This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.
Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.
Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.
Background
The Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the hotly contested issue of whether the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the bankruptcy court has controlling jurisdiction when it comes to the question of a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to reject contracts regulated by FERC. FERC-regulated contracts include electricity power purchase contracts, as well as transportation services agreements involving oil and gas.
In the bankruptcy world, not all claims are created equal. Rather, certain special categories of claims have priority status and are not only paid ahead of other claims, but are also often paid in full. One such category of claims is found in Bankruptcy Code § 503(b)(9), which grants priority claim status for goods which were sold in the ordinary course of business and received by a debtor within the 20-day window leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The code section is very clear, however.
A divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in the case of In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. on Dec. 12, 2019. The panel decided that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) share jurisdiction when a Chapter 11 debtor moves to reject a power purchase and sale contract over which the FERC has jurisdiction (Power Contract). However, the Sixth Circuit noted that such jurisdiction is not equal; declaring the bankruptcy court’s authority as primary and superior to that of the FERC.
On 20 July 2018, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled that standard D&O insurances do not cover restitution claims for payments which managing directors of a limited liability company make after the company becomes insolvent. Whereas it is possible to obtain coverage for restitution claims, many older policies do not provide for this. Directors are well advised to check the scope of their insurance coverage.
Background
1. Background of the claw-back reform
German insolvency law allows claw-back for actions made by the debtor during a period of up to 10 years prior to insolvency proceedings. Until the new rules entered into effect in April 2017, this long look-back period also applied to so-called coverage transactions, meaning payments to which the creditor was entitled under contract or law. The insolvency administrator only needed to prove that when making the payment the debtor willfully disadvantaged its other creditors, and the recipient of the payment was aware of this.
Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures and amending Directive 2012/30/EU