For some reason, there is a fascination out there (not sure where, exactly) with having every assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) supervised by a court from the get-go. 

This fascination suggests that every ABC effort requires court action and judicial approvals, from the beginning and throughout the assignment, to assure that everything about the ABC and its administration is on the up-and-up.

Startling and Puzzling

This fascination is both startling and puzzling.  Here are some reasons why.

In its Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court declares that disparate quarterly fee amounts between U.S. Trustee and Bankruptcy Administrator districts are unconstitutional, under the uniformity requirement of the U.S. Constitution’s bankruptcy clause.

The most recent fallout from that opinion is the following docket entry by the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case with the same issues:

Illinois follows the common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”): a non-judicial, trust-like process for liquidating a failed business.

That ABC process can work, hand-in-hand, with the Bankruptcy Code. The case of In re Computer World Solutions, Inc., Case No. 07-21123, Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court, shows us how.

FACTS

Debtor is an importer and distributor of computer monitors, televisions and other electronic products, owing $20 million to Bank, which holds a first-lien on virtually all of Debtor’s assets.

Many years ago, back when mediation is a rarity in bankruptcy disputes, I asked an old-timer this question:

Why is the bankruptcy system a lagging adopter of mediation?”

A Surprising Answer

The old-timer gave this surprising answer:

“At the time of the Bankruptcy Code’s enactment, the bankruptcy judge was viewed as a mediator in the judge’s own court.”

The old-timer added this.  When the Bankruptcy Code was enacted:

You’ve gotta admire the Debtor in In re Deirdre Ventura.

Debtor has been fighting to save a Bed and Breakfast business through bankruptcy: beginning in 2018 with a regular Chapter 11, and then struggling to get into Subchapter V.

Debtor’s is a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up story of persistence through adversity.

Debtor has survived, for example, an inexplicably-bad appellate opinion refusing to allow Debtor’s Subchapter V election. The appellate opinion declares:

Assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) has existed for centuries under the common law of England and the United States. And the ABC process has worked well under that common law!

ABC Function

ABC has been an effective tool in the toolbox of debtor and creditor remedies for resolving financial stress. Specifically, ABC allows a failing business to shut down with efficiently and credibility:

The interrelationship between an assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) proceeding and an involuntary bankruptcy filing, for the same debtor, is governed by various portions of the Bankruptcy Code.

But that relationship remains ill-defined, nonetheless.

What follows is an attempt to summarize a bankruptcy court opinion dealing with that relationship. And here is two of its main conclusions:

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has on 21 September 2022 released the Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022 (Bill) which consolidates and amends the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933, and The Telegraph Wires, (Unlawful Protection) Act 1950. In Chapter 5 (Restructuring, Defaults in Payment and Insolvency), the Bill addresses situations wherein payment defaults or insolvency proceedings have been initiated against a telecommunication company (Telco or Corporate Debtor).

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) on 16 September 2022 promulgated the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2022 (CIRP Amendment Regulations) amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (CIRP Regulations).  

The key amendments introduced by the CIRP Amendment Regulations are as follows: 

On June 21, 2022, Congress and the President (i) extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility, and (ii) adjust other Subchapter V rules.[Fn. 1]

One of the adjustments is this: