Question: What happens when a Chapter 7 debtor:

• fails to disclose the existence of claims against third parties;
• receives a Chapter 7 discharge and a closing of the Chapter 7 case;
• then, pursues the undisclosed claims by filing a lawsuit against the third parties; and
• the defendants in that lawsuit move to dismiss debtor’s claim for non-disclosure in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

That actually happened—and a U.S. District Court refused to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit on summary judgment:

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

In a much-anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that unsecured noteholders’ claims against a debtor for certain “Applicable Premiums” were the “economic equivalent” to unmatured interest and, therefore, not recoverable under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Often, after filing a proof of claim, a creditor can go months, or even years, without hearing anything regarding their claim. Then, unexpectedly, the creditor's proof of claim faces an objection, possibly on multiple grounds, with a limited window to respond. A claim objection can raise several important strategic considerations for crafting the best response.

Key Issues

On September 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a trial court decision that had rejected a bank’s assertion of the in pari delicto defense to aiding and abetting claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee for a debtor that had allegedly perpetrated a Ponzi scheme. Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2024 WL 4158179 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2024).

Whether it's gone completely flat or simply reached its maturity, one thing is abundantly clear: The Minneapolis-St. Paul craft beer industry took a turn for the worst in this past year. Multiple, well-known establishments called it quits, including the Eastlake Craft Brewery and Clutch Brewing. Others, like Fair State Brewing Cooperative, recently filed for bankruptcy to reset their financial liabilities and attempt to survive in the new marketplace. Multiple others teeter on the precipice of financial disaster.

As most readers know, Subchapter V of Chapter 11 is the small business reorganization provisions enacted in the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019. SBRA made major changes to how small business cases are handled in an effort to streamline the process, reduce administrative expenses and result in more confirmed Chapter 11 plans. Prior to SBRA and even continuing after enactment of SBRA, small businesses could elect treatment as a small business debtor under Chapter 11.

When the COVID-19 Pandemic incepted, and issues arose as to whether affected policyholders could seek Business Income and Civil Authority coverage from the presence or suspected presence of SARS-CoV-2 and consequent orders of Civil Authority, I thought that the easiest question to answer was whether such policyholders had suffered physical loss or damage (“PLOD”) to their property.

The Majority PLOD Rule Prior to COVID-19

. . . In such circumstances, sealing the indictment “would undermine the purpose of having a statute of limitations at all.”

Introduction

With many airlines having weathered the storm of the Covid-19 pandemic, one common theme with airline restructurings has been a clear reliance on the United States’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings – particularly over their domestic jurisdictions or other viable jurisdictions (such as a UK scheme of arrangement or UK restructuring plan). But when seeking to restructure, why have many airlines tended towards Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings as an internationally recognised restructuring procedure and shied away from the UK schemes?