Welcome to Distressed Debt Legal Insights, Ropes & Gray’s source of timely insights for professionals navigating the complex world of liability management and special situations finance. In this issue we discuss the first major decision of 2026: STG Logistics. The January 3 opinion primarily denies the motions to dismiss brought by defendants seeking to validate their October 2024 drop down plus double dip transaction.

Transaction Details and Procedural History

Welcome back to Distressed Debt Legal Insights, Ropes & Gray’s source of timely insights for professionals navigating the complex world of liability management and special situations finance. In this issue we will provide a summary of certain aspects of the noteholder litigation in Wesco that culminated in the recent district court decision approving the 2022 uptier transaction and reversing the bankruptcy court’s decision.

The Original Transaction

In this issue, we spotlight the unfolding litigation between the UCC and Oaktree in TPI Composites’ ongoing bankruptcy, which appears to be headed for a settlement. This case is unusual in that the uptier transformed former equity holders into senior creditors rather than elevating existing lenders.

The Unsecured Creditors Committee Challenge

Welcome back to Distressed Debt Legal Insights, Ropes & Gray’s new source of timely insights for professionals navigating the complex world of liability management. In this edition, we’re looking at how Anthology resolved an objection to its proposed non-pro rata DIP rollup.

Background

Anthology filed for Chapter 11 on Sept. 29 in the Southern District of Texas with a restructuring support agreement signed by 87% of first out lenders and 68% of second out lenders.

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.

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?