It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

You can’t make this stuff up. The legal issues are pedestrian. But the facts behind those issues are incredible!

Litigation History

Here’s the boring stuff first.

On January 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C. (Case No. 23-425). Here’s the procedural background:

Oral arguments happened on January 9, 2024, at the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S.Trustee v. Hammons.Here is a link to the transcript of those arguments.

The Hammons question is this:

A look back at bankruptcy trends and litigation in 2023 reveals a spike in bankruptcy filings driven by economic factors and fallout from the pandemic while in upper courts several interesting cases were decided involving proofs of claim, stay violations, and discharge issues.

2023 is the year that the need for a uniform state law on assignments for benefit of creditors became obvious.

And a Drafting Committee at the Uniform Law Commission began working in 2023 to create such a law.

Here are some of the reasons why the need became obvious.

Background and Purpose

There are many reasons to mandate mediation in certain circumstances.

• One is to improve the quality of justice.
• Another is to manage an expanding docket and burgeoning caseload.
• A third is to create a mediation culture where none currently exists.

There are two ways to mandate mediation:

Every now and then, a bankruptcy ruling elicits an “Oh, no!” response from just about everyone.

And then, subsequent case law starts rejecting and/or chipping-away at that “On, no!” ruling.

We have such an “Oh, no!” situation going on right now on a Subchapter V debt-limit issue.

New Rejecting/Chipping-Away Opinion

Modernisation of Luxembourg insolvency law

Luxembourg insolvency law has recently added new measures and proceedings designed to reorganise the assets or activities of a Luxembourg debtor.

The law of 7 August 2023 on business preservation and modernisation of bankruptcy law (Reorganisation Law) applies to certain Luxembourg commercial companies and came into force on 1 November 2023.

What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law:

Задоволення кредиторських вимог є одним з основних завдань процедури банкрутства.

Так, задля унеможливлення використання юридичної особи як інструменту безпідставного збагачення чужим коштом, законодавець передбачив додаткові гарантії захисту прав та інтересів кредитора від недобросовісних боржників шляхом покладення відповідальності за зобов`язаннями юридичної особи на органи управління юридичної особи, відступивши від загального принципу корпоративного права про розмежування відповідальності учасника (акціонера) та відповідальності юридичної особи.