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.”
Expected for almost two months, the law that partially and temporarily modifies the insolvency legislation has been adopted on 21 March 2021 at last.
This is nearly two months after the general moratorium on bankruptcies, that was in force since 28 October 2020, expired.
1. Why this legislative intervention was necessary
The main purpose of this measure is to adapt the existing restructuring toolbox to the needs of Belgian companies facing major financial difficulties due to the corona crisis.
On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.
Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.
1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire
Hervorming van de insolventiewetgeving
Meer dan twee maanden hebben we er op moeten wachten, maar op 21 maart 2021 kwam eindelijk de goedkeuring van de wet die de insolventiewetgeving gedeeltelijk en tijdelijk hervormt.
Dit was bijna twee maanden nadat het algemene moratorium op faillissementen dat sinds 28 oktober 2020 van kracht is, afliep.
1. Waarom deze wetgevende tussenkomst noodzakelijk was
Réforme de droit de l'insolvabilité
On l’attendait depuis bientôt deux mois, voire plus : le 21 mars 2021, une loi réformant partiellement et temporairement le droit de l’insolvabilité a été votée.
Cette loi intervient presque deux mois après la fin du moratoire général sur les faillites en place depuis le 28 octobre 2020 et qui prenait fin le 31 janvier dernier.
1. Pourquoi cette intervention législative était nécessaire