In my most recent blog post, I provided some tips for creditors who find themselves in the Subchapter V arena. This is somewhat of a follow-up to that one.
The overwhelming majority of my practice has involved larger, complex Chapter 11 cases and out-of-court restructurings, and representing debtors, Chapter 11 trustees, committees or creditors.
When Subchapter V came to be in 2019 under the Small Business Reorganization Act, I honestly did not think that I would have the opportunity to participate in those types of cases due to the debt limitations imposed by statute.
The overwhelming majority of my practice has involved larger, complex Chapter 11 cases and out-of-court restructurings, representing debtors, Chapter 11 trustees, committees, or creditors. However, with the expansion during Covid of the Subchapter V debt limit to $7.5 million, I have found myself participating in multiple Subchapter V cases as counsel to creditors. I discovered quickly that habits developed in larger Chapter 11 cases do not necessarily translate to Subchapter V.
When a debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, section 524(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code prohibits a creditor from seeking to collect a prepetition debt against the discharged debtor or its property. Importantly, the discharge does not extinguish the debt—it merely limits recourse against the discharged debtor. Section 524(e), however, provides that the discharge does not affect the liability of non-debtors for the discharged debt.
A recent decision in theIn re RMH Franchise Holdings bankruptcy case pending in the District of Delaware, highlights the importance of complying with a contract’s termination provision before the contract counterparty files for bankruptcy.
A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit provides additional guidance with respect to jurisdictional disputes that bankruptcy professionals often see in practice. In particular, the Gupta v. Quincy Med. Ctr., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9814 (1st Cir. June 2, 2017) case analyzed whether a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate a post-sale dispute among a purchaser of estate assets and former employees of the debtors.
The BHS CVA is now in effect following a successful ‘yes’ vote on 23 March 2016 when 95% of creditors voted in favour of the proposals.
Complex multi-jurisdictional insolvencies are an inevitable consequence of the increasingly global nature of big business. The collapse of the likes of Barings, Enron and most recently Lehmans (the latter involving insolvency proceedings in some 16 jurisdictions) have highlighted the growing need for legislative action to promote cross-border co-operation and protect the interests of international creditors. Comprehensive reform is needed, not least to curtail the inequitable practice of forum shopping.
Latest Lehman judgment reassures end users on Close-out Rights
It is undeniable that the legal complexities, and unprecedented facts, of the long running Lehman Brothers saga have generated a wealth of legal principal, most notably through the Waterfall series of litigation.
The fortunes of agricultural businesses across the world have always been vulnerable to natural and economic forces such as climate change, world commodity pricing and exchange rate movement. Nowhere is this more evident today than in the current crisis facing the UK dairy farming industry where the unique political and environmental conditions of 2014 have driven milk prices down to some of the lowest levels seen in recent years testing the viability of many of the country’s dairy farmers.