“Subchapter V is supposed to be a fast process toward plan confirmation, but I don’t see that happening!”

–Comment of a Bankruptcy Judge (as I recall the comment)

It’s true: (i) Subchapter V is supposed to go quickly, but (ii) it often doesn’t.

Here’s why it doesn’t: debtor attorneys often fail to push their cases forward.

Illustration

A bankruptcy court opinion, in a Subchapter V case, illustrates the problem.

It’s time for a uniform law on the subject of assignment for benefit of creditors.

Description

Assignment for benefit of creditors laws are commonly known by the acrostic “ABC Laws”–for obvious reasons.

Such laws are a tool for owners of a distressed business in shutting the business down.

Here’s what happens in an ABC: debtor’s assets are transferred to an assignee, who then liquidates those assets and distributes proceeds to creditors.

Various Tools

Dale G. Higer is an attorney and a long-time Commissioner for the State of Idaho on the Uniform Law Commission. His newest role is Chair of the Commission’s newly-formed Study Committee on Assignments for Benefit of Creditors.

What follows is Mr. Higer’s report on the Commission and on the work of the newly formed Study Committee.

Uniform Law Commission

The sun has set. Yes it has.

The $7,500,000 eligibility limit for Subchapter V expired yesterday (March 28, 2022), without action by Congress to extend it.

Actually, the Subchapter V sun was set to set on March 27—but that’s a Sunday. So let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say it expired on Monday, instead.

Either way, the heightened debt limit is gone.

Hopefully, Congress can pass the heightened limit anew, after its expiration. Then, perhaps, we can be in a no-harm, no-foul mode, with no ill-effects to anyone. But that remains to be seen.

Here’s a vindication for the Small Business Administration’s discrimination against bankruptcy debtors:

How much precedential value does an 1885 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court deserve on a bankruptcy discharge issue?

That’s a central question in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bartenwerfer v. Buckly, Case No. 21-908 (“Distributed for Conference of 4/29/2022”).

Facts of the Case [Fn. 1]

A Petition for certiorari is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Speech & Language Center, LLC, and Chryssoula Marinos-Arsenis v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey

Petition’s Question

The Question presented in the Petition is this:

In a few months, Justice Stephen G. Breyer is set to retire from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bankruptcy world will miss him.

The reason for discussing this subject now (instead of waiting for the retirement to actually happen) is this:

• The triumph of Justice Breyer’s Footnote 2 in Merit Management, as accomplished by a denial of certiorari on 2/22/2022.

What follows is a summary of four important Supreme Court bankruptcy opinions in which Justice Breyer played a significant role—starting with the Footnote 2 opinion.

Claims are “impaired,” unless the plan “leaves” their rights “unaltered.”§ 1124(1).

This rule is not as simple and unequivocal as it seems, according to an In re Hertz opinion. [Fn. 1] Here’s why.

Plan Treatment of Unsecured Claims

Claims of unsecured creditors in the Hertz bankruptcy are treated, under its Chapter 11 Plan, as follows:

Imagine this: a U.S. District Court enters judgment in a case that’s “related to” a bankruptcy, and we want to file a motion for new trial or to amend the judgment.

So, which deadline applies to the motion: