“Learn something new every day,” is a well-worn adage.

And it’s mostly true (I only question giving a literal meaning to the “every day” part).

Nevertheless, I’m embarrassed to acknowledge learning only recently of the existence of a noteworthy, bankruptcy-related statute: 28 U.S.C. § 959(a). Such statute reads in part (emphasis added):

Excluded from Subchapter V eligibility is a “single asset real estate” debtor.

We have a recent opinion on a Subchapter V debtor who beats that exclusion: In re Evergreen Site Holdings, Inc., [Fn. 1]

What follows is a summary of that opinion.

Eligibility Issue & Standards

The Evergreen issue is this:

In a mass-tort bankruptcy, when 95% of 120,000 creditors vote to accept a mediated plan paying over $7 billion to creditors, shouldn’t the plan be confirmed?

Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.

Case Law Consensus

Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:

• business assets are fully-liquidated;
• unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
• prospects for resuming such activities are nil.

So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?

I say, “No.”

A Hypothetical

Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 11 is relatively new: it took effect as a new law on February 19, 2020. Accordingly, new questions continue to arise on how its terms and provisions should be applied.

A Trustee Fees Question

One Subchapter V question is this:

• When does a Subchapter V trustee’s administrative claim for fees and costs get paid?

A Regular Chapter 11 Answer

The answer in regular Chapter 11 has always been this:

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

Lots of things are wrong with the student loan program in these United States. For example:

• It’s a corporate-welfare program for high-price colleges; but
• Their students pay the price.

Unfortunately, the safety valve protection for students (i.e., a bankruptcy discharge) has failed them—and made the problem worse!

Here’s how

Here’s a first of its kind: a report about federal judges mediating other judges’ cases.

• It’s a January 22, 2022, report titled, Other Judges’ Cases, authored by Melissa B. Jacoby, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—scheduled to publish in 72 NYU Annual Survey of American Law (2022).

What follows is an attempt to summarize portions of the report, including its description of a can-this-actually-happen case.

The opinion is Wells Fargo Bank, Indenture Trustee v. The Hertz Corp. (In re The Hertz Corp)

The question is whether (and at what rate) post-petition interest can be recovered on pre-petition unsecured claims, when debtor is solvent, under the “solvent debtor exception.” The answers pit equitable arguments against statutory provisions and even looks back to caselaw under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its Fulton v. City of Chicagoopinion, let Chicago off the automatic stay hook for holding onto impounded vehicles owned by Chapter 13 debtors.

But Fulton is not the last word on that subject.

The new opinion is Cordova, et al. v. City of Chicago, Case No. 19-0684 in the Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court (issued December 6, 2021, Doc. 154).

Background