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:
In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).
What is the obligation?
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.”
This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
Summary
The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
The Facts
In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question: