On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., No. 22-1079, conferring broad standing to debtors’ pre-bankruptcy liability insurers to appear and be heard in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The ruling eliminates the “insurance neutrality” doctrine that previously constrained the participation of insurers in Chapter 11, greatly expanding insurers’ capacity to influence the reorganization process.

Background: Insurer Standing in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

Insurers with unwanted runoff blocks of business should consider the latest guidance from insurance regulators on potential transactional structures that could mitigate this issue.

Over the past few years, the senior living sector has endured some hard times. In 2023, many operators found themselves in distress and facing a sale or court-governed proceeding. Interest rates, wage inflation, staffing shortages and patient volume decline post-pandemic all impact operational risk and investment opportunities.

Companies in Chapter 11 must publicly report substantial financial information — indeed, more information should be reported or available publicly in Chapter 11 than outside of Chapter 11. This paper analyzes what information must be publicly reported or disclosed under the securities laws, the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules; what debtors do to minimize public reporting; and what creditors can do to get the public reporting they deserve.

Debtors May Stop Public Reports Under the Securities Laws.

What Happened?

In a recent decision, Bruce v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction over class actions. Specifically, the court rejected a bankruptcy court’s ruling that allowed a plaintiff’s nationwide class action to survive Defendant Citibank, N.A.’s (“Citi”) motion to dismiss and strike class allegations.

On June 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Code barred an Indian tribe’s attempts to collect on a defaulted debt from a Chapter 13 debtor.

The Bottom Line

One feature commonly seen in commercial lending transactions is a waiver of the borrower’s authority to file for bankruptcy without the consent of the lender. While such “blocking” provisions are generally upheld where the equity interest holders are the parties with such rights, they are generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy when such protection is given to a creditor with no meaningful ownership interest in the corporate debtor.

Overview

When enacting the Bankruptcy Code, Congress sought to strike a balance amid the confluence of different — and often competing — interests held by debtors, secured creditors and various unsecured creditor constituencies (including landlords) through a framework of statutory protections. This has – at times – led to litigation over differing statutory interpretations as well as circuit splits as courts attempt to reconcile underlying policy goals with the less-than-clear language in various of the Code’s provisions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a ruling on Oct. 14, 2022 regarding the treatment of make-whole premiums in bankruptcy. The court held that claims for payment of a make-whole premium are the economic equivalent of unmatured interest and therefore disallowed under section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code — unless the “solvent debtor exception” applies.