Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11's fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance companies to object to "insurance neutral" chapter 11 plans, and the remedy for overpayment of administrative fees in chapter 11 cases to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. We discuss each of them below.

U.S. Supreme Court Bars Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans

The Bankruptcy Code invalidates "ipso facto" clauses in executory contracts or unexpired leases that purport to modify or terminate the contract or lease (or the debtor's rights or obligations under the contract or lease) based solely on the debtor's financial condition or the commencement of a bankruptcy case for the debtor. It also invalidates state law, rather than a contract, that purports to alter the property interests of the debtor. A more difficult situation arises when those interests are on the outer bounds of "property of the estate."

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

Exculpation clauses limiting the liability of certain entities for actions taken in connection with a bankruptcy case are a common feature of chapter 11 plans. However, courts disagree over the permitted scope of such clauses. They also disagree as to whether an order confirming a chapter 11 plan that includes exculpation and third-party release provisions is insulated from appellate review under the doctrine of "equitable mootness."

A handful of recent high-profile court rulings have considered whether a chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan in accordance with the pre-Bankruptcy Code common law "solvent-debtor" exception requiring a solvent debtor to pay pendency interest to unsecured creditors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on this question in In re LATAM Airlines Grp. S.A., 55 F.4th 377 (2d Cir. 2022).

Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Matter of Falcon V, L.L.C., 44 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit affirmed lower-court rulings determining that a surety contract was not executory because the surety had already posted irrevocable surety bonds and did not owe further performance to the debtors.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways