Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Releasing the Albatross

By Adam C. Rogoff
September 01, 2003

In the context of large Chapter 11 cases, the resolution of disputed claims can often be the proverbial albatross around the neck of the debtor, delaying the closing of the debtor's case to the detriment of the debtor's estate. The litigation costs associated with the resolution of hundreds or thousands of disputed claims operate as a drain on estate assets, thereby reducing the value of the estate and ultimately lowering values received by creditors holding allowed claims. Chapter 11 cases can last for months or years after plan confirmation solely as a result of unresolved disputed claims. Swift claims resolution can be especially problematic when dealing with tort or other claims where factual issues predominate.

To address the speedy resolution of such claims, debtors have increasingly turned to mandatory “alternative dispute resolution” or “ADR” procedures. Generally, such ADR procedures stay related non-bankruptcy court actions and require claimants to engage in mediation and/or non-binding arbitration with the debtors prior to seeking relief from the bankruptcy court to allow them to proceed with their case in a non-bankruptcy forum. It is clear that the bankruptcy court may institute voluntary ADR programs in lieu of state court actions, ie, where the affected creditors elect to participate. See Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019(c), which states that “On stipulation of the parties to any controversy affecting the estate the court may authorize the matter to be submitted to final and binding arbitration.” But there has been little consideration of the bankruptcy court's ability to require claimants to participate in mandatory ADR procedures. Recently, in Spierer v. Federated Department Stores, et al. (In re Federated Department Stores), 328 F. 3d 829 (6th Cir. 2003) (hereinafter, “Federated“), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the power of the bankruptcy courts to implement mandatory ADR procedures. Of importance, the Federated court confirmed that the constitutional authority of the bankruptcy court to oversee the expeditious resolution of claims includes utilization of a mandatory ADR procedure.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.