This morning, the Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., which clarifies that any party with a "direct financial stake in the outcome" of a reorganization has standing as a "party in interest" to object to a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. 1109(b). Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor held that the debtor's insurer has standing to object even if the plan purports to preserve the insurer's legal rights and thus is said to be "insurance neutral."

The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

Building on emerging trends, 2024 has seen a continued rise in the use of equity-linked debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing in Chapter 11 cases.

Recent examples from WeWork and Enviva illustrate how stakeholders are leveraging this innovative tool to drive broader reorganization strategies and outcomes rather than as a mechanism solely providing interim financing to fund a debtor’s operations during the pendency of its bankruptcy case.

WeWork

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.