This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]
Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity
In this note, we provide a high-level overview of key restructuring cases from last year in the US, Asia Pacific and Australia and consider the outlook in 2024 for restructuring transactions.
US
The Aldrich Pump Texas Two-Step bankruptcy may have survived dismissal at the bankruptcy court level, but now the asbestos claimants have appealed to the Fourth Circuit following Judge Whitley's approval of their motion for direct appeal.1
Publicly, Diamond Finance Co. (“Diamond”) provided car loans to individuals with less-than-stellar credit. While Diamond did have “some actual business,” its purpose “quickly became a front to lure unsuspecting investors.”
This is the third in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this third article is on how the evolution of the old bankruptcy referees into today’s bankruptcy courts shows why special masters are needed in complex bankruptcy cases—and should not have been prohibited.[Fn. 1]
The Evolution of Bankruptcy
In the March 2024 edition of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions and developments impacting the restructuring arena and share the latest news on the Paul, Weiss Restructuring Department.
The transition to online shopping, interest rate increases, labor costs, maturing debt and rising inflation have collectively taken a significant toll on the retail industry, contributing to store closures and a growing number of bankruptcy filings by retail companies in recent years. Nearly 30 retailers sought bankruptcy protection in 2023. Some retailers have even filed for bankruptcy twice.
In the case involving Precision Business Consulting LLC (Precision) and debtor-appellee Jill Suzann Medley, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered a decisive opinion that sheds light on the treatment of factoring companies as lenders within the context of bankruptcy proceedings. This analysis emerges from Precision’s appeal against a civil contempt order for its willful violation of the automatic stay provision under 11 U.S.C. § 362, operational during Medley’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.
A common defense to a fraudulent transfer claim in bankruptcy concerning a securities transaction is the “safe harbor” defense under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In a unique twist, a post-confirmation trust in Delaware recently argued that the safe harbor defense should not be available if the underlying transaction was illegal under the law where the debtor/transferor was incorporated.
This is the second in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]
Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition