On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).” In other words, a pure omission (i.e., where a speaker says nothing) cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b–5, even if such an omission could constitute a violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”).

The opinion is Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 22-1000, decided August 2, 2023, by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The opinion addresses this question:

A disclosure statement and a plan are critical documents in Chapter 11 cases, representing the culmination of a case and a roadmap of the debtor's path forward. A Chapter 11 plan can be either a plan of reorganization, pursuant to which a debtor emerges from bankruptcy as a new, reorganized entity, or a plan of liquidation, pursuant to which a debtor's remaining assets are liquidated and the proceeds are distributed to creditors. Plans of liquidation are common in Chapter 11 cases, where the debtor sells substantially all of its assets.

On April 3, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (comprised of Federal Courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia), affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Al Zawawi v. Diss (In re Al Zawawi). The Court held that eligibility requirements for a “debtor” contained in section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to foreign recognition proceedings under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcies with large tort claims are common:

• some involve a limited number of claimants (e.g., a drunk driver hits a bus or a restaurant serves bad food one evening); and
• others have large numbers of claimants, some of whom won’t even be known for at least another decade (e.g., asbestos cases).

Often in tort bankruptcies, the total amount of claims overwhelms the debtor’s ability to pay: i.e., existing assets, insurance coverages and projected future income streams are, simply, insufficient.

Debtor’s Chapter 11 counsel cannot be compensated for services performed after a trustee is appointed and the debtor removed from possession.

• That’s the rule of law in the Fifth Circuit and in a not-for-publication decision of the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

So . . . the question is, what about Subchapter V? Does that same no-compensation rule apply in Subchapter V when the debtor is removed from possession?

Ninth Circuit BAP Opinion

This isn’t going to end well.

Looks like our bankruptcy system in these United States is about to take a big hit—to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (projected to be around $350 million). And those responsible for creating the debacle are going to skate.

Here’s how.

U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons

In Mann v. LSQ Funding Group, L.C., 71 F.4th 640 (7th Cir. 2023), reh'g denied, 2023 WL 4684702 (7th Cir. July 21, 2023), the U.S.

Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.