Bankruptcy issues have been around for a very long time—for centuries, in fact.

And bankruptcy issues have been discussed in these United States for the entire time of our existence–and before.

Even in our Colonial times (prior to 1776), bankruptcy and insolvency issues were in much discussion—especially since debtors often found themselves imprisoned, back then, for unpaid debt.

Three InfoWars entities file voluntary bankruptcy on April 17, 2022, under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.[Fn.1] And a storm of controversy immediately erupts on whether the three entities actually qualify for Subchapter V relief.

On June 10, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court enters an “Agreed Order Dismissing Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases” (Doc. 114), based on this stipulation of the three InfoWars debtors: “Debtors and the UST wish to stipulate to the disposition of the Chapter 11 Cases.”

State laws on assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) have been around for a long time. But times have changed over the last half-century. Specifically, the bankruptcy alternative has changed dramatically:

When an enforcement authority issues guidelines to its personnel for making enforcement decisions and makes those guidelines public, all who are subject to that authority should sit-up and take notice.

On June 10, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office, Department of Justice, issues “Guidelines” to its personnel for enforcing rules on “Bifurcated Chapter 7 Fee Agreements.”[Fn. 1]

Here is an internal description on the nature of the guidelines (at 6):

“the specter of sanctions and contempt spawns ancillary litigation that often eclipses the issues at the heart of the underlying dispute.”

—From In re A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc., 452 B.R. 374, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), reversing a Bankruptcy Court order of contempt and sanctions for lack of “good faith” in a mandated mediation.

The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

Hong Kong’s insolvency regime is based mainly on that of the United Kingdom. The legislation concerning corporate insolvency is contained largely in the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) (“CWUMPO”) and the Companies (Winding-up) Rules. The corporate insolvency and winding up provisions in the legislation are broadly based on the Companies Act 1929 and the Companies Act 1948 of the UK. The last major amendment of those provisions was made in 2016. 

A guide to restructuring and insolvency issues and procedures in Hong Kong

Contents

Mediation-in-bankruptcy has been an effective tool for resolving mass tort cases.

That effectiveness has been for the benefit of all parties involved, such as:

“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]

This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both: