The Bankruptcy Protector

In 2017, Congress enacted an amendment imposing a sharp increase in quarterly fees owed to the United States Trustee program by many chapter 11 debtors. Expectedly, the constitutionality of that decision has been challenged on several grounds, and there is considerable disagreement among the circuits.

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

Welcome to the next edition of the insolvency insight bulletin from the insolvency specialists at Quadrant Chambers. All cases link to the relevant judgments.

Legislation

On July 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that private student loans are not explicitly exempt from the discharge of debt granted to debtors in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. According to the opinion, the plaintiff filed for Chapter 7, which led to an ambiguous discharge order as to how it applied to his roughly $12,000 direct-to-consumer student loans.

Due in large part to the challenges brought on by the pandemic, Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings last year hit the highest level since 2010—a trend expected to continue throughout this year.

Bankruptcy and restructuring is complex, full of twists and turns. Yet for all the expense, blame, negotiation, compromise and introspection involved, the process does provide an opportunity for distressed companies to get their businesses and finances back on track.

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.

Beginning on February 13, 2021, something unprecedented happened in the state of Texas—a winter storm caused temperatures to dip well-below freezing. This event, dubbed the “Black Swan Winter Event,” caused Texas to experience a catastrophic energy crisis. As demand for energy soared, supply plummeted as power plants tripped offline and natural gas supply lines froze. The storm raged on, and on February 16, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT”), which oversees the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.

On June 10, 2021, Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath of the District of Delaware confirmed the chapter 11 plan filed by The Hertz Corporation debtors. In the days just prior to confirmation, the debtors filed a revised plan that proposed to pay unimpaired unsecured creditors postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate. However, the plan reserved to those unsecured creditors the right to later assert entitlement to postpetition interest at higher contractual rates, while also reserving to the debtors the right to argue that no postpetition interest is payable at all.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the buyer at a homeowners association’s non-judicial foreclosure sale that was conducted in violation of the automatic stay in the borrower’s bankruptcy, and against a mortgagee whose interest in the foreclosed property would have been extinguished.

In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that a first deed of trust lienholder may set aside a completed super-priority lien foreclosure sale if the sale violates the bankruptcy automatic stay.

In its recent decision, Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RMCA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd) [2021] SGCA 60, the Singapore Court of Appeal had occasion to clarify the applicable test for determining whether a company is insolvent/ unable to pay its debts under Section 254(2)(c) of the Singapore Companies Act 1967 (“Companies Act”) (which is in pari materia with Section 466(1)(c) of our Companies Act 2016).