Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.

Following the High Court’s landmark case in 2023 where cryptocurrency was recognised by the Court as property and could form a subject matter of a trust, the High Court recently further clarified the trust relationship between exchanges and their customers. Non-Consenting Customers (NCCs) who did not accept the 2018 Terms and Conditions (T&C) were found to have a proprietary interest in their assets, giving them priority in the liquidation process. Conversely, customers who had agreed to the T&Cs were treated as unsecured creditors.

In this first of a series of articles looking at current issues and recent case law in the world of distressed PFI/PPP projects, we consider the recent outcome of the Tameside Hospital dispute, and what pointers can be taken from it which may help avoid or resolve disputes in future so that distressed projects can get back on track. This is a tale of disagreement, adjudication, threats of insolvency, Court proceedings and – ultimately – a settlement which may offer a useful benchmark to which other troubled projects can have regard.

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)

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]