On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

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.

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.

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:

Illinois Governor Rauner presented his turnaround agenda in his “State of the State” address last week and called for, among other things, the state “to extend to municipalities bankruptcy protections.”  Mirroring the proposed legislation introduced by Representative Ron Sandack in January, and reported on in an earlier post, Illinois seems positioned to provide municipalities with clear and direct access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy and

On February 6th, Federal District Judge Francisco Besosa ruled that Puerto Rico’s municipal debt-restructuring law, the “Recovery Act”, was unconstitutional stating that:  “The Recovery Act is pre-empted by the federal Bankruptcy Code and is therefore void.”  The Court also permanently enjoined current and future government officials from enforcing the Act.  Puerto Rico has announced that it will be appealing the ruling.

Illinois’ municipal distress is severe and we have witnessed the political maneuvers  to address Chicago’s ongoing fiscal dilemma.  In 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel stoked bankruptcy fears citing the city’s ballooning pension obligations that he estimated could exceed $1.6 billion in 2016.  Pew Charitable Trusts has reported that among the nation’s five largest cities, Chicago has put aside the smallest portion of its looming pensions obligations.  While certain changes have been made to counter the pension funding deficit, including Governor Quinn’s hotly contested

Introduction

Say what you will about Detroit’s bankruptcy case, but when it is all said and done, the value for each of its participants most likely lies in the learning experience.   And, experience is sometimes a painful teacher.   One of the many take-aways is a framework for what constitutes a workable or“feasible” plan of adjustment (“Plan” or “Plan of Adjustment”) while recognizing the significant risk of implementation and post bankruptcy performance.

Detroit Highlights

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.