“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”

This isn’t going to end well.

Looks like our bankruptcy system in these United States is about to take a big hit—to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (projected to be around $350 million). And those responsible for creating the debacle are going to skate.

Here’s how.

U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a draft directive aimed at harmonizing certain aspects of insolvency law. The intention behind this directive is to mandate the inclusion of "pre-pack proceedings" in national insolvency laws across the European Union ("EU"). Although Türkiye is not a member of the EU and does not have specific rules for governing pre-pack insolvency sales, it does have procedures that are similar, if not an identical, to pre-pack proceedings.

In this article we will take a closer look at Türkiye's pre-pack-like institution.

Here’s a Bankruptcy Court opinion addressing a no-discharge claim under § 1141(d)(3) against an individual debtor who proposes a liquidating Subchapter V plan:

• RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido (In re Lucido), Adv. No. 21-4031, Northern California Bankruptcy Court (issued 9/13/2023, Doc. 113).

The Issue

What rate of interest should a debtor pay under a bankruptcy plan?

Question

Once a Subchapter V debtor is removed from possession under § 1185(a), what happens next?

The answer to this question seems to have evolved over the few years of Subchapter V’s existence:

• from a low-power position for debtor, early-on;
• to a high-power position for debtor, in a re-thought view; and
• then back to the low-power position for debtor, when problems of the re-thought view become evident.

I’ll try to explain.

Early Answer

The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari. The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1]

All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following information from U.S. Bank’s Petition and from a supporting Amicus Brief of law professors in U.S. Bank v. Windstream.

Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]:

The pre-pack insolvency sale is not currently regulated under Bulgarian law.

The Bulgarian law currently regulates the implementation of a recovery plan as a stage of opened insolvency proceedings, such recovery plan may provide for the sale of the business as a going concern, or the sale of a business as a going concern prior to opening insolvency proceedings. The recovery plan is described in more detail below.

“(b) Duties.—The [Subchapter V] trustee shall— . . . (7)facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.”

• From 11 U.S.C § 1183(b)(7)(emphasis added).

Facilitation is, by statute, a duty of every Subchapter V trustee—something a Subchapter V trustee must do. But the nature and boundaries of the facilitation role have always been fuzzy and, therefore, misunderstood.