On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the eighth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the Subchapter V trustee or other party in interest should be allowed to file a plan after debtor’s removal from possession.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.
We have a direct statutory conflict:
- one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
- a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.
Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.
- That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]
Statutory Conflict
The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the sixth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether a Subchapter V trustee should act as a mediator.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
“Subchapter V relieves small business debtors from the absolute priority rule.”[Fn. 1]
- This was the excuse for a contorted grammatical interpretation, against the debtor, of a Subchapter V statute by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gives the same excuse for the same contorted grammatical interpretation — like this:
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the fourth in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
The opinion is In re Packet Construction, LLC, Case No. 23-10860 in the Western Texas Bankruptcy Court (issued April 30, 2024, Doc. 103).
Subchapter V Issue & Ruling
Here’s the issue raised by the Subchapter V Trustee’s plan objection and the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling thereon.
–Issue
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the third in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject in this article is:
- whether debtor’s attorney can be compensated for services performed after removal of debtor from possession. [Fn. 1]
Task Force Proposal
There is a lesson for all debtor attorneys in the Chapter 7 case of In re Aquilino.[Fn. 1]
The moral of the In re Aquilino story is this:
- a little carelessness in describing and disclosing bankruptcy fees in a Chapter 7 case can create big problems.
Fee Agreements & Disclosures
Here is the winding path of fee agreement descriptions and disclosures, between the Debtors and their attorneys, in the In re Aquilino Chapter 7 case: