On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the second in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether future rents should be included in the debt cap calculation for Subchapter V eligibility.[Fn. 1]
Recommendation
Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.
That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).
Facts
The Supreme Court (SC) in Global Credit Capital Limited & Anr v. Sach Marketing Private Limited & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 649 upheld the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench (NCLAT), dated 07 October 2021 (Impugned Order) by which Sach Marketing Private Limited (Sach) was held to be a ‘financial creditor’ of Mount Shivalik Industries Limited, the corporate debtor, (CD) in corporate insolvency resolution proceedings under the provisions of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the first in a series that summarizes and condenses the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” This article:
- provides background information and data on Subchapter V.[Fn. 1]
Overall
Debtor’s Chapter 11 counsel cannot be compensated for services performed after a trustee is appointed and the debtor removed from possession.
- That’s the rule of law in the Fifth Circuit and in a not-for-publication decision of the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
So . . . the question is, what about Subchapter V? Does that same no-compensation rule apply in Subchapter V when the debtor is removed from possession?
Ninth Circuit BAP Opinion
Bankruptcies with large tort claims are common:
- some involve a limited number of claimants (e.g., a drunk driver hits a bus or a restaurant serves bad food one evening); and
- others have large numbers of claimants, some of whom won’t even be known for at least another decade (e.g., asbestos cases).
Often in tort bankruptcies, the total amount of claims overwhelms the debtor’s ability to pay: i.e., existing assets, insurance coverages and projected future income streams are, simply, insufficient.
The opinion is Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 22-1000, decided August 2, 2023, by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The opinion addresses this question:
You don’t see this very often: a dispute over the confidentiality of mediation communications.
But such a dispute recently happened in In re Barretts Minerals, Inc., Case No. 23-90794, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court. And the result is this: mediation confidentiality remains alive and well.
In re Barretts Minerals is a mass-tort asbestos case. And Debtor is pursuing confirmation of a bankruptcy plan under § 524(6). Mediation efforts are in progress.
The existence of a bankruptcy option is a good thing for any debtor-creditor situation that is highly stressed—whether the bankruptcy option is used or not.
This is especially true in mass-tort cases where a potential exists for (i) hugely-disparate results for similarly situated plaintiffs, and (ii) debilitating delays in the progress of litigation.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.