Preference avoidance provisions are a crucial part of the Bankruptcy Code—contained, primarily, in § 547 & § 550.
States also have a preference avoidance statute—for insiders. It’s in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA)” or in its predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA)).
The insider preference statute appears to be rarely-used and, apparently, little-known. It reads like this:
2022 has been a bad year for the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League:
“The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).
That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.
Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?
A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.
What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.
Initial Meeting
A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).
The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.
The question presented in Spring Valley is this:
Assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) are rarely used in these United States. That’s for two reasons: (i) some states have no ABC statute and do not recognize the common law of ABCs, and (ii) other states have onerous ABC statutes that no one wants to use.
The State of Illinois is an exception: ABCs are regularly and frequently used there, under the common law of trusts, because the ABC process is an efficient and effective tool for liquidating a failed or failing business. There is no ABC statute in Illinois.
Every now and then we get a bankruptcy opinion declaring a rule with broad application that, (i) may make sense is specific situations, but (ii) is a terrible result for others.
Here’s an Exhibit A opinion for such a proposition: Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, Case No. 21-cv-1027 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, (Doc. 12, issued October 27, 2022).
The Facts
On 4th May 2021 the government introduced some new legislation, which seeks to help households cope with debt, entitled The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England & Wales) Regulations 2020.
The Regulations apply to debtors who reside or are domiciled in England and Wales, and largely to personal debts. Some business debts are eligible but not if they relate solely to the business and the debtor is VAT registered, or if the debtor is in partnership with someone else.
Poor Chicago.
Unlike the result for Chicago’s traffic ticket income in Fulton v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rescue Chicago in City of Chicago v. Mance (Case No. 22-268; Cert. denied, 11/21/2022).[Fn. 1]
What we've been up to?
In the six months since our last full newsletter, the UK has witnessed some monumental events, the most significant of course being the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II – followed by no less than three different occupants at Nos. 10 & 11 Downing Street, a UK record summer temperature of 40.3C, inflation hitting a 41 year high, startling increases in energy & food prices (exacerbated by the ongoing war in Ukraine) and, as of this month, the UK economy officially falling into recession.
Four decades and several years ago, Congress repeals the Federal Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and replaces it with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, aka the “Bankruptcy Code.”[Fn. 1]
A decade later, Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are still disparaging the new Bankruptcy Code as the “sweeping changes Congress instituted in 1978” and “the radical reforms of 1978.”[Fn. 2]