On April 5 and June 8, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed bills (the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2017 ("FIBA") and the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017) that would allow financial institutions to seek protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In bankruptcy cases under chapter 11, debtors sometimes opt for a "structured dismissal" when a consensual plan of reorganization or liquidation cannot be reached or conversion to chapter 7 would be too costly. In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions in structured dismissals which violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split as to whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code can shield from fraudulent conveyance attack transfers made through financial institutions where such financial institutions are merely "conduits" in the relevant transaction.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

On 29 March 2016, Abdul Aziz Al Ghurair, Chairman of the UAE Banks Federation (UBF), announced a new “rescue initiative” in relation to SME debt in the United Arab Emirates, under which UBF member banks might impose a 90-day “standstill” on use of judicial means to enforce the payment of SME debts.

The duties and obligations of directors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are drawn from various legislative sources; there is no consolidated legislative framework dealing with the duties and obligations of directors under UAE Law. Squire Patton Boggs’ Dubai office have published a summary of the principal duties and liabilities of a director in the  UAE, both generally and in the event of insolvency.

The duties and obligations of directors in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are drawn from various legislative sources, there is no consolidated legislative framework dealing with the duties and obligations of directors under UAE Law. Note that under UAE law the terms “manager” and “director” are used interchangeably. As such, any reference in this memorandum to the foregoing terms should be construed as one and the same, where possible we have used the generic term “director” to avoid potential confusion.

Applicable Law 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to be finally in the process of issuing a long-awaited new federal insolvency law. Described by some as a game-changer, the government announced in July that its Cabinet has approved a draft of the new law replacing the old (and largely unused) insolvency regime. The highly anticipated law is now pending the approval and ratification of the Federal National Council and Supreme Council before it receives final approval by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the UAE President.

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.