The U.S. Trustee is on a crusade to eradicate every type of third-party release from all Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans—no matter what the facts or circumstances might be.

It’s a policy based on the idea that, if the Bankruptcy Code doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize something, then that something cannot be done . . . ever . . . under any circumstances . . . no matter what . . . period . . . end of story.

We now have another manifestation of that bright-line and unyielding position. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Court rejects the U.S. Trustee’s objection.

A bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to dismiss a legal malpractice claim of non-debtor plaintiffs against non-debtor attorneys.

That’s the ruling in Murray v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.), Adv. Pro. No. 22-2007, Southern Ohio Bankruptcy Court (decided October 5, 2023, Doc. 89)—appeal is pending.

Summary of Issue and Ruling

Bankruptcy Court denies a party’s request to enforce arbitration of a legal malpractice claim—and then dismisses that malpractice claim for failure to state a claim.

The opinion is Murray v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.), Adv. Pro. No. 22-2007, Southern Ohio Bankruptcy Court (decided October 5, 2023, Doc. 89)—appeal is pending.

Context

This ideal is floating around:

• upon removal of a Subchapter V debtor from possession, for fraud or other cause,
• the Subchapter V trustee has no expanded right, power, function or duty beyond operating debtor’s business (the “Ideal”).

This Ideal is both:

• contrary to unambiguous language of the Bankruptcy Code, as a matter of law; and
• in Never-Never Land, as a matter of practice.

I’ll try to explain.

This is a truism:

A study on using round-number offers and precise-number offers in negotiations reaches these two conclusions:

Here’s the latest opinion on a controversial question: In re Franco’s Paving LLC, Case No. 23-20069, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court, (decided 10/5/2023; Doc. 74).

The Question & Answer

Voter apathy is a problem in Subchapter V cases. That apathy is in the form of creditors failing or refusing to vote on a Subchapter V plan. The In re Franco’s opinion addresses this apathy problem head-on.

Recent expressions of concern about courts mandating mediation reminded me of a mandated mediation process that worked well: the City of Detroit bankruptcy.

An illustration of the success of mandated mediation in the Detroit case is this line:

The Bankruptcy Judge“put an end to the public bickering over the water deal by ordering the parties into confidential mediation.”

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question:

The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time! The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors have been preserved.” [Fn. 2]

Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has followed a long and relatively straight road for the absolute priority rule. And the rule has shown staying power, along that road.