On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated decision in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser GypsumCo., Inc., et al. No. 22-1079. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor,1 the Court vacated a Fourth Circuit decision and ruled in favor of Truck Insurance Exchange, confirming that an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a "party in interest" and therefore has standing to object to a Chapter 11 plan.
On April 23, 2024, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force issued its Final Report.
This article is the seventh in a series summarizing and condensing the Task Force’s Final Report into “a nutshell.” The subject of this article is:
- whether the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility should remain or revert to an interest-adjusted $3,024,725.
Recommendation
In Chapter 11 cases, one of a vendor’s best shots at getting paid its pre-petition debt is being designated as a “critical vendor”.
In connection with the Zachry Holdings Chapter 11 case filed in the Southern District of Texas on May 21, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court made disturbing comments regarding treatment of critical vendors.
In a bankruptcy case, a preference action1 is often asserted pursuant to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to claw back funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense2, the new value defense3, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense4, there are other defenses that a savvy creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.
Key Issues
This author—whose practice is heavily weighted toward representation of official committees in large chapter 11 cases—has previously penned articles relating to questions surrounding the permanency of an official committee.
On June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., No. 22-1079, conferring broad standing to debtors’ pre-bankruptcy liability insurers to appear and be heard in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The ruling eliminates the “insurance neutrality” doctrine that previously constrained the participation of insurers in Chapter 11, greatly expanding insurers’ capacity to influence the reorganization process.
Background: Insurer Standing in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Today, in Office of the United States Trustee v. John Q Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, the Supreme Court held that debtors who paid fees in bankruptcy cases administered by the U.S. Trustee Program are not entitled to any relief, even though the Court previously ruled that those debtors had been unconstitutionally overcharged. This decision is the culmination of several years of litigation concerning differential fee structures across judicial districts.
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):
It is impossible to reflect on the current state of the U.S. economy without recognizing how off the mark recession calls have been since 2022. It was only a year ago that two-thirds of economists regularly polled by Bloomberg expected a U.S. recession within a year. Even today that percentage is still a lofty 30%, though scant evidence of an impending downturn is found in macroeconomic data or in plain sight, notwithstanding the weaker-than-expected advance GDP report for 1Q24. It’s not just economists who have been errant in this call.
Delaware’s Court of Chancery has no subject matter jurisdiction over an assignment for benefit of creditors proceeding when the debtor/assignor is an Illinois corporation with no assets or operations in Delaware, even when its ABC assignee/trustee is from Delaware.
That’s the decision of Delaware’s Court of Chancery in In re Vernon Hills Serv. Co., 2024 Del. Ch., C.A. No. 2021-0783 (issued March 28, 2024).
Facts