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:

On May 8, cryptocurrency platform Bittrex filed for chapter 11 in Delaware. Bittrex’s first day filings emphasize that, unlike many other crypto filings over the past year, this case is not a “free fall” bankruptcy. In fact, a plan has already been filed, and the first day declaration said the debtors “took extensive action pre-petition to ensure full customer recovery, and plan to swiftly bring these chapter 11 cases to a responsible conclusion.”

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

Is a debtor “engaged in commercial or business activities” for Subchapter V eligibility?

Such question has been addressed on many occasions and by many courts.

The trend seems to be toward a conclusion that the nature and quantity of “commercial or business activities” required for Subchapter V eligibility is this:

• Nature = “easily met”; and
• Quantity = “not much.”

The latest opinion to confirm the trend is In re Robinson, Case No. 22-2414, Southern Mississippi Bankruptcy Court (issued April 17, 2023; Doc. 90).

Oral arguments occur on April 24, 2023, before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Case No 22-227. Here is a link to the oral arguments transcript.

What follows is an attempt to, (i) summarize the facts and issue in the case, and (ii) provide a sampling of questions and comments from the justices during oral arguments.

Facts

Here’s what happened:

“within three (3) business days of termination of the mediation, the Debtors shall publicly disclose the terms of the last offers extended by each of the Mediation Parties, respectively.”[Fn. 1]

Say what!?

Whoever heard of such a thing—a requirement that the “last offers” of the mediating parties be publicly disclosed?

And this requirement is in a “consensual” mediation order entered in the Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, bankruptcy.[Fn. 2]

Context

Here’s the context.[Fn. 3]

Dismissal of a bankruptcy—for bad faith filing—is a rarity.

So, how a bankruptcy court grapples with the bad faith issue . . . and ends up dismissing the bankruptcy . . . can provide a lesson for us all.

What follows is a summary of how a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is dismissed when the Court is convinced that the bankruptcy is intended for the benefit of a non-debtor . . . and not for the benefit of the debtor or its creditors.

Although in the Ninth Circuit the decision to revisit an order under FRCP 60 is “highly discretionary,” judges still must explicitly grapple with the relevant factors. That was the clear message sent by Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California when reviewing an appeal from the PG&E Corporation’s chapter 11 bankruptcy.