A guarantor’s rights of subrogation are provided for in Sections 140 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“ICA”). These rights allow a guarantor to step into the shoes of the creditor, upon fulfilling the debtor’s payment obligations to the creditor. This means that the guarantor assumes all the rights including the security that the creditor enjoyed against the principal debtor.

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

The recent Privy Council decision in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd[2024] (SPC) has overturned a principle of English law relating to the interaction between a contractual agreement to arbitrate and traditional insolvency measures where a debt is said to be disputed without substantial grounds.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

10 years after the publication of Revision 6 (2014 edition) of the Model Form of Contract for the design, supply and installation of electrical, electronic and mechanical plant (MF/1), the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has released Revision 7 (2024 edition), shortly followed by an erratum containing a summary of corrections.

Regular users of the MF/1 may be comforted to know that the risk profile of the contract has not changed though the door has been opened to extending the duration of liability for latent defects, as discussed below.

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.

Another groundbreaking judgment from the ADGM Courts in the NMC matter 📢🇦🇪👨🏻⚖️ and another example of the ADGM Courts drawing important parallels between ADGM and English law.

English proceedings re NMC Health Plc are also ongoing. In his judgment at CFI on 8 July 2024, Sir Justice Andrew Smith found that:

1. The ADGM Courts can make an order in respect of the fraudulent carrying on of the business of a company prior to the time at which that company was continued in the ADGM.

The continuing effort in Congress to extend Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit recently hit a snag. The result: the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility expired on June 21, 2024, and the Subchapter V debt limit is now reduced to an inflation-adjusted $3,024,725.[i]