Franchisees Benefit From Subchapter V Bankruptcy Option
When franchisees choose to financially reorganize under the Bankruptcy Code, they may be the right size to choose to reorganize under subchapter V of Chapter 11. Subchapter V proceedings are simpler, more streamlined and less expensive than a traditional Chapter 11 and is ideal to allow the self-employed to revitalize their small business. Where the franchisor and the franchisee cannot reconcile, subchapter V may provide the franchisee with breathing room and leverage to be revitalized.
November 19, 2024 at 12:51 PM
5 minute read
When franchisees choose to financially reorganize under the Bankruptcy Code, they may be the right size to choose to reorganize under subchapter V of Chapter 11. Subchapter V proceedings are simpler, more streamlined and less expensive than a traditional Chapter 11 and is ideal to allow the self-employed to revitalize their small business. Where the franchisor and the franchisee cannot reconcile, subchapter V may provide the franchisee with breathing room and leverage to be revitalized. In an unpublished decision, a court noted that the debtor and the franchisor may at the commencement of the case may be at each other’s throats, but during the case may negotiate a different outcome. See In re Pinnacle Foods of California, Case No. 24-11015 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2024).
In In re Pinnacle (and its companion cases involving its affiliates), the bankruptcy court had the opportunity to decide the franchisor’s motion titled “Motion to Remove the Debtor from Possession and Expand the Powers of the Subchapter V Trustee or, in the Alternative, to Revoke the Debtor’s Subchapter V Designation and Appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee.” The purpose of the motion was to eliminate the debtors’ right to reorganize because of the conduct of the debtor and because reorganization was futile under applicable law. The parties had a litigation history, which poisoned the opportunity for a consensual plan of reorganization without new ownership and management.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition
7 minute readDelaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
7 minute readDebtor-Owner Allowed to Modify Mortgage in Bankruptcy Even if Debtor Is Not Obligor Under the Mortgage Loan
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250