It seems like a small thing: Chapter 11 debtors in two states paying lower quarterly fees than Chapter 11 debtors in the other 48 states.

What’s the big deal?

Alabama and North Carolina throw a political hissy fit, three or four decades ago. They want their own Bankruptcy Administrator system (not the U.S. Trustee system established everywhere else). And they are rewarded. The reward includes lower quarterly fees.

Where’s the harm in lower quarterly fees? What follows is an attempt to:

“The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

–U.S. Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 4).

An Old Losing Streak—Article III

“No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

–Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution

Increasingly, states are expanding their laws on debtor/creditor relationships, such as receiverships and assignments for benefit of creditors.

Some of these expansions look suspiciously like a Bankruptcy Code Lite—e.g., adding “stay” provisions.

And that can be a constitutional problem, according to long-standing (and recent) opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

What follows is a brief summary of three such opinions.

There’s a new U.S. Circuit Court opinion on a person’s right to a jury trial, when sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission before one of its administrative judges.

And guess what:

Introduction

In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).

Background

簡介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由，申請剔除原告人的申索，但被原訟法庭（「法院」）駁回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一間正在清盤的公司，它控告其兩名前董事（「被告人」）違反受信責任，向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋（「可疑交易」）。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目，並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年，因此本案已喪失訴訟時效，應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。

裁決

法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題：

简介

最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黄共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中，原告人提出申索，要求被告人交代账目。被告人以有关诉讼没有在《时效条例》（香港法例第347章）第20(2) 条订明的六年诉讼时效内提出为由，申请剔除原告人的申索，但被原讼法庭（「法院」）驳回。

背景

Trinity Concept Ltd（「原告人」）是一间正在清盘的公司，它控告其两名前董事（「被告人」）违反受信责任，向第三方作出合共139笔付款而没有妥当解释（「可疑交易」）。原告人请求法院颁令被告人交代账目，并在制备账目后交出结欠的资产或付款，或命令被告人作出衡平法补偿。被告人认为可疑交易距离令状发出已超过六年，因此本案已丧失诉讼时效，应根据《时效条例》第4(2) 条予以驳回。

裁决

法院指出下列与剔除申请有关的重要问题：

This is reality:

• Small businesses reorganize, all the time, under Subchapter V;
• Farmers reorganize, all the time, under Chapter 12; and
• Large businesses reorganize, all the time, under regular Chapter 11.

That’s because all of those three types of debtors have bankruptcy reorganization processes designed specifically for them.

Middle Market Debtors

What the heck does this mean:

“(1) Debtor.—The term ‘debtor’— . . . (B) does not include— . . . (Iii) any debtor that is an affiliate of an issuer, as defined in section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c)”

—from Subchapter V’s eligibility statute, § 1182 (emphasis added).

Since the inception of Subchapter V, I’ve been trying to figure that meaning out.

Here’s the progression of thinking:

How are private practice mediators compensated in a bankruptcy case—procedurally?

We have a new court order providing guidance on how such procedures can work.

The new guidance is from Sears Holding Corp. v. Lampert (In re Sears Holdings Corp.), Adv. Pro. No. 19-08250, SDNY Bankruptcy Court. 

Mediation Order