The Bankruptcy Protector

A Means to Eliminate Uncertainty in the Reorganization Process

On 18 October 2021, the EU Commission published the sixth amendment to its Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the COVID-19 outbreak (the Temporary Framework) adopted on 19 March 2020 (see our blog post).

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the aftermath of 2017’s Hurricane Irma, wide swaths of Florida lost power. At The Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, 12 elderly patients succumbed to the heat when the skilled nursing facility’s air conditioning system failed following the electrical outage. In response, Florida’s legislature passed a law requiring all nursing homes and assisted living facilities to have backup generators capable of maintaining cool temperatures.

An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.

The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, published on 29 October, suggest that the unexpectedly calm seas seen over the last 18 months (and maintained by unprecedented government economic support) may be starting to give way to stormier waters as corporate insolvencies begin to return to pre-pandemic levels.

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the ever-churning waters of the Countryman test for determining whether a contract is executory, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently dipped its toe. The question before the court was whether surety bonds issued to an oil and gas company were executory. The district court, upholding the bankruptcy court below, held that they were not. An analysis of this opinion sheds light on why the surety bonds are not executory and provides lessons for both creditors and debtors, alike.

Back in July, Craig Eller wrote in The Bankruptcy Protector about the continuing confusion amongst courts and litigants regarding the applicability of a 2018 increase in fees payable to the Office of the United States Trustee in chapter 11 cases.

Before 1st October 2021, French law did not provide for the possibility to cram down shareholders, other than under Article L. 631-19-2 of the French Commercial Code, which sets conditions which are so stringent that it is not used in practice.

Directive 2019/2023 has let EU member states decide whether shareholders should be a class of “affected parties” subject to cross-class cram down or whether other measures should be implemented to avoid shareholders preventing, or making it difficult, in an unreasonable manner, the approval of a restructuring plan.