In a bankruptcy case, a preference action1 is often asserted pursuant to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to claw back funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense2, the new value defense3, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense4, there are other defenses that a savvy creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.

Key Issues

This author—whose practice is heavily weighted toward representation of official committees in large chapter 11 cases—has previously penned articles relating to questions surrounding the permanency of an official committee.

On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., No. 22-1079, conferring broad standing to debtors’ pre-bankruptcy liability insurers to appear and be heard in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The ruling eliminates the “insurance neutrality” doctrine that previously constrained the participation of insurers in Chapter 11, greatly expanding insurers’ capacity to influence the reorganization process.

Background: Insurer Standing in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.

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):

It is impossible to reflect on the current state of the U.S. economy without recognizing how off the mark recession calls have been since 2022. It was only a year ago that two-thirds of economists regularly polled by Bloomberg expected a U.S. recession within a year. Even today that percentage is still a lofty 30%, though scant evidence of an impending downturn is found in macroeconomic data or in plain sight, notwithstanding the weaker-than-expected advance GDP report for 1Q24. It’s not just economists who have been errant in this call.

第3回は、「フリーマネーからオペレーショナル・エクセレンスへ」

世界経済は2023年の多くの予想を上回り、2024年に順調なスタートを切ったようだ。中央銀行は、景気後退を回避しながらインフレを抑制するという、捉えどころのないソフトランディングを成し遂げようとしている。

金利は今年中に低下し始めると見込まれるが、中央銀行はインフレを確実に抑制するために金利を高い水準に維持する決意を示している。市場では高金利の長期化のムードが続いており、昨年の米国金利は10年ぶりの高水準を記録し、10年国債の利回りは16年ぶりに5％の閾値を超え、低格付けクレジットの利回りは2008年の金融危機以来のピークに達した。アリックスパートナーズが毎年発表しているディスラプション・インデックスでは、CEOが2024年に自社のビジネスが直面する最大の脅威として「金利」と「インフレ」を挙げている。

このような事業環境を考えれば、倒産が増加しているのは当然だ。昨年、米国の倒産件数は金融危機以来の水準となった。とはいえ、歴史を振り返ってみると、現在の資本コストは特別に高いわけではないことは認識しておくと良いだろう。いまこそ企業は10年間にわたるフリーマネー時代に萎縮した筋肉を鍛えるタイミングだ。これ以降で３つのポイントを紹介する。

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

As we previously reported in Royalty Rights as Unsecured Claims: The Relevance of Mallinckrodt to M&A, Revenue or Royalty Interest Financings, and Other Transactions Involving Future Payment Streams, a decision arising out of the Mallinckrodt plc bankruptcy cases

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