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.

Introduction

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:

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), the resolution professional or the interim resolution professional (collectively referred as RP) is vested with the responsibility of running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern and conducting the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The RP must also ensure that CIRP is conducted in a time-bound manner and the value of the assets of the corporate debtor is maximised during the process.

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:

2016年破産倒産法および2013年会社法の下、会社法審判所(NCLT)の命令に対しては、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)に上訴することができます。上訴期間は、破産倒産法においては最長45日、会社法においては最長90日、となっています。また、2016年NCLAT規則(NCLAT規則)において、上訴または上訴時の添付文書に欠陥があることが判明した場合、上訴を行った当事者は、7日以内に欠陥を修復し、上訴を「再提示(re-present)」しなければならないと規定されています。なお、当該期間は、当事者が十分な理由を示した場合、妥当な期間延長することができます。

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:

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: