On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Case No. 22-1079, Decided June 6, 2024.
Opinion’s Q & A
The Truck Insurance question is this:
- Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under § 1109(b)?
The Supreme Court’s answer is this:
Here’s a dilemma:
- Should bankruptcy be available as a tool for resolving mass tort cases of all types (like it already is in asbestos contexts)?
Here’s an illustration of the dilemma:
- many tort claimants in the Johnson & Johnson case DO NOT want bankruptcy involved; but
- many tort claimants in the Purdue Pharma case were BEGGING the courts to approve the bankruptcy plan.
How do we solve this dilemma?
The phrase “Texas Two-Step,” as used in bankruptcy, is a legal expletive. Regardless of what the details of a Texas Two-Step might be, the phrase has become synonymous with:
- abusive behavior;
- bad faith conduct;
- a means for swindling creditors;
- the antithesis of “doing what’s right”;
- a tool for avoiding liability;
- etc., etc.
Describing a legal tactic as a “Texas Two-Step” is like calling that tactic a “#$&*#%R&” or “#*$&.” It’s a legal expletive that means “really, really bad.”
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the sixth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether a Subchapter V trustee should act as a mediator.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.
That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).
Facts
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the second in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether future rents should be included in the debt cap calculation for Subchapter V eligibility.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
There is a lesson for all debtor attorneys in the Chapter 7 case of In re Aquilino.[Fn. 1]
The moral of the In re Aquilino story is this:
- a little carelessness in describing and disclosing bankruptcy fees in a Chapter 7 case can create big problems.
Fee Agreements & Disclosures
Here is the winding path of fee agreement descriptions and disclosures, between the Debtors and their attorneys, in the In re Aquilino Chapter 7 case: