We have a direct statutory conflict:

• one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
• a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.

Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.

• That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]

Statutory Conflict

The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):

The opinion is In re Packet Construction, LLC, Case No. 23-10860 in the Western Texas Bankruptcy Court (issued April 30, 2024, Doc. 103).

Subchapter V Issue & Ruling

Here’s the issue raised by the Subchapter V Trustee’s plan objection and the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling thereon.

–Issue

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code offers powerful protection for good-faith purchasers in bankruptcy sales because it limits appellate review of an approved sale, irrespective of the legal merits of the appeal. Specifically, it provides that the reversal or modification of an order approving the sale of assets in bankruptcy does not affect the validity of the sale to a good-faith purchaser unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending its appeal of the order. That is, section 363(m) renders an appeal "statutorily moot" absent a stay of the sale order.

A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 11, 12, or 13 plan.

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