Our review of 2022 brings you right up-to-date with the latest developments in restructuring and insolvency law in Hong Kong and the mainland.

Four decades and several years ago, Congress repeals the Federal Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and replaces it with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, aka the “Bankruptcy Code.”[Fn. 1]

A decade later, Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are still disparaging the new Bankruptcy Code as the “sweeping changes Congress instituted in 1978” and “the radical reforms of 1978.”[Fn. 2]

Every now and then we get an example of how a process should work.

That’s exactly what we have, regarding confirmation of a contested Subchapter V plan, in the case of In re Lapeer Aviation, Inc., Case No. 21-31500 in the Eastern Michigan Bankruptcy Court.

In an opinion issued October 12, 2022, (Doc. 264), the Lapeer Court declares that, (i) most of the plan confirmation standards are satisfied, but (ii) the plan is deficient under two confirmation standards and, therefore, cannot be confirmed.

During a November 9, 2022, hearing on summary judgment motions in the Hertz bankruptcy, Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath issues the following oral ruling:

The case is Wells v. McCallister, Case No. 21-1448 in the United States Supreme Court.

The question presented is:

• whether a debtor’s homestead exemption, existing on the date of bankruptcy filing, can vanish if the debtor sells the homestead during the bankruptcy and does not promptly reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.

The Petition for writ of certiorari explains:

The High Court of England and Wales has recently provided welcome clarification around the nature of events of default under derivatives contracts governed by the ISDA Master Agreement, in particular in relation to whether an insolvency related event of default can be cured and so cease to be continuing. This brings to an end a long running debate around the extent to which, and for how long, a party can continue to rely on the condition precedent to payment contained in the ISDA framework documentation where the other party is subject to such an event of default.

For some reason, there is a fascination out there (not sure where, exactly) with having every assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) supervised by a court from the get-go. 

This fascination suggests that every ABC effort requires court action and judicial approvals, from the beginning and throughout the assignment, to assure that everything about the ABC and its administration is on the up-and-up.

Startling and Puzzling

This fascination is both startling and puzzling.  Here are some reasons why.

In its Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that disparate quarterly fee amounts between U.S. Trustee and Bankruptcy Administrator districts are unconstitutional, under the uniformity requirement of the U.S. Constitution’s bankruptcy clause.

The most recent fallout from that opinion is the following docket entry by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case with the same issues:

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has confirmed that the court should respect the effect of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in bankruptcy proceedings, just as it does in ordinary civil actions. To do otherwise, it said, it would be illogical.

Illinois follows the common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”): a non-judicial, trust-like process for liquidating a failed business.

That ABC process can work, hand-in-hand, with the Bankruptcy Code. The case of In re Computer World Solutions, Inc., Case No. 07-21123, Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court, shows us how.

FACTS

Debtor is an importer and distributor of computer monitors, televisions and other electronic products, owing $20 million to Bank, which holds a first-lien on virtually all of Debtor’s assets.