A helpful analysis of statute of limitations issues for fraudulent transfer claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee under § 544(a)&(b) is provided in a recent Circuit opinion.
- The opinion is Lewis v. Takacs (In re Stone Pine Investment Banking, LLC), Case No. 21-1423, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (decided 12/19/2023).
Overview
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:
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
2023 has been a good year for developing the law of Subchapter V through court rulings and opinions. Here are some of the highs and lows of that development.
Working as Intended
If 2023 shows us anything, it’s this: Subchapter V is working as intended.
Subchapter V has developed into the efficient and effective tool for business reorganization it was intended to be. That’s true, whether the reorganization is in the form of continued operations or liquidation. Such a tool did not exist before Subchapter V.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issues its unanimous Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion. The question in that opinion is:
Here’s my biggest bankruptcy shocker from 2023:
- the Third Circuit’s rationale for dismissing Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy.
I’ll try to explain.
Appalled
I’m still appalled by the lack of concern, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in its dismissal opinion, over these disparities it describes in results for similarly situated claimants:
The history of bankruptcy in these United States teaches this:
- bankruptcy laws can provide an efficient and effective solution for a great variety of financial problems.
But bankruptcy laws, in these United States, face significant problems, and their effectiveness is being diminished.
First Problem
Bankruptcy has a fundamental problem: nobody likes it.
Everyone recognizes that bankruptcy laws are a necessity in our market economy. And bankruptcy laws are even founded upon a provision of the U.S. Constitution:
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