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 latest Court judgment arising from the MF Global UK Ltd ("MF Global") insolvency provides further clarity on how client money entitlements under the FCA's client money rules ("CASS") should be assessed, but is potentially superseded by a key proposal in the FCA's July 2013 Consultation Paper. In MF Global UK Ltd (No 4) (in special administration); Heis and others v Attestor Value Master Fund LP and another [2013] EWHC 2556 the Court was asked to determine to what extent, an
In the current economic climate, brokers will find the decision of the High Court in Euroption Strategic Fund Limited v Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker AB[2012] EWHC 584 (Comm) of considerable interest, since it considers the duties of a broker who is conducting a close out and liquidating the position of a client who is in a state of default, in this case for failure to meet margin requirements.
The Court ruled that:
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in relation to the client money application in the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE). The judgment has a number of implications for firms who hold client money, and for firms who hold money with banks and other firms as clients themselves. The complicated and controversial nature of the appeal is reflected in the sharply opposing opinions of the Lords in relation to two of the three issues considered.