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.
You’ve been slugging it out with your opponent in state court for years. The end of that hard-fought battle is in sight. Maybe you even hold a judgment already and are taking steps to enforce it. Then, your adversary files bankruptcy, and everything grinds to a halt. You know the automatic stay that arises on account of the bankruptcy filing prohibits you from taking further actions to recover from the debtor outside of bankruptcy court.
Seyfarth Synopsis: Employers increasingly find themselves in the difficult position of deciding whether to continue garnishing an employee’s wages pursuant to a garnishment order when the employee files for bankruptcy. On one hand, the employer risks penalties for failing to withhold wages; on the other hand, the employer risks sanctions for violating the automatic stay generated by a bankruptcy filing. Below we discuss this dilemma and employers’ options.
On August 21, 2013, in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (7th Cir. August 21, 2013), the Seventh Circuit issued its latest opinion on the thorny issues emanating from the Supreme Court’s “narrow” decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
It is no surprise to anyone in the business of secured lending that valuation matters. It is worth noting, however, that collateral valuation may be outcome-determinative in litigation over a plan of reorganization in bankruptcy. Although valuation was not the central focus of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Western Real Estate Equities, L.L.C. v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. (Matter of Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.), No. 12-10271, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3949 (5th Cir. Feb.