I think the biggest mistake people make in life is expecting there to be a right answer to every question. This kind of thinking, leads people to spend endless hours trying to find the right answer when it doesn't exist.
In the practice of law this problem runs rampant. It almost seems like some practitioners are looking for a button on their computer which says "Do work" ; "write response" ; "think for me". I have a theory on this, but that is another series for another day.
I was in court last week, and the Judge asked me if a certain person was an insider. I cannot off the top of head give the verbatim definition of an insider per 11 USC 101(31)
The real issue is why does it matter if some party is an "insider" or not? We could sift through the code and see where it is mentioned and how it is applied in cases. I can think of a few sections where I know it is mentioned, but I'm sure there are more. I am going to off the top of my head, and without looking rattle off three situations where I know there are insider issues that could run afoul of the "Concept"
1. The proposed broker who is going to sell a parcel of real property is a business partner of the debtor.
2. Class 2 of unsecured creditors is accepted because the debtor's mom and dad are creditors and have sufficient numerosity to carry the class.
3. Debtor paid his best friend back a couple weeks before he filed for Chapter 7, in a case where other creditors get nothing.
There are more. Applying the "Concept" to insiders, we can infer a sub-concept that is goes something to this effect -
"transactions involving any party shall not benefit insiders of that party at the expense of any other party"
You could probably add something like this to Sub-Concept 1 "...and all transactions with insiders should be clearly and completely disclosed with ample notice for anyone else to object"
Seems pretty obvious to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment