Recent expressions of concern about courts mandating mediation reminded me of a mandated mediation process that worked well: the City of Detroit bankruptcy.
An illustration of the success of mandated mediation in the Detroit case is this line:
The Bankruptcy Judge“put an end to the public bickering over the water deal by ordering the parties into confidential mediation.”
In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question:
The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time! The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors have been preserved.” [Fn. 2]
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has followed a long and relatively straight road for the absolute priority rule. And the rule has shown staying power, along that road.
The opinion is In re Legarde, Case No. 22-12184, Eastern Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Court (issued September 14, 2023; Doc. 112).
Facts
Debtor claims Creditor raped her.
Then, Debtor posts stuff about Creditor on the internet.
So, Creditor sues Debtor for defamation, alleging willful and malicious conduct.
Bankruptcy Developments
“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”
In the case of Re China Properties Group Limited (in Liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 2346, the Hong Kong Court has shown its commitment to providing assistance to local liquidators appointed by it by asserting in personam jurisdiction over a Hong Kong based director of a company incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction.
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
A version of this was first published in INSOL I-Read Student Newsletter, Issue 9, September 2023, and is republished with kind permission of INSOL International.
After a substantial industry consultation process, the Cayman Islands introduced the concept of Court-appointed restructuring officers into Part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act (the “Companies Act”) with effect from 31 August 2022.
The new restructuring regime in the Cayman Islands distinguishing between winding‑up and recovery gives multinationals another option, say Alex Davies and Spencer Vickers
Recent amendments to part V of the Cayman Islands Companies Act have updated the domestic restructuring regime and introduced the new role of a court‑appointed restructuring officer and a dedicated restructuring petition. The Cayman Islands restructuring officer regime shares certain features with the administration regime in the UK and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure in the US.
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