As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.
11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):
- “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”
There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.
The recent Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd[2024] (SPC) has overturned a principle of English law relating to the interaction between a contractual agreement to arbitrate and traditional insolvency measures where a debt is said to be disputed without substantial grounds.
The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.
On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:
10 years after the publication of Revision 6 (2014 edition) of the Model Form of Contract for the design, supply and installation of electrical, electronic and mechanical plant (MF/1), the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has released Revision 7 (2024 edition), shortly followed by an erratum containing a summary of corrections.
Regular users of the MF/1 may be comforted to know that the risk profile of the contract has not changed though the door has been opened to extending the duration of liability for latent defects, as discussed below.
For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.
A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.
The Problem
Here’s the problem:
Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.
Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?
- §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).
Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?
Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?
The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]
Facts
Debtor is an automotive repair shop.
Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.