In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
Background – As Things Currently Stand
The aim of EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross-border implications. It provides, within the EU, rules for determining:
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
Background
As things currently stand
The aim of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (1346/2000) (Regulation) is to improve the efficiency of insolvency proceedings with cross border aspects. It provides, within the European Union (EU), rules for determining:
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:
In the latest decision on COMI (Northsea Base Investment Limited & ors [2015] EWHC 121 (Ch)), the English Court had to determine the centre of main interest for a group of companies registered in Cyprus, but where the operations of the companies were managed by a shipping agent in London.
The UK court recently considered the extent of s236 Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) in the case of Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation); Khan and others v Whirlpool (UK) Ltd and another [2014] EWHC 3477 (Ch).
Key Points
- Phones 4U went into administration in September 2014.
- Technology companies in the US have also faced a difficult market.
- Phones 4U’s complicated financing structure contributed to its downfall, as did its reliance on one or two key suppliers.
- The Protection of Essential Supplies Order will have considerable ramifications for tech suppliers when it comes into force.
PHONES 4U COLLAPSE: PART 1
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
In Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and others [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch), the High Court ruled on issues regarding the order of distributions and payments in the administration and potential liquidation of various Lehman entities. This wide-ranging judgment gives clarity on a number of previously uncertain issues.