“Were Congress to . . . intervene and expand § 524(g) beyond asbestos cases, bankruptcy would become a more suitable alternative for resolving mass tort cases. Until then, such cases will likely remain problematic under the Code in the face of creditor opposition.”

Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 11 is relatively new: it took effect as a new law on February 19, 2020. Accordingly, new questions continue to arise on how its terms and provisions should be applied.

A Trustee Fees Question

One Subchapter V question is this:

• When does a Subchapter V trustee’s administrative claim for fees and costs get paid?

A Regular Chapter 11 Answer

The answer in regular Chapter 11 has always been this:

When a federal court approves a [bankruptcy] plan allowing someone to put its hands into another person’s pockets, the person with the pockets is entitled to be fully heard and to have legitimate objections addressed.[Fn. 1]

Pop Quiz Question:

Does Insurer, in the following facts, have standing to object to Debtor’s Chapter 11 plan?

Debtor is in bankruptcy because of asbestos lawsuits.

Debtor proposes a Chapter 11 plan that is supported by all constituencies—except one:

Feasibility of a bankruptcy plan is always a tough issue.

Think about it:

• debtors are in bankruptcy because they can’t make their payments when due; and
• in bankruptcy, a debtor must propose a plan for paying creditors—that will work this time.

We now have a new plan feasibility opinion—from the Eighth Circuit BAP—that provides guidance to us all.

In Re Guy Lam Kwok Hung [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal clarified when a debtor can resist a bankruptcy petition based on an exclusive jurisdiction clause (EJC) in his contract with the petitioner creditor. It is important to appreciate the Court’s reasoning and how it can be applied to various factual scenarios.

The Bankruptcy Code’s Subchapter V provides hope to formerly successful entrepreneurs. It’s a hope that never before existed.

I’ll try to explain.

Formerly Successful Entrepreneurs – A Historical Problem

The Bankruptcy Code became effective in October of 1979. And I’ve been practicing under the Bankruptcy Code from the beginning: licensed in 1980.

Here’s an observation that’s been true throughout my career, until enactment of Subchapter V:

The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

Answers to these two questions can get tricky:

1. When should a previously successful business engage distress-debt counsel?
2. What is the role of the business’s general counsel once that happens?

Second Question: Role

Here’s the answer to the second question first:

The hits keep coming for student loans in bankruptcy.

This time the hit is this:

• student loans for attending medical school do not qualify as “commercial or business” loans for Subchapter V eligibility.

The central finding, for a medical student who worked as an employee for ten years before becoming an entrepreneur, is this:

• “the gap between incurring the debt and actually engaging in . . . commercial or business activity as an owner is simply too great.”

Background

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².