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:

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:

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the Court of Appeal’s decision in Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes [2023] NSWCA 88 and the challenges faced by lenders in accepting representations as to solvency and the financial position of borrowers.

Key takeaways

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

Is a debtor “engaged in commercial or business activities” for Subchapter V eligibility?

Such question has been addressed on many occasions and by many courts.

The trend seems to be toward a conclusion that the nature and quantity of “commercial or business activities” required for Subchapter V eligibility is this:

• Nature = “easily met”; and
• Quantity = “not much.”

The latest opinion to confirm the trend is In re Robinson, Case No. 22-2414, Southern Mississippi Bankruptcy Court (issued April 17, 2023; Doc. 90).

Oral arguments occur on April 24, 2023, before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Case No 22-227. Here is a link to the oral arguments transcript.

What follows is an attempt to, (i) summarize the facts and issue in the case, and (ii) provide a sampling of questions and comments from the justices during oral arguments.

Facts

Here’s what happened:

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of BCA National Training Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2023] NSWSC 366, in which the priority between a liquidator’s remuneration and expenses claims and the claims of preferred creditors was clarified.

Key takeaways

“within three (3) business days of termination of the mediation, the Debtors shall publicly disclose the terms of the last offers extended by each of the Mediation Parties, respectively.”[Fn. 1]

Say what!?

Whoever heard of such a thing—a requirement that the “last offers” of the mediating parties be publicly disclosed?

And this requirement is in a “consensual” mediation order entered in the Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, bankruptcy.[Fn. 2]

Context

Here’s the context.[Fn. 3]

Dismissal of a bankruptcy—for bad faith filing—is a rarity.

So, how a bankruptcy court grapples with the bad faith issue . . . and ends up dismissing the bankruptcy . . . can provide a lesson for us all.

What follows is a summary of how a Chapter 11 bankruptcy is dismissed when the Court is convinced that the bankruptcy is intended for the benefit of a non-debtor . . . and not for the benefit of the debtor or its creditors.