The Court of Appeal has set aside a freezing order obtained by a provisional liquidator within winding up proceedings, on the basis that the cross-undertaking in damages given by him was inadequate because it was limited to the amount recovered for the estate. The liquidator had not discharged the burden of showing good reason to depart from the “default position” that a cross-undertaking should be unlimited in amount: Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417.
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:
In Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2023] HKCFI 1443, the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court“) made a winding up order against the Company on the basis that it failed to pay security in time. In considering the Company’s opposition grounds, the Court commented that it retains discretion to wind up a company in cases involving an arbitration clause.
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.
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 High Court has held that certain assets sold by a company around the time of its administration were subject to a fixed charge rather than a floating charge and as such, the sale proceeds were not to be distributed to preferential creditors or unsecured creditors: Avanti Communications Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch).
Answers to these two questions can get tricky:
- When should a previously successful business engage distress-debt counsel?
- 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
Two recent judgments from different Australian courts have considered circumstances in which insolvency disputes can (or cannot) be arbitrated in accordance with pre-existing arbitration agreements. In particular, the decisions address the following two key issues:
- when certain insolvency claims can be arbitrated; and
- when a third party can participate in arbitral proceedings either claiming or defending ‘through or under’ a party to the arbitration agreement.
Key takeaways