Court Appoints Chapter 11 Trustee in Bid to Resolve USA Cricket Governance Crisis

USA Cricket's governance crisis reached a major turning point this week after the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado revoked the organisation's Subchapter V status and ordered the appointment of an independent Chapter 11 trustee. The decision removes control from board chairman Venu Pisike and aligned directors, placing the organisation under court-appointed oversight.

In a detailed order, the court found that USA Cricket, after being suspended by the ICC since September 2025, was incapable of reorganising under its existing leadership structure. The order cited persistent management dysfunction, missed statutory deadlines, and a breakdown of internal governance.

The ruling follows months of escalating conflict among USA Cricket's leadership, creditors, and key stakeholders, including the ICC and American Cricket Enterprises (ACE)—the owners of Major League Cricket and Minor League Cricket.

A central issue in the court's decision was USA Cricket's refusal to accept debtor-in-possession (DIP) funding offers from both ACE and the ICC. These offers would have provided enough liquidity to stabilise the organisation and help it exit bankruptcy. The board did not accept them. The ICC supported the motion to revoke Subchapter V status and appoint a trustee, reflecting the global governing body's deep frustration with the incumbent board.

The ICC, as well as the US Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC), had repeatedly urged the resignation of the entire board before ultimately suspending USA Cricket, citing governance failures and sustained internal turmoil. With the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, operational and strategic control now rests with the trustee, leaving the existing board without authority.

The choice to enter bankruptcy was widely seen as an attempt to avoid a challenge to USA Cricket's termination of its agreement with ACE. USA Cricket declared bankruptcy just minutes before a hearing on the matter between USA Cricket and ACE. While USA Cricket has said bankruptcy was pursued strictly for restructuring, the timing has drawn scrutiny, given that the bankruptcy protection effectively paused parallel litigation.

Years of friction between ACE and the Pisike-led faction culminated in the termination of the commercial agreement last year, a decision now intertwined with the broader judicial and financial reckoning.

Board Split and Legitimacy Questions

A further layer of complexity emerged from deepening divisions within the board. After the bankruptcy filing, member leagues of USA Cricket initiated and completed a recall of league director Anj Balusu, a key Pisike ally, through a referendum. The vote reportedly favored Balusu's removal by an overwhelming margin.

While the Pisike-aligned faction declined to formally terminate Balusu's tenure, the court took note of the recall process. It observed that this effectively left the board split evenly: four directors aligned with Pisike and four opposed, including directors who objected to the bankruptcy filing. The resulting deadlock raised basic questions about decision-making authority, including the legitimacy of USA Cricket's decision to enter bankruptcy.

That deadlock became a key factor in the ruling. The court accepted arguments that the board had become fundamentally dysfunctional and incapable of producing a viable reorganization plan. The order found that confidence in existing management had eroded not only among creditors and external stakeholders, but also within USA Cricket's own leadership.

By granting ACE's motion to de-designate Subchapter V and appoint a trustee, the court has placed USA Cricket under independent control with broad statutory powers. The trustee will now be responsible for filing a reorganisation plan, managing creditor relations, and making strategic decisions previously reserved for the board.

It is also understood that the trustee has the authority, within its reorganisation plan, to make wide-sweeping changes in the organization, including changes to the board of directors. It remains to be seen how the trustee approaches the matter, and to what extent the ICC, the USOPC, and ACE play in helping in that process.