“Without these [mediated] settlements, there is no Plan.”

• From Opinion on Plan confirmation, In re Boy Scouts of America, Case No. 20-10343, Delaware Bankruptcy Court, Doc. 10136, at 80 (issued July 29, 2022).

The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy has achieved a milestone: on July 29, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court issues a 281-page Opinion on confirmation of Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization. The Opinion is generally favorable toward Plan confirmation but identifies a number of issues remaining to be resolved.

“[T]he bankruptcy court— . . . (2) shall excuse compliance . . . if . . . an assignee for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors . . . was appointed or took possession more than 120 days before the date of the filing of the petition, unless . . . necessary to prevent fraud or injustice.”

11 U.S.C. § 543(d)(2) (emphasis added).[Fn. 1]

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and under the Companies Act, 2013 (Act), an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) can be appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The time-period for filing such an appeal is maximum of 45 days under the Code and 90 days under the Act.

Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code), if a corporate debtor is unable to pay its debts, then insolvency resolution proceedings (CIRP) may be initiated against the corporate debtor and attempts are made to revive the corporate debtor by inviting resolution plans. If the revival process fails, the corporate debtor must be liquidated.

On August 15, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates its prior In re Hammons opinion, which deals with remedies for unconstitutionally lower quarterly fees charged to bankruptcy debtors in Alabama and North Carolina.[Fn. 1]

Opinion Points

Check out these points from the Hammons opinion:

Congress must be allowed“to fashion a modern bankruptcy system which places the basic rudiments of the bankruptcy process in the hands of an expert equitable tribunal.”

—from Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 94 (1989) (Blackmun dissent, emphasis added).

Justice Blackmun had a point—back in 1989—that remains true today:

When parties contract for arbitration of their disputes:

Assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) laws are, historically, a debtor remedy. ABC laws are a voluntary debtor tool for shutting down and winding up the debtor’s failed business.

Ancient History

ABC laws began under the common law, back in merrie olde England, arising out of the law of trusts. Under trust law, any person can, without restriction, transfer assets into a trust for the benefit of one or more people.

An assignment for benefit of creditor (“ABC”) is, historically, a nonjudicial process for administering the affairs of a failed business. ABC laws are rooted in English common law and predate enactment of federal bankruptcy laws in the U.S.[Fn. 1]

An ABC is made by a formal, voluntary transfer of most-or-all of a business’s assets to an assignee, in trust, to apply the property or its proceeds to the payment of debts and to return any surplus to the debtor.

2016年インド破産倒産法の下、事業債権者と金融債権者の取り扱いに差が生じていることについては、発足当初から重要な懸念点として取り上げられてきました。金融債権者は、企業債務者と純粋に金銭的な取り決めを行っている者であるのに対して、事業債権者は、企業債務者が供給した商品又は提供したサービスの対価として金銭的債権を有する者とされます。インドの破産倒産法関連で近年争われた事例に、企業債務者の破産手続を開始するための最低基準額である1,000万ルピーの債務不履行金額を満たすか否かの判断において、「利息」を「主たる事業債務」に含めることができるか？というものがあります。

会社法審判所(NCLT)では様々な異なる見解が示されていましたが、会社法上訴審判所(NCLAT)は、Mr. Prashant Agarwal v. Vikash Parasrampuria (Prashant Agarwal Judgment)において、最低基準額1,000 万ルピーの計算の際、利息分を含めることできるかという問題について、明確にしました。

Brief Facts – 概要