When is an insurance commissioner not a governmental authority? A federal district judge reminds us that a state insurance commissioner, when acting as receiver of an insolvent insurer, acts in a different capacity to his governmental role. This principle can cause an insurance commissioner to fall outside a contractual definition of “governmental authority” even where the definition contains inclusive language on multiple capacities.

In two recent rulings, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed that structured dismissals are viable options for debtors to exit bankruptcy notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s Jevic decision.

On May 3, 2021, Judge Marvin Isgur of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that indenture trustees must satisfy the “substantial contribution” standard to obtain administrative expense status for their fees and expenses incurred in a chapter 11 case. In his ruling, Judge Isgur expressly rejected the indenture trustee’s argument that it could obtain administrative expense status upon a showing that its fees and expenses were an actual, necessary cost of preserving the debtor’s estate.

On May 11, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Court”) issued a decision[1] dismissing the chapter 11 cases of the National Rifle Association of America and its affiliate (“NRA”) for cause pursuant to section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Chapter 11 plans commonly protect a debtor’s key stakeholders that participate in the chapter 11 process from claims arising in connection with the bankruptcy case. The Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”), the branch of the Department of Justice tasked with monitoring bankruptcy cases, has recently taken aim at limiting the use and scope of these “exculpation” provisions in large restructuring cases across the country.

Background and Standards

On April 19, 2021, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit’s decision in In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune II”),[1] leaving intact the Second Circuit’s decision upholding the safe harbor defense to avoidance actions und

“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”

On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.

Overview

In In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., Case No. 18-3084, the Third Circuit affirmed the opinion of the District Court for the District of Delaware denying the confirmation appeal of an unsecured noteholder as equitably moot. In doing so, the Third Circuit (i) refused to allow a full-class recovery, as it would unscramble the substantially consummated plan, and (ii) refused an individualized payout to the bondholder, as it would unfairly discriminate against other members of the class in contravention of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bottom Line

In its recent decision in Mitchell v. Zagaroli, Adv. Pro. No. 20-05000, 2020 WL 6495156 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2020), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that the Chapter 7 trustee could step into the shoes of the IRS and utilize the IRS’ longer look-back period to avoid fraudulent transfers.

What Happened?