In UK venture deals, investors often negotiate the right to appoint a director to the company’s board (as a rule of thumb, an investor with 5% to 10% or more of the company might ask for board rights). On paper, it makes sense, giving a seat at the table, direct access to management, and visibility on key decisions. But before taking that seat, we often advise investors to ask themselves: is it worth the hassle?

The retail and hospitality sector in Australia remains relatively steady in terms of financial performance. However, retailers, including those in hospitality, continue to be faced with some persistent headwinds and difficult trading conditions. In our three (3) part series, we cover some of the challenges facing Australian businesses in the sector, including those exposed to external administrations, the strategies that are working via administration, and how early intervention and turnaround strategies can help preserve long term enterprise value for stakeholders.

Section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”) renders the disposition of a company’s property after the presentation of a winding-up petition against it void, subject to any validation order granted by the court. This provision serves to preserve the company’s assets at the date of the winding-up petition for the general benefit of creditors, and to ensure that the statutory scheme of pari passu distribution can be implemented.

Introduction

Before the landmark decision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9 (“ReGuy Lam”), there had been a long-standing debate over the impact, if any, of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court (“EJC”) on the presentation of bankruptcy / winding-up petitions.

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.

The continuing effort in Congress to extend Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit recently hit a snag. The result: the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility expired on June 21, 2024, and the Subchapter V debt limit is now reduced to an inflation-adjusted $3,024,725.[i]