By an Amended Special Case, Derrington J reserved for consideration by the Full Court of the Federal Court the following question: “Is statutory set-off, under s 553C(1) of the Act, available to the [appellant] in this proceeding against the [first respondent’s] claim as liquidator for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act?” By majority, the Court of Appeal (Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman and Stewart JJ) held that s 553C(1) of the Act does not entitle the creditor to such a set-off.
Background
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:
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:
- 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
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).
In Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd, [1] the Court offered a timely warning to liquidators of the dangers of adopting and acting on an incorrect understanding of the ownership of contested property. The Court ordered damages against the liquidator personally, despite his position as agent for the company in liquidation.
Background
In a recent case involving Savannah AG Research Pty Ltd (Savannah), the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for relief by Savannah’s majority shareholder under section 447A(1) or section 447C(2) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) which alleged that the directors did not hold a genuine opinion Savannah was insolvent or likely to become insolvent and were motivated by an improper purpose.
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: