“The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).

That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.

Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?

A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.

What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.

Initial Meeting

A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.

The question presented in Spring Valley is this:

Assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) are rarely used in these United States. That’s for two reasons: (i) some states have no ABC statute and do not recognize the common law of ABCs, and (ii) other states have onerous ABC statutes that no one wants to use.

The State of Illinois is an exception: ABCs are regularly and frequently used there, under the common law of trusts, because the ABC process is an efficient and effective tool for liquidating a failed or failing business. There is no ABC statute in Illinois.

Every now and then we get a bankruptcy opinion declaring a rule with broad application that, (i) may make sense is specific situations, but (ii) is a terrible result for others.

Here’s an Exhibit A opinion for such a proposition: Reinhart Foodservice LLC v. Schlundt, Case No. 21-cv-1027 in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin, (Doc. 12, issued October 27, 2022).

The Facts

Poor Chicago. 

Unlike the result for Chicago’s traffic ticket income in Fulton v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rescue Chicago in City of Chicago v. Mance (Case No. 22-268; Cert. denied, 11/21/2022).[Fn. 1]

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.

Background

簡介

英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。

简介

英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决，其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任，是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发，还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司（「该公司」）的董事。于2009年5月，他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东（「第一答辩人」）派发1.35亿欧元的股息（「该股息」），以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时，其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而，该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债，导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。

Four decades and several years ago, Congress repeals the Federal Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and replaces it with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, aka the “Bankruptcy Code.”[Fn. 1]

A decade later, Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are still disparaging the new Bankruptcy Code as the “sweeping changes Congress instituted in 1978” and “the radical reforms of 1978.”[Fn. 2]

Every now and then we get an example of how a process should work.

That’s exactly what we have, regarding confirmation of a contested Subchapter V plan, in the case of In re Lapeer Aviation, Inc., Case No. 21-31500 in the Eastern Michigan Bankruptcy Court.

In an opinion issued October 12, 2022, (Doc. 264), the Lapeer Court declares that, (i) most of the plan confirmation standards are satisfied, but (ii) the plan is deficient under two confirmation standards and, therefore, cannot be confirmed.