The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

When a business is distressed and is due to run out of cash, advisors are often called upon to carry out an accelerated M&A process. Whilst there may be scope for the process to be run on a solvent (share sale) basis, it may need to be implemented on an assets basis, often via a formal insolvency process. Because of the undeniable threat of insolvency, directors of distressed businesses should obtain specialist legal advice on their duties at the earliest possible stage.

Board considerations

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has completed all of its stages in the House of Commons, without material amendment to the Bill as originally drafted. All three readings in the House of Lords are scheduled to take place in June 2020, and expectations are that the Bill will receive Royal Assent, and will be enacted, very shortly thereafter.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.

On 6 April 2020, the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) (Amendment) Order 2020 came into force. This order amends the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) Order 2003, and increases the maximum amount of the prescribed part from £600,000 to £800,000.

Prescribed Part

The “prescribed part” is the term given to a portion of funds realised from assets charged by way of floating, but not fixed, charge, where:

1 the floating charge was created on or after 15 September 2003; and