The Bankruptcy Protector

A Means to Eliminate Uncertainty in the Reorganization Process

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.

As discussed in our previous blog post, the decision for provisional liquidators to apply for directions on the distribution of funds can be a difficult one to make.

In Ristorante Limited T/A Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance Plc [2021] EWHC 2538 (Ch), the Court considered the interpretation and legal effect of a question asked by an insurer to a prospective insured around prior insolvency issues. The insured agreed with the insurer’s question, as framed, that there were no prior insolvency issues. Insurers failed in their attempt to avoid the policy for breach of the duty of fair presentation based on alleged misrepresentation. Insolvency events in relation to other companies did not need to be disclosed.

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.

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 Hong Kong Court has broken yet more new ground by recognising Mainland reorganisation proceedings for the first time in Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897.

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.