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.

Dill Oil Company, LLC v. Stephens, No. 11-6309 (10th Cir., Jan. 15, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in a case of first impression before the court, joined the Fourth Circuit in holding that the absolute priority rule remains applicable in individual chapter 11 cases.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In re Burcam Capital II, LLC, Case No. 12-04729-8-JRL (Bankr. E.D.N.C., Feb. 15, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is the first court of appeals to determine whether the absolute priority rule continues to apply to individual chapter 11 debtors. Taking the "narrow view" adopted by certain courts, the Fourth Circuit held that the rule was not abrogated by the amendments of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, and therefore affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of the proposed plan.

In re Premier Golf Properties, L.P., BAP No. SC- 11-1508-HPaJu (9th Cir. BAP, Aug. 13, 2012)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The Ninth Circuit B.A.P. affirmed the bankruptcy court decision that post-petition income from greens fees and driving range fees were not “rents, proceeds, or profits” of the secured lender’s pre-petition blanket security interest on all real and personal property (and “all proceeds thereof”) within the meaning of section 552(b), and thus were not cash collateral.