Contrasting opinions from any court, issued a month apart, are always instructive.

And we have a new such thing—from the U.S. Supreme Court, no less, and from May and June of this year. The contrast is on this subject: whether sovereign immunities of Puerto Rico and of a federally recognized tribe are abrogated in bankruptcy.

“Were Congress to . . . intervene and expand § 524(g) beyond asbestos cases, bankruptcy would become a more suitable alternative for resolving mass tort cases. Until then, such cases will likely remain problematic under the Code in the face of creditor opposition.”

Snapshot

The Restructuring Plan (Plan) was introduced as part of the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which introduced a new part 26A into the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006). The part 26A Plan provisions are largely based on the existing scheme of arrangement rules detailed under part 26 of the CA 2006, and it is often referred to as the “super scheme”.

Plans now sit alongside schemes of arrangement and company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) to provide a further restructuring option for companies and insolvency practitioners alike.

Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 11 is relatively new: it took effect as a new law on February 19, 2020. Accordingly, new questions continue to arise on how its terms and provisions should be applied.

A Trustee Fees Question

One Subchapter V question is this:

• When does a Subchapter V trustee’s administrative claim for fees and costs get paid?

A Regular Chapter 11 Answer

The answer in regular Chapter 11 has always been this:

When a federal court approves a [bankruptcy] plan allowing someone to put its hands into another person’s pockets, the person with the pockets is entitled to be fully heard and to have legitimate objections addressed.[Fn. 1]

Pop Quiz Question:

Does Insurer, in the following facts, have standing to object to Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan?

Debtor is in bankruptcy because of asbestos lawsuits.

Debtor proposes a Chapter 11 plan that is supported by all constituencies—except one:

Feasibility of a bankruptcy plan is always a tough issue.

Think about it:

• debtors are in bankruptcy because they can’t make their payments when due; and
• in bankruptcy, a debtor must propose a plan for paying creditors—that will work this time.

We now have a new plan feasibility opinion—from the Eighth Circuit BAP—that provides guidance to us all.

The Bankruptcy Code’s Subchapter V provides hope to formerly successful entrepreneurs. It’s a hope that never before existed.

I’ll try to explain.

Formerly Successful Entrepreneurs – A Historical Problem

The Bankruptcy Code became effective in October of 1979. And I’ve been practicing under the Bankruptcy Code from the beginning: licensed in 1980.

Here’s an observation that’s been true throughout my career, until enactment of Subchapter V:

Answers to these two questions can get tricky:

1. When should a previously successful business engage distress-debt counsel?
2. What is the role of the business’s general counsel once that happens?

Second Question: Role

Here’s the answer to the second question first:

The hits keep coming for student loans in bankruptcy.

This time the hit is this:

• student loans for attending medical school do not qualify as “commercial or business” loans for Subchapter V eligibility.

The central finding, for a medical student who worked as an employee for ten years before becoming an entrepreneur, is this:

• “the gap between incurring the debt and actually engaging in . . . commercial or business activity as an owner is simply too great.”

Background

What can we say about the outcome of the GAS (Great Annual Savings Company Limited) sanction hearing that hasn’t already been reported?

It’s impossible not to comment on the fact that the plan was not sanctioned, and as a consequence of fierce opposition from HMRC that it avoided cram down. Nor that the court refused to sanction the plan on the basis that the conditions for cram down were not met – the court was not satisfied that HMRC would be better off under the plan and even if it were the judge said he would have not exercised his discretion to cram down.