The Bankruptcy Protector

In the aftermath of 2017’s Hurricane Irma, wide swaths of Florida lost power. At The Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, 12 elderly patients succumbed to the heat when the skilled nursing facility’s air conditioning system failed following the electrical outage. In response, Florida’s legislature passed a law requiring all nursing homes and assisted living facilities to have backup generators capable of maintaining cool temperatures.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued an opinion that calls into question the long-held Barton doctrine following the dismissal of a bankruptcy case and thus the jurisdiction of that court. In Tufts v. Hay, No. 19-11496 --- F.3d ----, 2020 WL 6144563 (11th Cir. Oct. 20, 2020), the court considered where a litigant may bring suit against counsel appointed by a bankruptcy court after the bankruptcy case was dismissed.

In In re Woodbridge Grp. of Companies, LLC, No. BR 17-12560-BLS, 2019 WL 4305444 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed an opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey, and held that a proof of claim will be expunged if the note and loan agreement underlying the claim prohibit assignment and provide that assignment without consent will be “null and void.”

Facts

Bankruptcy Judges cannot impose additional local chapter 13 confirmation requirements beyond those created by Congress, according to the Southern District of Illinois (the “District Court”).

When a dealership files for bankruptcy, a manufacturer will be faced with critical decisions regarding the proposed restructuring and the treatment of its dealer agreement. The bankruptcy code provides debtors with certain rights in order to maximize the recovery for creditors. Manufacturers must be cognizant of these rights in any dealer bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2010, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a highly anticipated decision in the matter of In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC, 2010 WL 1006647, (3rd Cir. Case No.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act. This legislation created a new type of Chapter 11 reorganization under which certain businesses with total debts less than a certain threshold (currently $7.5 million) could reorganize. These provisions, known as Subchapter V eliminated certain requirements for confirmation of a reorganization plan and include other changes to make small business reorganization quicker and less expensive.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In recent years it seems that a common misconception among lenders and their counsel has been taking shape. Namely, that lender liability is no longer a viable cause of action in today’s financial services and judicial landscapes. Those who subscribe to this view, however, should pay careful attention to a recent decision demonstrating that lenders still can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a borrower’s business affairs.

An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.

For years, small business debtors have struggled with the intricacies of Chapter 11, the debt limitations of Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations. Stringent requirements and procedural hurdles often made restructuring a prohibitively expensive option for many small business debtors. Congress attempted to address these issues with H.R. 3311, the Small Business Reorganization Act (the “SBRA”). The SBRA, which was signed into law on August 23, 2019, creates a new subchapter, Subchapter V, of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.