“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”

This isn’t going to end well.

Looks like our bankruptcy system in these United States is about to take a big hit—to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (projected to be around $350 million). And those responsible for creating the debacle are going to skate.

Here’s how.

U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons

The English court has (for the first time) given guidance on the long-established practice of substituting a creditor as petitioner in a winding up petition and hearing argument about the creditor’s standing later.

Background

In March 2021, Citibank petitioned to wind up Liberty Commodities (LCL). The petition was supported by two creditors, White Oak and NPS. Citibank settled with LCL and applied to dismiss the petition. The supporters applied to be substituted.

A recent decision of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has extended the liability of legal advisors in crisis situations.

Background

Under German law, a lawyer may be liable not only to his client, but also to a third party, if the third party has a special interest in the lawyer's performance. The Bundesgerichtshof has clarified that managing directors and even shadow directors may have such a special interest and may claim damages from their company’s legal advisor for breach of duty (Pflichtverletzung).

Austria implemented the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks more than two years ago, in July 2021. In a first ruling on the proceedings, the Vienna Higher Regional Court has reaffirmed the prerequisites for entering preventive restructuring and clarified the checks to be carried out by the courts at the opening of the proceedings.

Decision

The Court held that:

On 12 September 2023, the government published its long-awaited response to its consultation on the future of insolvency regulation.

The reforms will introduce:

Here’s a Bankruptcy Court opinion addressing a no-discharge claim under § 1141(d)(3) against an individual debtor who proposes a liquidating Subchapter V plan:

• RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido (In re Lucido), Adv. No. 21-4031, Northern California Bankruptcy Court (issued 9/13/2023, Doc. 113).

The Issue

What rate of interest should a debtor pay under a bankruptcy plan?

Question

Once a Subchapter V debtor is removed from possession under § 1185(a), what happens next?

The answer to this question seems to have evolved over the few years of Subchapter V’s existence:

• from a low-power position for debtor, early-on;
• to a high-power position for debtor, in a re-thought view; and
• then back to the low-power position for debtor, when problems of the re-thought view become evident.

I’ll try to explain.

Early Answer

The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari. The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1]

All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following information from U.S. Bank’s Petition and from a supporting Amicus Brief of law professors in U.S. Bank v. Windstream.