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."

Key point

An assignee of future debts was bound by discounting and rebate arrangements concluded between the assignor and its customers despite having given notice of the assignment.

The facts

M supplied goods to customers. It factored its debts to Bibby in 2000. The Factoring Agreement provided that all future debts due to M by customers were to vest upon their creation in Bibby.

Bibby did the following to try and protect its position – ultimately the steps proved unsuccessful:

There have been a couple of cases in the last few months where the impact of changes to the details of the various registers at Companies House has been considered by a Court. This article considers the points of interest for lenders that arise out of those decisions

What use is an LP registration certificate?

Not much in the case of a certificate that relates to a limited partnership (one to which the Limited Partnership Act 1907 applies not the limited liability partnership variety).

Key Point

The High Court has given some guidance on the effect of an order to restore a dissolved company to the register where a secured creditor has rights against that company and there has been a disclaimer by the Crown.

Facts

Key point

The Joint special administrators of an investment banking entity succeed in obtaining a direction to allow them to distribute client assets quickly.

Facts

Key point

The Court of Appeal has recently given detailed guidance on what happens to the surpluses available in the insolvency of companies after dealing with an appeal in relation to the so-called Lehman Waterfall Application dealt with in an earlier Update.

Facts

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.