States also have a preference avoidance statute—for insiders. It’s in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA)” or in its predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA)).

The insider preference statute appears to be rarely-used and, apparently, little-known. It reads like this:

2022 has been a bad year for the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League:

“The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).

That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.

Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?

A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.

What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.

Initial Meeting

A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.

The question presented in Spring Valley is this:

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.

The High Court has, for the first time, used the cross-class cram down mechanism when sanctioning a restructuring plan proposed under Part 26A Companies Act 2006.

Further to sanction of the DeepOcean restructuring plans on 13 January 2021, on 28 January 2021 Mr Justice Trower (Trower, J) handed down his judgment setting out why – for the first time – the court had exercised its discretion to sanction a restructuring plan in the face of a dissenting class of creditors.

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

In Re Unity Group Holdings International Ltd [2022] HKCFI 3419, the Hong Kong court has for the first time sanctioned a scheme of arrangement that releases debts of third-party obligors that were guaranteed by the scheme company without requiring a deed of contribution. The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris deviated from the English law approach and ruled that a deed of contribution will no longer be necessary for the release of a principal obligor's liability that has been guaranteed by the scheme company.

A going concern

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]