Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

Say what?!.

“Hypothetical jurisdiction” for a bankruptcy appeal?!

Who knew? I sure didn’t.

But it is, apparently, a thing . . . and it may even be real.

At U.S. Supreme Court

A newly filed Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court is Waleski v. Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No. 22-914 (Petition filed 3/16/2023).

–The Question

The Question Presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Waleski v Montgomery is this:

What happens when a creditor class fails or refuses to vote on confirmation of a Subchapter V plan? Does that prevent a consensual confirmation?

We have a recent answer from In re Creason, Case No. 22-00988, Western Michigan Bankruptcy Court (opinion issued 2/23/2023).

Facts

The Subchapter V Debtor is a sole-proprietor dentist.

“Creative destruction” occurs when something new kills off whatever existed before it.

IPhone Example

Just think, for example, of all the creative destruction that the iPhone has wrought! It has destroyed businesses that provided telephones and phone books, cameras and film, audio recordings and players, newspapers and newsstands, and related services.

City of Chester is the oldest city in Pennsylvania, incorporated as a borough in 1701 and as a city in 1866, and is located on the Delaware River between Philadelphia and Wilmington.

Unfortunately, the City is also in Chapter 9—having filed bankruptcy on November 10, 2022.

The City’s bankruptcy filing causes a ruckus because:

The U.S. Supreme Court does not like bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors. It really doesn’t.

An example from a couple years ago is Fulton v. City of Chicago, where the U.S. Supreme Court finds a way to declare:

Can a corporate debtor be denied a Subchapter V discharge under § 523(a), despite this § 523(a) language (emphasis added):

• “A discharge under section . . . 1192 [Subchapter V] . . . does not discharge an individual debtor from . . . ”?

A recent Bankruptcy Court opinion (in Avion Funding) says, essentially, this: “No! You can’t paint over explicit statutory language.”[Fn. 1]

Such recent opinion:

In the much-anticipated decision of Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch (HCA)), the High Court of Australia (the HCA) has now confirmed that the peak indebtedness rule may not be used when assessing the quantum of an unfair preference claim arising from a continuing business relationship.

The Federal Court of Australia (Court) has handed down the first reported decision on the ipso facto stay provisions contained in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Although not directly concerned with directors' liabilities, the recent Supreme Court judgment in Stanford International Bank Ltd v HSBC Bank PLC provides further clarity on the circumstances in which a distressed or insolvent company may seek to make claims against its directors.

INTRODUCTION

The key aspects affecting directors' liabilities presented in the Supreme Court ruling are that: