Chart Comparing Exemptions
The specific bankruptcy and nonbankruptcy (Minnesota law and nonbankruptcy federal law) exemptions vary in scope and dollar amount. The following table summarizes and compares the two sets of exemptions. The statutory language of the exemption has been paraphrased in this chart. The actual statutory language as well as case law must be reviewed when analyzing a debtor’s claim for a particular exemption.
Revised August 2024
On September 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a highly anticipated decision in the In re: Yellow Corporation, et al. bankruptcy that addressed objections to 11 multiemployer pension funds’ withdrawal liability claims totaling $6.5 billion, where those plans received billions in taxpayer-funded Special Financial Assistance (SFA) provided under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that was not included in plan assets for purposes of the withdrawal liability assessments based upon PBGC regulations.
Question: Can a retirement fund organized under Canadian law qualify for a state law exemption requiring that it “qualify as a retirement plan” under the Internal Revenue Code?
This question gets all the way to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, which issues a “No” answer, in Green v. Leibowitz, Case No. 23-2841 (decided 7/16/2024).
Changes are afoot to the statutory regime governing special administrations for regulated water companies (the SAR) following the publication of a suite of new legislation.
Impact of the changes on pension trustees
On 13 October 2023, the Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, discontinued the disqualification proceedings which it had initiated against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc, the construction and outsourcing giant that collapsed into liquidation in 2018.
In Svenhard’s Swedish Bakery v. United States Bakery, Bk. No. 19-15277, 2023 WL 5541420 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a settlement agreement that resolved an employer’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension fund was not an executory contract that could be assumed and assigned to a third-party when that employer subsequently filed for bankruptcy. The decision is instructive for multiemployer funds and employers that negotiate settlement agreements to resolve these types of liabilities.
Background
This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
Summary
The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
The Facts
The market is experiencing almost unprecedented levels of liquidity, across public and private debt and equity capital markets. This is staunching restructuring activity, which might otherwise be expected to rise (not least as pandemic-related government support starts to withdraw). There are also many companies still sponsoring defined benefit pension schemes. The statutory and regulatory landscape in this area has evolved significantly in recent months – with new powers for regulators, and new restructuring tools for debtors.
In BRASS Trustees Ltd v Goldstone the High Court has approved a decision by a scheme trustee to issue winding up petitions against the pension scheme's sponsoring employers. The trustee sought the court's approval under rules which allow a trustee to seek the court's approval where the decision a trustee is about to make is "particularly momentous".