In brief

The Act of 7 August 2023 on the preservation of businesses and the modernization of bankruptcy law, which came into force on 1 November 2023 ("Act"), has been met with great relief and enthusiasm from practitioners and businesses alike. It finally offers alternatives to the systematic bankruptcy of a company that is unable to pay its debts for lack of liquidity, despite the existence of assets or medium-term growth potential.

Congress, the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court all need to recognize this historical reality:

• bankruptcy is an efficient and effective tool for resolving mass tort cases, as demonstrated by cases with huge-majority approval votes from tort victims.

And all those institutions need to prevent anti-bankruptcy biases, legal technicalities, and hold-out groups from torpedoing the huge-majority votes.

Supreme Court moving in the right direction?

This is the fourth 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 fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]

Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity

This is the third 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 third article is on how the evolution of the old bankruptcy referees into today’s bankruptcy courts shows why special masters are needed in complex bankruptcy cases—and should not have been prohibited.[Fn. 1]

The Evolution of Bankruptcy

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

In brief

On 18 January 2024, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) issued its decision in Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk [2024] SGHC(I) ("Re Garuda Indonesia"), which was the SICC's first decision on an application under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as enacted in Singapore in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) ("Singapore Model Law")).

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?

In brief

On 29 February 2024, the court of appeal will hear an appeal against an order for the insolvent liquidation of a company that unsuccessfully argued, at first instance, that the petitioning debt was subject to a dispute covered by contractual agreements to arbitrate. While the interplay between insolvency and arbitration is not a new issue, the upcoming hearing will be the first time after the court of final appeal's decision in Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9 ("Guy Lam") for the court of appeal to clarify the principles.

Here’s a due process question that’s percolating before the U.S. Supreme Court and a related mediation issue: