We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the sixth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether a Subchapter V trustee should act as a mediator.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
“Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the absolute priority rule.”[Fn. 1]
- This was the excuse for a contorted grammatical interpretation, against the debtor, of a Subchapter V statute by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gives the same excuse for the same contorted grammatical interpretation — like this:
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the fourth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
The opinion is In re Packet Construction, LLC, Case No. 23-10860 in the Western Texas Bankruptcy Court (issued April 30, 2024, Doc. 103).
Subchapter V Issue & Ruling
Here’s the issue raised by the Subchapter V Trustee’s plan objection and the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling thereon.
–Issue
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the third in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject in this article is:
- whether debtor’s attorney can be compensated for services performed after removal of debtor from possession. [Fn. 1]
Task Force Proposal
There is a lesson for all debtor attorneys in the Chapter 7 case of In re Aquilino.[Fn. 1]
The moral of the In re Aquilino story is this:
- a little carelessness in describing and disclosing bankruptcy fees in a Chapter 7 case can create big problems.
Fee Agreements & Disclosures
Here is the winding path of fee agreement descriptions and disclosures, between the Debtors and their attorneys, in the In re Aquilino Chapter 7 case:
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the second in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether future rents should be included in the debt cap calculation for Subchapter V eligibility.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.
That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).
Facts