Bankruptcy issues have been around for a very long time—for centuries, in fact.

And bankruptcy issues have been discussed in these United States for the entire time of our existence–and before.

Even in our Colonial times (prior to 1776), bankruptcy and insolvency issues were in much discussion—especially since debtors often found themselves imprisoned, back then, for unpaid debt.

In the April 2022 decision of Harte Gold Corp. (Re), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] (the Court) provides guidance on the appropriate use of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in insolvency proceedings and enumerates key questions that must be addressed prior to the granting of an RVO. It is clear that the Court's reasoning in Harte Gold will have far reaching implications.

Three InfoWars entities file voluntary bankruptcy on April 17, 2022, under Subchapter V of Chapter 11.[Fn.1] And a storm of controversy immediately erupts on whether the three entities actually qualify for Subchapter V relief.

On June 10, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court enters an “Agreed Order Dismissing Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases” (Doc. 114), based on this stipulation of the three InfoWars debtors: “Debtors and the UST wish to stipulate to the disposition of the Chapter 11 Cases.”

State laws on assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) have been around for a long time. But times have changed over the last half-century. Specifically, the bankruptcy alternative has changed dramatically:

When an enforcement authority issues guidelines to its personnel for making enforcement decisions and makes those guidelines public, all who are subject to that authority should sit-up and take notice.

On June 10, 2022, the U.S. Trustee’s Office, Department of Justice, issues “Guidelines” to its personnel for enforcing rules on “Bifurcated Chapter 7 Fee Agreements.”[Fn. 1]

Here is an internal description on the nature of the guidelines (at 6):

“the specter of sanctions and contempt spawns ancillary litigation that often eclipses the issues at the heart of the underlying dispute.”

—From In re A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc., 452 B.R. 374, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), reversing a Bankruptcy Court order of contempt and sanctions for lack of “good faith” in a mandated mediation.

The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

Mediation-in-bankruptcy has been an effective tool for resolving mass tort cases.

That effectiveness has been for the benefit of all parties involved, such as:

“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]

This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both: