The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Situations Partner Kai Zeng in London Kai Zeng, who advises on cross-border restructurings and special situations matters, has joined the firm in London as a partner in the Restructuring Department and Finance and Hybrid Capital & Special Situations groups.

Kai advises sponsors, debtors, creditors and strategic investors on restructurings of stressed and distressed businesses, as well as hedge and credit funds, investments banks and private equity firms on their review and diligence of European investment opportunities in par, stressed and distressed transactions.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its 5-4 opinion in connection with the bankruptcy case of Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”). Over a vigorous dissent authored by Justice Kavanaugh, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit chapter 11 plans of reorganization to provide for non-consensual releases of non-debtors outside of the asbestos context.

Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.

On September 13, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a highly anticipated decision in the In re: Yellow Corporation, et al. bankruptcy that addressed objections to 11 multiemployer pension funds’ withdrawal liability claims totaling $6.5 billion, where those plans received billions in taxpayer-funded Special Financial Assistance (SFA) provided under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) that was not included in plan assets for purposes of the withdrawal liability assessments based upon PBGC regulations.

The Bankruptcy Code invalidates "ipso facto" clauses in executory contracts or unexpired leases that purport to modify or terminate the contract or lease (or the debtor's rights or obligations under the contract or lease) based solely on the debtor's financial condition or the commencement of a bankruptcy case for the debtor. It also invalidates state law, rather than a contract, that purports to alter the property interests of the debtor. A more difficult situation arises when those interests are on the outer bounds of "property of the estate."

In 2019, Congress enacted the Small Business Reorganization Act, which created subchapter V within chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Congress’ intent was to create a more cost-efficient and streamlined restructuring process for small businesses by modifying certain provisions of chapter 11 for debtors with claims below a specific debt cap. In particular, because creditors typically have smaller claims against these small businesses, the new subchapter takes into account the likelihood that there will be no or minimal meaningful creditor participation.

The American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force has issued its “Preliminary Report” on “Maintaining the $7,500,000 Debt Cap for Subchapter V Eligibility.” This article quotes from and summarizes the Report.

Recommendation

The Task Force recommends making permanent the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility, which is set to expire and revert to $3,024,725 on June 21, 2024.

Supporting Factors

Because bankruptcy courts were created by Congress rather than under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is a disagreement over whether bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, have "inherent authority" to impose sanctions for civil contempt on parties that refuse to comply with their orders. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revisited this debate in In re Markus, 78 F.4th 554 (2nd Cir. 2023).

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.