Many years ago, back when mediation is a rarity in bankruptcy disputes, I asked an old-timer this question:
Why is the bankruptcy system a lagging adopter of mediation?”
A Surprising Answer
The old-timer gave this surprising answer:
“At the time of the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment, the bankruptcy judge was viewed as a mediator in the judge’s own court.”
The old-timer added this. When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted:
You’ve gotta admire the Debtor in In re Deirdre Ventura.
Debtor has been fighting to save a Bed and Breakfast business through bankruptcy: beginning in 2018 with a regular Chapter 11, and then struggling to get into Subchapter V.
Debtor’s is a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up story of persistence through adversity.
Debtor has survived, for example, an inexplicably-bad appellate opinion refusing to allow Debtor’s Subchapter V election. The appellate opinion declares:
Assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) has existed for centuries under the common law of England and the United States. And the ABC process has worked well under that common law!
ABC Function
ABC has been an effective tool in the toolbox of debtor and creditor remedies for resolving financial stress. Specifically, ABC allows a failing business to shut down with efficiently and credibility:
The purchase and sale of assets by a debtor is governed by Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. So-called “363 sales” are typically attractive from a buyer’s perspective (and may be a primary reason for a bankruptcy filing). Perhaps the most important benefit afforded to buyers in 363 sales is the ability to acquire assets “free and clear” of claims and interests of third parties.
The interrelationship between an assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) proceeding and an involuntary bankruptcy filing, for the same debtor, is governed by various portions of the Bankruptcy Code.
But that relationship remains ill-defined, nonetheless.
What follows is an attempt to summarize a bankruptcy court opinion dealing with that relationship. And here is two of its main conclusions:
On September 22, 2022, Compute North Holdings, Inc. and certain affiliates filed bankruptcy in the Southern District of Texas in Houston. The company describes itself as “a leader in data centers, focused on delivering sustainable, cost-effective infrastructure for customers in the blockchain, cryptocurrency mining and distributed computing space.” SeeDeclaration of Harold Coulby, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Debtors (Doc. 22).
On June 21, 2022, Congress and the President (i) extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility, and (ii) adjust other Subchapter V rules.[Fn. 1]
One of the adjustments is this:
“Without these [mediated] settlements, there is no Plan.”
- From Opinion on Plan confirmation, In re Boy Scouts of America, Case No. 20-10343, Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Doc. 10136, at 80 (issued July 29, 2022).
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy has achieved a milestone: on July 29, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issues a 281-page Opinion on confirmation of Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization. The Opinion is generally favorable toward Plan confirmation but identifies a number of issues remaining to be resolved.
“[T]he bankruptcy court— . . . (2) shall excuse compliance . . . if . . . an assignee for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors . . . was appointed or took possession more than 120 days before the date of the filing of the petition, unless . . . necessary to prevent fraud or injustice.”
11 U.S.C. § 543(d)(2) (emphasis added).[Fn. 1]
On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates its prior In re Hammons opinion, which deals with remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]
Opinion Points
Check out these points from the Hammons opinion: