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."

Law360, New York (July 17, 2015, 11:24 AM ET) -- On June 26, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an opinion on consolidated appeals arising from the Bayou Shores SNF LLC bankruptcy case with potentially broad implications for health care bankruptcy cases. At the heart of the dispute before the district court was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enjoin the termination of, and subsequently authorize the assumption of, certain Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements.

On June 26, 2015, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an opinion on consolidated appeals arising from the Bayou Shores SNF, LLC bankruptcy case with potentially broad implications for healthcare bankruptcy cases.  At the heart of the dispute before the District Court was whether the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction to enjoin the termination of, and subsequently authorize the assumption of, certain Medicare and Medicaid provider agreements in the bankruptcy case.  As discussed below, the District Court held the Medicare jurisdictional bar set fort

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.

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently issued an opinion in Quadrant Structured Products Company¹that addresses creditors’ rights to bring derivative lawsuits against directors and officers of a corporation.  The Court held that Delaware law does not impose a continuous insolvency requirement and that the “traditional balance sheet test” is the appropriate test for determining solvency.  The opinion also provides a roadmap on the current landscape under Delaware law for analyzing breach of fiduciary duty claims. 

The House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014 (H.R. 5421) on December 1, 2014.  The bill, if enacted, would add provisions to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, including a new "subchapter V" of chapter 11, under which "covered financial institutions" would be eligible to be debtors in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.   

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.