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."

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.

• On January 22, 2013, following a 10-day bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with Verizon that its former subsidiary, Idearc, Inc., was not insolvent on November 17, 2006, the day Verizon spun it off to become a separate entity. The plaintiff – the litigation trustee of the Idearc bankruptcy estate – brought this case claiming that Verizon spun Idearc off to bury its unprofitable Yellow Pages business unit and thereby take the losses of that unit off Verizon’s books.

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.

On May 24, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) dismissed with prejudice a complaint brought by AT&T California, Inc. against Fones4All Corp. in 2006. AT&T sought to recover alleged overcharges paid to Fones4All for termination of intraLATA toll traffic. Following an evidentiary hearing, the CPUC issued D.07-07-013, granting the relief AT&T requested in its complaint, or approximately $2.6 million, plus interest.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

• On December 20, 2011, the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) issued a scheduling order for AT&T South Carolina’s complaint against Halo Wireless. AT&T alleges that Halo, which filed for bankruptcy protection after AT&T initiated this action and similar complaints in several other states, was sending AT&T landline-originated traffic but refused to pay terminating access charges. AT&T also alleges that Halo has been manipulating call signaling information to hide the traffic’s true origin and to make it appear as wireless-originated traffic.