The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Case No. 22-1079, Decided June 6, 2024.

Opinion’s Q & A

The Truck Insurance question is this:

• Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under § 1109(b)?

The Supreme Court’s answer is this:

The High Court has confirmed in the recent case of Hyde and another v Djurberg and others ([2024] EWHC 1188 (Ch)) that it won't tolerate the concealment of after-acquired property from trustees in bankruptcy, even when the property is the subject of a settlement agreement and paid onto various third parties. The judgment highlights the importance of monitoring a bankrupt's affairs as a trustee, acting quickly to preserve assets and serving a notice pursuant to section 307 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act) if there's a potential claim for after-acquired property.

On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.

This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:

• whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]

Recommendation

We have a direct statutory conflict:

• one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
• a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.

Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.

• That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]

Statutory Conflict

The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):

The High Court has handed down judgment against two former directors of a number of BHS group companies. The Joint Liquidators, Anthony Wright and Geoffrey Rowley (both of FRP Advisory) brought claims against Lennart Henningson and Dominic Chandler for wrongful trading, misfeasance trading and individual misfeasance.

Wrongful trading

On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.

This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:

• whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.

Recommendation

On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.

This article is the sixth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:

• whether a Subchapter V trustee should act as a mediator.[Fn. 1]

Recommendation

“Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the absolute priority rule.”[Fn. 1]

• This was the excuse for a contorted grammatical interpretation, against the debtor, of a Subchapter V statute by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gives the same excuse for the same contorted grammatical interpretation — like this:

On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.

This article is the fourth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:

The opinion is In re Packet Construction, LLC, Case No. 23-10860 in the Western Texas Bankruptcy Court (issued April 30, 2024, Doc. 103).

Subchapter V Issue & Ruling

Here’s the issue raised by the Subchapter V Trustee’s plan objection and the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling thereon.

–Issue